Author Archives: admin

“Much Ado About Nothing” Bargain Matinee on Saturday

X*ACT’s production of William Shakespeare’s very funny comedy, “Much Ado About Nothing,” is finishing up a two week run this weekend with evening shows on Friday and Saturday and matinees on Saturday and Sunday.

X-ACT’s talented and innovative Director, Lisa Howard-Welch, has set this production in the early 1920s with period costumes and music, so this will be different than any other “Much Ado” that you may have seen before. The Much Ado About Nothing Video is very modern…. Rumor Has It.

A Synopsis: Benedick and Beatrice are engaged in a very “merry war”; they are both very glib and proclaim their scorn for love, marriage, and each other. In contrast, Claudio and Hero are sweet young people who are rendered practically speechless by their love for one another. By means of “noting” (which sounds the same as “nothing,” and which is gossip, rumour, and overhearing), Benedick and Beatrice are tricked into confessing their love for each other, and Claudio is tricked into rejecting Hero at the altar. However, Dogberry, a Constable who is a master of malapropisms, discovers the evil trickery of the villain, Don John. In the end, Don John runs away and everyone else joins in a dance celebrating the marriages of the two couples.

General Admission for the rest of the weekend is $15; $12 for Students and Seniors. Shows are at 7:30 PM on Friday and Saturday evenings June 22, & 23. Matinee is Sunday, June 24 and Saturday, June 23 at 3 PM. The show runs about 2+ hours with an intermission. Get tickets on-line at X-ACT.

Egyptian Election: Islamist Victory or Deceptive Strategy?

By Raymond Ibrahim

Has anyone stopped to ask where the headlines “Muslim Brotherhood Wins Egypt’s Presidential Election!” originate? They come, of course, straight from the Muslim Brotherhood and its allies—particularly the Qatar-based Islamist propaganda machine, Al Jazeera—and were then unquestioningly picked up and spread like wildfire by the Western mainstream media and talking-heads.

Left unquoted by the Western media are the many Egyptian analysts that have a different tale to tell—that the secular candidate, Ahmed Shafiq, has won.

But what does the Muslim Brotherhood have to benefit by claiming victory now, if official results might prove otherwise on June 21, a mere three days from now? Simple: they will be able to scream foul play—and gain the world’s sympathy. For days the world will have been inundated with news that the Brotherhood won, so that, when and if it hears that Shafiq won, it will naturally conclude electoral fraud—which best serves the Islamists’ interests.

Mahmoud Baraka, a Shafiq campaign spokesman, maintains that “their candidate [Shafiq] won the presidency, with 52% of the votes”—precisely the same number the Brotherhood is claiming—adding that the Brotherhood’s claims to victory “are bizarre and unacceptable,” a “big act.”

Likewise, talk show host Tawfik Okasha appeared emphatically saying that the Brotherhood’s claims are “all lies,” that most polls indicate that Brotherhood candidate Muhammad Morsi “failed,” and that the Islamist group’s motive is simply to sow “discord and dissension.” He proceeded to give several examples of how the Brotherhood’s claims are incongruous with reality.

But why believe Shafiq’s spokesman and staunch secularist Okasha? Good question. Here’s a better one: Why believe the Muslim Brotherhood? Why follow the lead of an organization that has mastered dissimulation, an organization that promised Egypt it would not run a presidential candidate, only to renege once opportune?

Knowing the Brotherhood’s deceptive tactics—”War is deceit” declared their prophet—there is good reason to think that they may have planned a propaganda victory well before the elections. They could claim victory, won fair and square; they could have their Islamist and Western media supporters trumpet it; they could embed it in everyone’s mind over the course of three days before the results are formally announced—all to set the playing field to their advantage.

Then, if Shafiq wins, everyone—from militant Islamists in Egypt to a grandstanding U.S. Secretary of State—will shout, “foul play!” thereby exonerating the long promised civil war Egypt’s Islamists vowed to wage if the election did not go their way—a rebellion that would then be portrayed in the West as a result of “grievance.”

