If you support our national security issues, you may love and appreciate the United States of America, our Constitution with its’ freedoms, and our American flag.
If you support and practice our fiscal issues, you may value worldly possessions.
If you support and value our social issues, you may love Judeo-Christian values.
If you support and practice all these values, that is all good; an insignia of “Wisdom” . - Oscar Y. Harward
National Debt Clock-Click Here-Real Time
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
ConservativeChristianRepublican-Report - 20091020
Promoting "God's Holy Values and American Freedoms"!
The average person who develops the habit of setting clear priorities and getting important tasks completed quickly will run circles around a genius who talks a lot and makes wonderful plans but who gets very little done. -- Brian Tracy
"Success is a state of mind. If you want success, start thinking of yourself as a success." -- Joyce Brothers
Do You Punish Good Performers?
“Because you did such a great job with that last mess, I’ve got another one I need you to handle!”
Sound familiar? Perhaps you’ve heard similar words from your boss in the past. Maybe you’ve said them to someone who works for you. Either way, they are symptomatic of a leadership problem that’s all too commonplace: unintentionally punishing good performance … giving the people we trust and rely on more work and more difficult or unpleasant tasks because they perform so well.
Common sense tells us two things about this subject. First, good performance should be rewarding, not punishing. Leaders need to do right by those who do right. Second, if team members experience negative consequences for doing good work, eventually they’ll stop doing it (or they’ll do less of it). That’s human nature … that’s obvious … that’s how leaders often shoot themselves in the feet!
So what’s the solution? That’s equally obvious! Don’t take your best people for granted. Keep things balanced. Avoid the trap of having one or two “go to” people who get all the tough and time-sensitive assignments – while their less productive teammates get to focus on routine, business-as-usual tasks.
Divide the work evenly. “Spread the wealth.”
Will there be times when you can’t do that … when your back is against the wall and only your best people can save the day? Probably so! But those instances should be rare. And when they do occur, make sure the rewards you provide far outweigh any downsides these truly special people may perceive.
"Daily Devotions" (KJV and/or NLT)
When I saw Him, I fell at His feet as if I were dead. But He laid his right hand on me and said, "Don't be afraid! I am the First and the Last." (Revelation 1:17)
How would you respond if you witnessed a true miracle right this moment? Would you laugh with joy? Call friends on the phone?
When Peter, the fisherman, saw Jesus perform a miracle, he fell to his knees and told Jesus to go away! "I'm too much of a sinner to be around you," he exclaimed (Luke 5:8). Does that strike you as a strange reaction?
A German scholar named Rudolph Otto once traveled the world, asking people of every culture how they defined the word "holy." He found that most folks couldn't put a finger on it, but they knew it when they saw it. They could only speak about holiness in terms of what they, as men and women, were not. In the presence of holiness, they were aware of a true purity they lacked; a sincere righteousness they lacked; and so forth.
Peter saw the miracle of Jesus and responded honestly. But it wasn't about the miracle; it was all about his own unworthiness, something he didn't notice until he saw the power of God with his own eyes. When we really see God at work, and experience Him in person, it's not in us to respond casually or comfortably. We fall to our knees and worship, as Peter did.
"The Patriot Post"
"Wise politicians will be cautious about fettering the government with restrictions that cannot be observed, because they know that every break of the fundamental laws, though dictated by necessity, impairs that sacred reverence which ought to be maintained in the breast of rulers towards the constitution of a country." -- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 25, 1787
"Work as if you were to live 100 Years, Pray as if you were to die tomorrow." -- Benjamin Franklin
"The preservation of the sacred fire of liberty, and the destiny of the republican model of government, are justly considered deeply, perhaps as finally, staked on the experiment entrusted to the hands of the American people." -- George Washington, First Inaugural Address, 1789
"Focus On The Family"
Marriage | Parenting | Online Communities | Media Center | Family Store | Support Family Ministry
Focus Action Update™
October 16, 2009
This week's Focus Action Update discusses the latest developments on the health care reform plan.
We've been sharing with you for several weeks about the health care reform plans making their way through Congress that still include public funding of abortion. We're now expecting a Senate floor vote on the reform plan as early as next week. In this week's Focus Action Update™ video, Stuart Shepard and Ashley Horne discuss the latest developments and the need to remain vigilant in defense of life.