The truth is, as of this moment, no one knows which candidate won. What is known is that it’s a close race. Perhaps Morsi will win; perhaps Shafiq. Short time will tell.

In the meantime, although the media need to “break the news” and not be left behind, prudence is in order. It is counterproductive for the West to eat straight out of the Brotherhood’s hands—to unreservedly follow their tune and propagate their unsubstantiated information—which is precisely what the Islamists want: it works only to their advantage.

Raymond Ibrahim is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center and an Associate Fellow at the Middle East Forum. The above article was originally published by the Gatestone Institute on June 19, 2012.

Terror Tuesdays, Kill Lists and Drones: Has the President Become a Law Unto Himself?

By John W. Whitehead
June 18, 2012

“What lies at the nexus of Obama’s targeted drone killings, his self-serving leaks, and his aggressive prosecution of whistleblowers is a president who believes himself above the law, and seems convinced that he alone has a preternatural ability to determine right from wrong.”—Peter Van Buren, a 24-year veteran Foreign Service Officer at the State Department.

Since the early days of our republic, we have operated under the principle that no one is above the law. As Thomas Paine observed in Common Sense, “in America, the law is king. For as in absolute governments the King is law, so in free countries the law ought to be king; and there ought to be no other.” Several years later, John Adams, seeking to reinforce this important principle, declared in the Massachusetts Constitution that they were seeking to establish “a government of laws and not of men.”

The history of our nation over the past 200 years has been the history of a people engaged in a constant struggle to maintain that tenuous balance between the rule of law—in our case, the United States Constitution—and the government leaders entrusted with protecting it, upholding it and abiding by it. At various junctures, when that necessary balance has been thrown off by overreaching government bodies or overly ambitious individuals, we have found ourselves faced with a crisis of constitutional proportions. Each time, we have taken the painful steps needed to restore our constitutional equilibrium.

Now, once again, we find ourselves skating dangerously close to becoming a nation ruled not by laws but by men—and fallible, imperfect men, at that. Yet this latest crisis did not happen overnight. Its seeds were sown in the wake of the 9/11 terror attacks, when fear-addled Americans started selling their freedoms cheaply, bit by bit, for phantom promises of security. From torture at CIA black site prisons and Abu Ghraib abuses to extraordinary renditions, from TSA body scanners and warrantless wiretaps to the PATRIOT Act, Americans have failed to be outraged by the government’s repeated violations of the rule of law. In this way, as the “war on terror” has unfolded beyond our wildest imaginings—from the barbaric treatment of foreign detainees at American-run prisons to the technological arsenal being used by the U.S. government to monitor and control its citizens—our rights have taken a meteoric nosedive in inverse proportion to the government’s rapidly expanding powers.

The New York Times’ recent revelation that President Obama, operating off a government “kill list,” has been personally directing who should be targeted for death by military drones (unmanned aerial assault vehicles) merely pushes us that much closer to that precipitous drop-off to authoritarianism. Should we fail to recognize and rectify the danger in allowing a single individual to declare himself the exception to the rule of law and assume the role of judge, jury, and executioner, we will have no one else to blame when we plunge once and for all into the abyss that is tyranny.

Declaring Obama’s actions “without precedent in presidential history,” the New York Times describes a process whereby every few weeks, Obama and approximately a hundred members of his national security team gather for their “Terror Tuesday” meetings in which they hand pick the next so-called national security “threat” to die by way of the American military/CIA drone program. Obama signs off personally on about a third of the drone strikes: all of the ones in Yemen and Somalia, and the risky ones in Pakistan.