It's become very clear that what President Obama has said publicly bears little resemblance to the legislative reality of health care reform. Despite the president's claims, every version of government health care has included publicly funded abortion coverage. Despite what has been said, the government health care proposals are fraught with tax and premium increases. And despite the rhetoric, massive cuts to Medicare are also in the latest versions, while conscience protections for health care workers continue to be excluded.
The debate over health care reform has been long, but the stakes could not be higher. If this bill passes, it will be the largest federal expansion of abortion rights since Roe v. Wade. In addition, the plans still fail to protect medical professionals' rights of conscience and families' rights to make medical decisions.
We fully expect a floor vote to occur in the Senate before the end of this month, possibly as early as next week. Until then, we remain committed to keeping you informed on this and other pressing issues that affect the family.
For faith and family,
Senior Vice President, Government & Public Policy
Dr. David Barton - on Obama
Respect the Office? Yes.
Respect the Man in the Office? No, I am sorry to say.
I have noted that many elected officials, both Democrats and Republicans, called upon America to unite behind Obama. Well, I want to make it clear to all who will listen that I AM NOT uniting behind Obama!
I will respect the Office which he holds, and I will acknowledge his abilities as an orator and wordsmith and pray for him, BUT that is it. I have begun today to see what I can do to make sure that he is a one-term President!
Why am I doing this?
It is because:
- I do not share Obama's vision or value system for America;
- I do not share his Abortion beliefs;
- I do not share his radical Marxist's concept of re-distributing wealth;
- I do not share his stated views on raising taxes on those who make $150,000+ (the ceiling has been changed three times since August);
- I do not share his view that America is Arrogant;
- I do not share his view that America is not a Christian Nation;
- I do not share his view that the military should be reduced by 25%;
- I do not share his view of amnesty and giving more to illegals than our American Citizens who need help;
- I do not share his views on homosexuality and his definition of marriage;
- I do not share his views that Radical Islam is our friend and Israel is our enemy who should give up any land;
- I do not share his spiritual beliefs (at least the ones he has made public);
- I do not share his beliefs on how to re-work the healthcare system in America;
- I do not share his Strategic views of the Middle East; and
- I certainly do not share his plan to sit down with terrorist regimes such as Iran.
Bottom line: my America is vastly different from Obama's, and I have a higher obligation to my Country and my GOD to do what is Right!
For eight (8) years, the Liberals in our Society, led by numerous entertainers who would have no platform and no real credibility but for their celebrity status, have attacked President Bush, his family, and his spiritual beliefs!
They have not moved toward the center in their beliefs and their philosophies, and they never came together nor compromised their personal beliefs for the betterment of our Country!
They have portrayed my America as a land where everything is tolerated except being intolerant!
They have been a vocal and irreverent minority for years!
They have mocked and attacked the very core values so important to the founding and growth of our Country!
They have made every effort to remove the name of GOD or Jesus Christ from our Society!
They have challenged capital punishment, the right to bear firearms, and the most basic principles of our criminal code!
They have attacked one of the most fundamental of all Freedoms, the right of free speech!
Unite behind Obama? Never!
I am sure many of you who read this think that I am going overboard, but I refuse to retreat one more inch in favor of those whom I believe are the embodiment of Evil!
PRESIDENT BUSH made many mistakes during his Presidency, and I am not sure how history will judge him. However, I believe that he weighed his decisions in light of the long established Judeo-Christian principles of our Founding Fathers!
Majority rules in America, and I will honor the concept; however, I will fight with all of my power to be a voice in opposition to Obama and his "goals for America."
I am going to be a thorn in the side of those who, if left unchecked, will destroy our Country! Any more compromise is more defeat!
I pray that the results of this election will wake up many who have sat on the sidelines and allowed the Socialist-Marxist anti-GOD crowd to slowly change so much of what has been good in America!
"Error of Opinion may be tolerated where Reason is left free to combat it." - Thomas Jefferson
GOD bless you and GOD bless our Country!
In GOD We Trust!
Morning Bell: Exposing the Obamacare Shell Game
In his primetime health care address before a Joint Session of Congress, President Barack Obama promised the American people: “I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits – either now or in the future. Period.” But it is hard work adding $1 trillion in government spending while claiming with a straight face that you are not adding to the deficit. Enter White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel who has just the solution: just strip out $247 billion of the spending in the bill, pass it separately, and voila … your job just got one-fourth easier.
The specific issue at hand is the centrally planned price control regime the federal government uses to reimburse doctor’s who participate in Medicare. Medicare reimburses doctors and other medical professionals for their services according to a congressionally created fee schedule that is annually adjusted by the Sustainable Growth Rate (SGR) formula. The idea is relatively simple: If Medicare spending grows faster than our overall economy (which is almost always the case), then payments to Medicare providers are supposed to be reduced proportionately to keep expenditures in line over a period of time.
Problem is every year Congress–under both Democratic and Republican leadership–routinely blocks the cuts from going into effect. Subsequently, the necessary cumulative cut in Medicare payments grows bigger. Without a change to current law, payments to physicians would be reduced by 21.5% as of January 1, 2010. The Senate Finance Committee bill addresses this problem by raising the reimbursement rate for one year and then pretending that Congress will allow massive cuts for the next 9 years. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) rightfully called the Senate Finance Committee proposal a façade.
The Obama administration’s proposed solution, however, is no more honest. Instead of pretending Congress will cut doctor’s Medicare reimbursement rates, the Senate wants to pretend the doc fix isn’t part of health care reform. So Majority Leader Harry Reid’s (D-NV) dissembled Friday: “Correcting the Medicare doctors’ payment discrepancy is a budgetary problem — health insurance reform tackles a serious regulatory problem. That’s why we need to fix the Medicare doctors’ payments first, outside of health reform.” The Washington Post editorial board responded this morning:
Mr. Reid’s attempt to distinguish the budgetary and regulatory issues is nonsensical. The health reform measure includes all sorts of changes in the ways that various providers are compensated. True, the problem with inadequate Medicare payments is something of a preexisting condition to health reform, but that does not make it unrelated. The so-called doc fix is being rushed to the Senate floor this week in advance of health reform not because it has nothing to do with health reform but because it has everything to do with it.
A president who says that he is serious about dealing with the dire fiscal picture cannot credibly begin by charging this one to the national credit card, with no concern for the later generations who will have to pay the bill.
And it is the later generations that should be particularly concerned with this shell game. That $247 billion price tag is just the ten year cost of the doc fix. Looking over the long-term, the 75-year cost to our national debt is another $3 trillion. This past Friday the Obama administration admitted that the federal budget deficit for the fiscal year that just ended was $1.4 trillion, nearly a trillion dollars greater than the year before and the largest shortfall relative to the size of the economy since 1945. Just like Obamacare’s massive expansion of the Medicaid rolls, the doc fix shell game exposes the fact that Obamacare is just a continuation of the current budget busting health care system, not real reform.
According to data from the Congressional Budget Office and Kaiser Family Foundation, Obamacare would expand Medicaid and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program to the point that nearly one in five Americans would be on government programs that provide health care to the poor. This would be the biggest single expansion since Medicaid was created in 1965.
California is poised to become the first state to ban big-screen TVs due to their power-heavy demands.
According to an internal Energy Department audit, the Energy Star program (which the Obama administration threw $300 million of ’stimulus’ at) doesn’t properly track whether manufacturers that give their appliances an Energy Star label have met the required specifications for energy efficiency.
The high-mileage car tax credit in President Obama’s failed stimulus allows for a federal tax credit generous enough to pay for half or even two-thirds of the average sticker price of a golf cart.
U.S. and European counterterrorism officials say a rising number of Western recruits — including Americans — are traveling to Afghanistan and Pakistan to attend paramilitary training camps.
Ten things that probably will be in the health-care bill (but shouldn’t).
By Stephen Spruiell
Rummaging through the stacks here at National Review world headquarters, I discovered in our Dec. 13, 1993, special supplement on Hillarycare a curious little ad that read “Just say NO to socialized health care.” The ad implored me to call 1-800-5RESIST, so just for fun, I dialed the number, hoping that maybe, just maybe, the brave soul who set up this hotline back in the ’90s was still manning the post, dispensing advice on the best way to oppose Obamacare.
Wrong. A male voice offered me an invitation to “talk to ladies all over the country,” and I don’t think he meant Blanche Lincoln and Olympia Snowe. I hung up and returned to the health-care debate, 2009. The Republicans are in disarray. The Democrats are cutting deals. The Congressional Budget Office is acting like Burger King, telling http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=387 Max Baucus, “Have it your way.” Of course 1-800-5RESIST is now a phone-sex line: We’re screwed.