These “Terror Tuesday” sessions run counter to every constitutional and moral principle that has guided America since its inception. It’s not only suspected terrorists whose death warrants are being personally signed by the president but innocent civilians geographically situated near a strike zone, as well, whether or not they have any ties to a suspected terrorist. As an anonymous government official on Obama’s drone campaign observed, “They count the corpses and they’re not really sure who they are.” Indeed, Obama’s first authorized drone attack in Yemen led to the deaths of 14 women and 21 children, and only one al-Qaeda affiliate. Incredibly, the government actually justifies these civilian deaths by suggesting that the individuals must be “militants” or “combatants” simply because of their proximity to the target.

No matter what is said to the contrary, the Constitution does not in any way provide for the president to engage in such acts, even under the auspices of his role as Commander in Chief. In fact, the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantees of due process, intended to protect citizens in the event that the government attempts to overreach its authority, assure every American citizen that before the government can imprison them or put them to death, they have a right to hear the charges being levied against them, review the evidence, and be treated to a fair and impartial trial by a judge or jury.

Thus, perhaps hoping to distract and divert the public’s attention from the core issue at hand—namely, the fact that the president has become a law unto himself—the Obama administration has launched an investigation to discover who leaked the information about the kill list. The media, in typical fashion, have taken the bait. However, no amount of obfuscation can alter the fact that Obama, by his actions, is circumventing the Constitution, especially as it pertains to the rights of American citizens. Indeed, in a decision he claims was “an easy one,” Obama has already killed two American citizens in this fashion: Anwar al-Awlaki, an American cleric living in Yemen who served as a propagandist for Al-Qaeda, and his 16-year-old son.

Yet with every passing day, the casualties are mounting—not just the innocent women and children abroad blown to smithereens by American missiles, but our Constitution, our increasingly fragile republic and our ability to trust that our government leaders will be accountable to abiding by the rule of law.

Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. He can be contacted at johnw@rutherford.org. Information about the Institute is available at www.rutherford.org.

Big Lies, Big Economic Problems and Polticians

The big title reflects a recent artcile by one of America’s the big economists, Thomas Sowell. In his commentary, Sowell delinates the problems engendered by the continual lies offered by officials seeking election to those who want to believe them. According to Sowell, “[w]hen the people want the impossible, only liars can satisfy them, and only in the short run.”

Sowells offers a number of examples to prove his point. They include the problems of social security, medicare, printing money, and taxing the rich, which he claims has never worked. It never works because the rich invest their money in ways the Obamite-type politicians cannot touch.

Is my opinion that Sowell’s best argument is about welfare.

“Among the biggest lies of the welfare states on both sides of the Atlantic is the notion that the government can supply the people with things they want but cannot afford. Since the government gets its resources from the people, if the people as a whole cannot afford something, neither can the government.”

To me, this sums up all the other examples presented by Sowell. But, don’t take my word on it, read Sowell’s article yourself. You may find it was worth reading.

“From Reboot to Replay” Same Old Obama Politics

[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIL5xmSYj1o&w=560&h=315]

Light the Way Campaign – Free HIV & Hepatitis C Rapid Testing June 20th

Sponsored by CDC & Greene County Combined Health District.

Recipe for War: Unilateral Withdrawal from West Bank

By Khaled Abu Toameh

Israel’s Defense Minister Ehud Barak believes that Israel should consider a unilateral withdrawal from the West Bank if negotiations with the Palestinian Authority fail to bear fruit.

Under the current circumstances, such a move would lead to the creation of another radical Palestinian Islamic entity, this time in those parts of the West Bank that would be handed over to Mahmoud Abbas and Salam Fayyad.

Any land that is handed over to the Palestinian Authority would end up in the hands of Hamas.

In the summer of 2005, Israel pulled out of the Gaza Strip, passing it to Abbas and his 40,000-strong Fatah-dominated security forces.

A few months later, thanks to a free and fair parliamentary election that was held at the request of the US and some EU countries, Hamas came to power.

One of the main reasons Hamas scored a victory in that election was because it took credit for driving Israel out of the Gaza Strip through rockets and suicide bombings.

A year later, in the summer of 2007, it took fewer than 10,000 Hamas militiamen to defeat Abbas’s security forces and bring down the entire Palestinian Authority regime in the Gaza Strip.