Or are we? After all, back in 1993, conservatives were able to stop a health-care-reform plan that looked just as ominous and unstoppable. The Democrats had the White House, 56 senators, and an 80-vote margin in the House. They had James Carville, Hillary Clinton, and a secretive task force (though these might have turned out to be liabilities). They faced a Republican party coming off a historic defeat. R. Emmett Tyrrell had just published The Conservative Crack-Up http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0671660381/ref=nosim/nationalreviewon about infighting among conservatives following the end of the Cold War. Then as now, the Right lacked an identifiable leader, save for Rush Limbaugh http://www.nationalreview.com/flashback/flashback-bowman080103..asp.
But we did have one thing going for us: Hillarycare was awful. It was loaded with mandates, government control, empty promises, and taxes. Obamacare differs in the particulars, but it is built on the same rotten foundation: a belief that dumb consumers and greedy insurance companies are to blame for the health-care mess, and therefore bureaucrats need to step in and tell them what to do while the rich pay for it.
Has this diagnosis ever been right? Has this prescription ever cured a single patient? Of course not. In fact, government interference initially created and has since greatly exacerbated the third-party-payer problem that has saddled the system with runaway costs. Wage and price controls during World War II prompted companies to compete for workers by offering generous medical benefits, and changes in the tax code entrenched this practice to the point where we now use insurance to pay for routine health care. For the poor and the elderly, the government created a system of entitlements whose bad design led to cost-shifting in the private sector and looming budgetary shortfalls in the public sector that the political class has no idea how to finance.
Instead of reintroducing concepts like competition and personal responsibility as a way to bring down costs and make coverage more affordable, Obamacare relies on coercion and taxation to pursue these same goals less efficiently. Here are ten reasons why no proposal built on this foundation deserves to pass:
1) Removal of the Ability of Insurers to Deny Coverage. The first thing Obama and his backers want to do — the main thing they all agree on — is take away insurers’ ability to deny people coverage or charge them different rates based on pre-existing conditions. The question of what to do for people whose health status has rendered them uninsurable is a thorny one, but the heavy hand of regulation is not the answer. States have conducted successful experiments with “high-risk pools,” and “health-status insurance” offers another promising idea. The problem with what the Democrats want — mandatory coverage at low rates for sick people (also known as “guaranteed issue” and “community rating”) — is that it gives people an incentive to postpone buying insurance until they need expensive care. Theoretically, guaranteed issue and community rating work only if the government requires everyone to have insurance. The Democrats know this; insurance mandates are integral to Obamacare.
2) Coverage Mandates on Individuals and Employers. Once upon a time, Obama was against insurance mandates. In the run-up to the Iowa caucuses, his campaign ran an ad attacking Hillary Clinton on the grounds that the mandates in her plan “would force people to buy insurance even if they can’t afford it.” Realizing that his health-care plan would be unworkable without a mandate, Obama has flip-flopped and rebranded required coverage as “shared responsibility.” Clinton fired back at the time, and Obamacare supporters argue now, that the mandate would come with subsidies to help lower-income people afford the coverage they would be forced to buy. A look at the fine print on that offer reveals that many Americans would be forced to buy pricey policies without any help from the government. Workers offered coverage by their employers (who would be required to offer it) would not be eligible for subsidies and would have to take what they’re given — which, under Obamacare, would be some minimum package of benefits designed by bureaucrats in Washington. That sounds like something that could quickly exceed what a lot of people consider affordable.
3) Government-Designed Insurance Plans. We don’t have to guess about whether government-designed insurance plans cause costs to spiral upward. We can look to Massachusetts, where in 2006 the Brahmins of Beacon Hill enacted a health-care-reform bill similar to what the Solons of Capitol Hill are pushing today. Commonwealth Care, as the Bay State’s version is called, also requires individuals to purchase a government-designed “minimum” level of coverage. As Michael Cannon of the Cato Institute has pointed out http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10488, lobbyists in Massachusetts have successfully pushed for that “minimum” to include prescription drugs, preventive care, drug-abuse treatment, hospice services, fertility treatments, prosthetics, telemedicine, and numerous other mandates. No wonder the average premium in Massachusetts has gone up significantly faster than has the national average. Even if you have insurance you’re happy with, Obamacare would eventually force you to upgrade to one of these more “comprehensive” plans. So much for his promise that you can keep the simple, affordable plan that you like.
4) Threats to Medicare Advantage. Obama’s promise to let you keep your current insurance plan must look even emptier to the approximately 9 million seniors currently enrolled in Medicare Advantage (MA) plans. MA gives seniors the option of getting their coverage from a private insurer rather than from the traditional, government-run Medicare. The government then reimburses the private insurer for the cost of that coverage. The program has proven popular: Enrollment has nearly doubled in the last five years, because the private insurers offer better benefits than Medicare. But these benefits come at a cost: Instead of requiring the private insurers to compete to provide better coverage for less, the government reimburses insurers using a Byzantine rate formula. On average, it costs the government 12 to 14percent more to cover the average MA enrollee than the average Medicare recipient. To fix this problem — which is an artifact of Medicare’s own artificially low price-setting — the Baucus bill proposes to reimburse private insurers only for what it would have cost Medicare to cover the same enrollee. But remember, Medicare has unfair advantages in the marketplace — it can dictate prices to doctors and hospitals. Because private insurers can’t use the same strong-arm tactics to get their prices down, many would instead cut benefits, raise premiums, or drop out of MA altogether. In other words: No, not everyone can keep the plan she likes.
5) New Taxes. According to the CBO, the Senate Finance Committee’s version of Obamacare would achieve “deficit neutrality” by increasing taxes by more than $300 billion over the next ten years. Who pays? Starting in 2013, the tax would be assessed on all insurance plans that cost more than $8,000 per year for single coverage or $21,000 for family coverage. That sounds like a lot, until you consider that those thresholds are pegged to inflation as measured by the Consumer Price Index. The cost of health care generally increases much faster than that. As James C. Capretta has noted http://healthcare.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YzFhODdmZWNjNDRiNWM1YjIyNWExYzUyZGVjM2I0ZjU=, “by 2019 and beyond, this tax would hit pretty much the entire middle class of America very hard.” Obamacare would also use tax penalties to punish those who fail to comply with its insurance mandates. The 25-year-old men who calculate that paying the penalty is a better deal than buying the pricey government-designed plan with fertility treatments are expected to be good for $1 billion or so in tax revenue over the next ten years. Taxing the young at the beginning of their careers and using the money to pay for middle-aged men at the peak of their earning power: That’s Obamacare!
6) A Stronger IRS. Over 30 new federal programs, agencies, and commissions would be required to administer the massive new health-care entitlement. Obamacare would establish a “Health Choices Administration” to dictate what your insurance plan can and cannot cover and a “Health Benefits Advisory Committee” to guide these “choices.” And if the government decides your choices are not acceptable, Obamacare gives the Internal Revenue Service the power to levy substantial fines against you. An overlooked ramification is that the IRS http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Health-care-reform-means-more-power-for-the-IRS-56781377.html would have to coordinate with the Health Choices Commissioner and whatever other officials are deemed necessary to decide whether your coverage meets the government’s minimum standard. That means the IRS will be sharing your tax records with Obama’s health czars, who could use them in new and intrusive ways. As Byron York has reported, one version of Obamacare (there are five or six floating around Capitol Hill) envisions the use of tax records to “find qualifying seniors who can then be encouraged to enroll in the [Medicare] prescription drug program.” By filing your tax return, you could be signing up for government junk mail — or worse.
7) “Managed Competition” (a.k.a. “Government Control”). In the early 1990s, the buzzword was “managed competition,” which in the context of Hillarycare meant “government control.” Today, the buzzword is back, and guess what? It means the same thing. “One of the best ways to bring down costs, provide more choices, and assure quality,” Obama says, “is a public option that will force the insurance companies to compete and keep them honest.” But whether this public option takes the form of a federal-government-run insurance plan or state-sponsored, public-private co-ops, its true purpose would be to serve as a stalking horse for a fully nationalized single-payer system. We are watching this happen right now with student loans http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OWZkYWViZThhYzBiZjQ4OTE5YmYxYzJiZmFmMDE5OWY= and to a lesser extent with Medicare Advantage: The government cooks the books to make it look as if cutting out the private sector would yield tremendous savings. In fact, real savings would come only from cutting out the government.
8) Reckless Expansion of Medicaid. Obamacare would make federal Medicaid dollars available to childless adults for the first time in the program’s history. Not only would this change the nature of the program from one that is primarily designed to protect children living in poverty, it would also impose new burdens on already-strapped state governments, which would be forced to come up with matching dollars to pay for the newly eligible. Not that this matters as much as it should: Many states, especially those where Democrats dominate, have expanded Medicaid eligibility even further than Obamacare envisions; whenever they run out of money, they simply ask Washington for a bailout, and responsible states end up subsidizing the reckless ones. Obamacare does nothing to change this perverse incentive structure. To the contrary: It adds to the perversity.