Hamas’s rule over the Gaza Strip has since brought more suffering and bloodshed for both Israelis and Palestinians.

Once Israel carries out a unilateral withdrawal, the same scenario is likely to be repeated in the West Bank.

Even though Hamas does not have a strong military presence in the West Bank, the movement seems to enjoy much popularity among Palestinians.

The so-called Arab Spring, which has seen the rise of Islamists to power in a number of Arab countries, has emboldened Hamas and other radical Palestinian groups, such as Islamic Jihad.

These groups have managed to attract many followers by offering themselves as the best alternative to Western-backed corrupt secular dictatorships in the Arab world.

As before, Hamas’s chances of taking over the West Bank are high after the failure of Abbas’s ruling Fatah faction to implement significant reforms or combat rampant corruption.

Fatah lost the 2006 parliamentary election mainly because of its leaders’ involvement in the embezzlement of public funds. Since then, Fatah has failed to draw the conclusions from its defeat and has not even been able to come up with a new list of capable candidates that could attract Palestinian voters.

The same Fatah men who lost the vote are, in fact, continuing to run the show in Ramallah — as if they had never lost.

Even if the Islamists do not take over the West Bank in the aftermath of a unilateral Israeli pullout, it is almost certain that the Palestinian Authority would not be able to prevent local gangs and clans from seizing power.

The case of Jenin, a city in the West Bank, is a good example of the weakness of the Palestinian Authority security forces, especially with regard to imposing law and order: Palestinian Authority officials have admitted that Jenin has been controlled over the past two years by Fatah militiamen and thugs who worked closely with many top Palestinian security officers, imposing a reign of terror and intimidation on the city’s residents.

A unilateral withdrawal from the West Bank could mean that Palestinian cities like Ramallah, Nablus, Jenin, Bethlehem and Hebron would fall either into the hands of Hamas or armed Fatah gangs.

Abbas and Fayyad would not be able to do much to prevent a return to scenes of anarchy and lawlessness that were once prevalent on the Palestinian street.

The chaos and violence inside the Palestinian cities would also spill over into Israel, forcing it to launch another “Defensive Shield” type of operation, like the one in 2002, to clear the area of armed gangs.

Before withdrawing from any area, Israel needs to make sure that those who would be in charge would not run away, handing the territories to Hamas or any other local gangs. Under the current circumstances, a unilateral and unconditional withdrawal would only be a recipe for more violence and bloodshed and repression.

Khaled Abu Toameh, an Arab Muslim, is a veteran award-winning journalist who has been covering Palestinian affairs for nearly three decades. His articles have appeared in numerous newspapers around the world, including The Wall Street Journal, US News & World Report and The Sunday Times of London. He cover Palestian affairs for the Jerusalem Post and serves as a producer/consultant for NBC News. His article was originally published by the Gatestone Institute on June 8, 2012.

The Corruption is Now Complete

By David Zanotti

Back in 1988, we really were not all that interested in entering a fight on casino gambling. The Roundtable had been in operation for eight years. We had many issues far more pressing than gambling expansion. Then we began doing serious research on the history of legalized gambling in America, with a particular focus on the corruption gambling interests bring to civil government. That study led to more research on rising gambling addictions and the destruction of families. Along the way we met Sandy Walgate, a schoolteacher from East Liverpool who shared her story of nearly losing her star athlete son to a gambling addiction. Through Sandy’s tears this all became very real.

For almost 25 years now we have been presenting the evidence that gambling ruins lives and corrupts government. All the honest research is conclusive. The gambling industry thrives on addicts. When government gets into business with the gambling industry, the government partners in the addiction business. What politicians intentionally ignore is the inevitable reality that once state and local budgets are addicted to gambling revenues, the casino bosses call the shots. Thus, gambling and good government don’t ever mix.