9) Welfare for the Middle Class. Mark Steyn has called government-run health care the “game changer” that forever alters the relationship between the citizen and the state. Nowhere is this more clear than in the way the bill means-tests for subsidy eligibility. Households with incomes between 100 and 400 percent of the federal poverty level — that’s north of $80,000 for a family of four — can have their premiums fixed as a percentage of their income, making mandatory employer-provided care even more of a raw deal (see No. 2 above).
10) Government Rationing. This is where Obamacare ends. We know this because we’ve seen what happened to health-care systems in Canada and Britain. Wherever government fiat replaces private contracting as a method for setting prices, basic problems of supply and demand crop up, and with health care, the problem is almost always too little supply. When third parties pay the bill, consumers lose the incentive to consume rationally and providers lose the incentive to provide efficiently. Supporters of Obamacare have identified the problem as one of greed and stupidity, but their solution would entrench the third-party-payer system that rewards greed and stupidity. To swim against this tide of incentives will require coercion on a massive scale and — yes — rationing.
— Stephen Spruiell is an NRO staff reporter.
Anti-creationist Professor Inadvertently Reveals the Truth of Scripture
by Bodie Hodge, AiG–U.S.
A well-known University of Minnesota–Morris professor who has a history of hate speech against creationists—especially Answers in Genesis and the Creation Museum1—inadvertently admitted recently that we were not wrong. This was kind of a blessing in disguise and also reveals much about his character. Professor Paul (P.Z.) Myers said:
First, there is no moral law: the universe is a nasty, heartless place where most things wouldn’t mind killing you if you let them. No one is compelled to be nice; you or anyone could go on a murder spree, and all that is stopping you is your self-interest (it is very destructive to your personal bliss to knock down your social support system) and the self-interest of others, who would try to stop you. There is nothing ‘out there’ that imposes morality on you, other than local, temporary conditions, a lot of social enculturation, and probably a bit of genetic hardwiring that you’ve inherited from ancestors who lived under similar conditions.2
Myers admits there is no morality or anything that imposes it either (i.e., God) in his worldview. This means that from his own worldview, there is no such thing as right and wrong. Accordingly, this means that there must be nothing wrong with teaching the truth of creation as revealed in the Bible. Ironically, perhaps, it also means that there is nothing wrong in showing the problems with false religions like humanism and evolution.
Please pray for P.Z. Myers and others like him, who seem to be struggling spiritually; otherwise, there would be no reason for the continued attacks on Christianity. If they were really being consistent with his atheistic beliefs, then why would they really care what others believe—especially if there is no such thing as right and wrong in their own view?
The fact that Myers and others continue to blast Christianity reveals that they really do believe in God, but want to suppress that knowledge. This is further confirmation of the Bible’s accuracy (Romans 1). Since Professor Myers also wants to silence his opposition, this also shows that, even though he gives “lip service” to the idea that there is no such thing as right and wrong, deep down, he really does believe there is such a thing as right and wrong, actively defending what he thinks is “right.”
For the Christian, though, we should not be surprised (1 John 3:13), but saddened by attacks and for those that continue to reject the Lord Jesus Christ. But the Lord is patient:
The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance. (2 Peter 3:9)
In the same way that Jesus Christ saved Saul (later named Paul), who was arguably one of the most vicious persecutors of Christians in the first century, Christ can save Prof. Myers or others hardened against Him. Who knows? If that were to happen, perhaps P.Z. will be more apt to go by Paul as well.
Yes, CAIR is planting 'spies' on Capitol Hill
FBI cites 'people in positions of power within the organization directly connected to terrorism'
While a Washington, D.C.-based Muslim organization the government classifies as an unindicted terror co-conspirator – and which has, in fact, seen several of its leaders imprisoned on terrorism convictions – scoffed last week at congressional charges it was attempting to plant interns and staffers in key Capitol Hill offices to influence policy, a hot-selling new book documents the controversial group is successfully doing precisely that.
Last Tuesday, four lawmakers held a Capitol Hill press conference demanding three separate federal investigations of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, or CAIR. Rep. Sue Myrick, R-N.C., founder of the Congressional Anti-terrorism Caucus which has over 100 members both Democrat and Republican, was joined by Reps. Trent Franks, R-Ariz., John Shadegg R-Ariz., and Paul Broun R-Ga., in calling on the Justice Department to share with Congress findings that caused the FBI to officially sever ties with CAIR. The four also requested that the Capitol's sergeant at arms determine whether CAIR had infiltrated congressional offices, and that IRS investigate the legality of CAIR's non-profit status.
Prompting the congressional demands was the release last week of "Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld That's Conspiring to Islamize America" by P. David Gaubatz and Paul Sperry. The book is based in part on a daring six-month undercover investigation that resulted in many alarming revelations about the supposedly "moderate" group, backed by 12,000 pages of internal documents.
One document obtained during the investigation, cited by Myrick during the press conference, outlined a CAIR plan to launch an influence operation against members of key congressional committees, while planting CAIR staffers and interns inside congressional offices. Myrick and the others were particularly concerned that the CAIR memo focused especially on judiciary, intelligence, and homeland security committees.
In response, CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper laughed, ridiculing the claims of the Congress members and accusing "Muslim Mafia's" authors of racism and bigotry. He also claimed he'd received a faxed death threat, which he displayed during televised interviews.
Others leapt to CAIR'S defense, like Rep. John Conyers, Jr., chairman of the Judiciary Committee, who said, "Numerous Muslim-American interns have served the House ably and they deserve our appreciation and respect, not attacks on their character or patriotism."
ACLU spokeswoman Amanda Simon said, "Attempting to stigmatize legitimate activities with sinister and baseless accusations is reminiscent of some of the darkest days of our history."
Even much of the media coverage echoed CAIR's ridicule of "Muslim Mafia" and the congressional calls for investigation, while portraying the group as a moderate, everyday D.C. lobby group. Politico's article was so favorable and one-sided, in fact, that CAIR showcased it on its website, along with MSNBC's mocking, sarcastic attack on "Muslim Mafia" and the four Congress members, whom host Rachel Maddow compared with Sen. Joe McCarthy.
Inexplicably absent from most news reports was any mention of CAIR's long and sordid history of terror connections, for which reason the FBI broke off ties with the organization last year.
The U.S. government has named CAIR an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation terror-funding case, a scheme to funnel $12 million to Hamas. Federal prosecutors also listed CAIR as a member of the U.S. branch of the Muslim Brotherhood, a worldwide jihadist movement that gave rise to Hamas, al-Qaida and other terrorist groups.
But that's just the beginning. As former FBI agent Mike Rolf acknowledges in "Muslim Mafia," "CAIR has had a number of people in positions of power within the organization that have been directly connected to terrorism and have either been prosecuted or thrown out of the country." According to another FBI veteran familiar with recent and ongoing cases involving CAIR officials, "Their offices have been a turnstile for terrorists and their supporters."
Indeed, a review of the public record, including federal criminal court documents, past IRS 990 tax records and Federal Election Commission records detailing donor occupations, reveals that CAIR has been associated with a disturbing number of convicted terrorists or felons in terrorism probes, as well as suspected terrorists and active targets of terrorism investigations. The list is long, and includes:
FBI agents arresting CAIR director Ghassan Elashi and brothers in 2002
Ghassan Elashi: One of CAIR's founding directors, he was convicted in 2004 of illegally shipping high-tech goods to terror state Syria, and is serving 80 months in prison. He was also convicted of providing material support to Hamas in the Holy Land Foundation terror-financing trial. He was chairman of the charity, which provided seed capital to CAIR. Elashi is related to Hamas leader Mousa Abu Marzook.
Muthanna al-Hanooti: The CAIR director's home was raided in 2006 by FBI agents in connection with an active terrorism investigation. Agents also searched the offices of his advocacy group, Focus on Advocacy and Advancement of International Relations, which al-Hanooti operates out of Dearborn, Mich., and Washington, D.C.
Al-Hanooti, who emigrated to the U.S. from Iraq, formerly helped run a suspected Hamas terror front called LIFE for Relief and Development. Its Michigan offices also were raided in September 2006. In 2004, LIFE's Baghdad office was raided by U.S. troops, who seized files and computers. Al-Hanooti is related to Shiek Mohammed al-Hanooti, an unindicted co-conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.
"Al-Hanooti collected over $6 million for support of Hamas," according to a 2001 FBI report, and was present with CAIR and Holy Land officials at a secret Hamas fundraising summit held last decade at a Philadelphia hotel. Prosecutors added his name to the list of unindicted co-conspirators in the Holy Land case.
Although Al-Hanooti denies supporting Hamas, he has praised Palestinian suicide bombers as "martyrs" who are "alive in the eyes of Allah."