Before the first casino even opened its doors in Ohio, this inevitable reality proved true once again. Not content with a private monopoly amendment they wrote into the Ohio Constitution, Penn National and Dan Gilbert (Ohio’s current casino overlords) wanted more. They found a greedy legislature and a willing partner in Governor Kasich. Together they cooked up a scheme to take a “limited” gambling proposal passed by the voters in 2009 and blow it into a full-scale plan for virtually unlimited gambling across the state.

Had they chosen to take this new plan to the voters and further amend the Ohio Constitution, as the law requires, it would have been a fair fight. Instead they decided to deny the precedents of legal construction and constitutional law dating back to before the Civil War. They just passed a law giving the government, the casino overlords and the greedy lawmakers whatever they wanted.

They tried something similar about 10 years ago in Ohio. They decided to expand the Lottery, but rob the schools of the new funding. The Roundtable sued because the new law directly violated the state constitution. We gained standing in the case, won the funding argument, returned the money to the schools and the case was upheld on appeal.

This time around, with a law passed that violated the state and federal constitutions in at least 17 places, the Roundtable sued again in the same Franklin County Court. To the amazement of many, Judge Timothy Horton, after eight months of deliberations refused to hear the case stating that none of the plaintiffs, including the Roundtable had the right to bring such a case to court. Ten years ago we did have standing and the courts upheld a significant portion of our challenge, this year we don’t have the right to a day in court on very similar claims. How exactly does that work?

So the Ohio Constitution, Article XV has been amended to expand gambling dramatically, but you won’t find the words there. The constitution was overridden by a simple statute passed by the Legislature at the request of the Governor. The people of Ohio had no say on the destruction of three constitutional provisions on gambling they passed in 1973, 1987 and 2009.

The politicians got the money they wanted. Their lobbying friends and lawyers got paid. The gambling industry got everything they wanted and the citizens of Ohio had no legal say in the matter. Which all proves the point we first discovered from studying the history of gambling back in 1988. Gambling and good government don’t ever mix.

David Zanotti is CEO of the American Policy Roundtable, the parent company of the Ohio Roundtable, established in 1980. The Roundtable is a non-profit, independent education and research organization specializing in public policy.

Shakespeare’s “Much Ado About Nothing” Coming Xenia Theater June 15

[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a4zsuB0CUZw&w=560&h=315]

Go to the X-ACT’s website for tickets and additional information about the play.

This June 15-24 production is being sponsored by Tiffany Jewelers located at 179 W. Main Street and the opening Gala fundraiser is sponsored by The Cafe Ole located at 131 N. Allison Avenue.

Another Food Business Stops Advertisments on MTV’s Inappropriate Pro-Transgender Show

Kellogg’s is another company saying no to advertising on MTV’s inappropriate pro-transgender show Degrassi show which targets kids. MTV tried to convince mainstream advertisers that the content of Degrassi presented important teen issues in a responsible manner.

However, the super majority of mainstream companies stopped advertising on this show after Florida Family Association repeatedly informed them about the extreme content involving bizarre sexual role playing and drug abuse and overdose on the program.

The interactions of three Degrassi characters demonstrate one faction of the irresponsible content of this show. The transgender female to male character Adam is intimately interested in a bi-sexual female Fiona. However, Fiona is confused as to whether she is lesbian or bi-sexual while she interacts with Riley. Riley is an open homosexual and starting quarterback for the high school football team. The odds of this mix of sordid sexual deviations occurring in any high school at this high social clique level are a million to one. Yet, MTV targets our children and teens on their Teen Nick channel with this garbage numerous times a week and tries to sell it as programming that treats serious teen matters responsibly.

Florida Family Association has issued several email alerts regarding Degrassi over the past two years which have resulted in a large number of companies pulling off the program. The last email campaign identified Nationwide, Hewlett Packard, Verizon and Colgate as new advertisers and encouraged them to stop supporting Degrassi with their advertising dollars. All four companies, Nationwide, Hewlett Packard, Verizon and Colgate, have not advertised in the recent months.