Abdurahman Alamoudi: Another CAIR director, he is serving 23 years in federal prison for plotting terrorism. Alamoudi, who was caught on tape complaining that bin Laden hadn't killed enough Americans in the U.S. embassy bombings in Africa, was one of al-Qaida's top fund-raisers in America, according to the U.S. Treasury Department.
Siraj Wahhaj: A member of CAIR's board of advisers, Wahhaj was named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. The radical Brooklyn imam was close to convicted terrorist Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, and defended him during his trial.
"Muslim Mafia," citing co-author's Sperry's previous book "Infiltration" as well as terror expert Steven Emerson's research, reports that Wahhaj, a black convert to Islam, is converting gang members to Islam and holding "jihad camps" for them. With a combination of Islam and Uzis, he has said, the street thugs will be a powerful force for Islam the day America "will crumble."
Wahhaj is the keynote speaker at CAIR's 15th annual fund-raising banquet in Arlington, Va., this Saturday
Randall "Ismail" Royer: The former CAIR communications specialist and civil-rights coordinator is serving 20 years in prison in connection with the Virginia Jihad Network, which he led while employed by CAIR at its Washington headquarters. The group trained to kill U.S. soldiers overseas, cased the FBI headquarters, and cheered the space shuttle Columbia tragedy. Al-Qaida operative Ahmed Abu Ali, convicted of plotting to assassinate President Bush, was among those who trained with Royer's Northern Virginia cell.
Bassam Khafagi: Another CAIR official, Khafagi was arrested in 2003 while serving as CAIR's director of community affairs. He pleaded guilty to charges of bank and visa fraud stemming from a federal counterterror probe of his leadership role in the Islamic Assembly of North America, which has supported al-Qaida and advocated suicide attacks on America. He was sentenced to 10 months in prison and deported to his native Egypt.
Laura Jaghlit: A civil-rights coordinator for CAIR, her Washington-area home was raided by federal agents after 9/11 as part of an investigation into terrorist financing, money laundering and tax fraud. Her husband Mohammed Jaghlit, a key leader in the Saudi-backed SAAR network, is a target of the still-active probe.
Last decade, Jaghlit sent two letters accompanying donations – one for $10,000, the other for $5,000 – from the SAAR Foundation to Sami al-Arian, now a convicted terrorist. In each letter, according to a federal affidavit, "Jaghlit instructed al-Arian not to disclose the contribution publicly or to the media."
Investigators suspect the funds were intended for Palestinian terrorists via a U.S. front called WISE, which at the time employed an official who personally delivered a satellite phone battery to Osama bin Laden. The same official also worked for Jaghlit's group.
In addition, Jaghlit donated a total of $37,200 to the Holy Land Foundation, which prosecutors say is a Hamas front. Jaghlit subsequently was named an unindicted co-conspirator in the ongoing case.
Nihad Awad: Wiretap evidence from the Holy Land case puts CAIR's executive director at a Philadelphia meeting of Hamas leaders and activists that was secretly recorded by the FBI. Participants allegedly hatched a plot to disguise payments to Hamas terrorists as charitable giving.
During the meeting, according to FBI transcripts, Awad was recorded discussing the propaganda effort. He mentions Ghassan Dahduli, whom he worked with at the time at the Islamic Association for Palestine, another Hamas front. Both were IAP officers. Dahduli's name also was listed in the address book of bin Laden's personal secretary, Wadi al-Hage, who is serving a life sentence in prison for his role in the U.S. embassy bombings. Dahduli, an ethnic-Palestinian like Awad, was deported to Jordan after 9/11 for refusing to cooperate in the terror investigation. (An April 28, 2009 letter from FBI assistant director Richard C. Powers to Sen. Jon Kyl explains how the group's many Hamas connections caused the FBI to sever ties with CAIR.)
Awad's and Dahduli's phone numbers are listed in a Muslim Brotherhood document seized by federal investigators revealing "important phone numbers" for the "Palestine Section" of the Brotherhood in America. The court exhibit shows Hamas fugitive Mousa Abu Marzook listed on the same page with Awad.
Omar Ahmad: U.S. prosecutors also named CAIR's founder and chairman emeritus as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land case. Ahmad too was placed at the Philly meeting, FBI special agent Lara Burns testified at the trial. Prosecutors also designated him as a member of the Muslim Brotherhood's "Palestine Committee" in America. Ahmad, like his CAIR partner Awad, is ethnic-Palestinian.
(Though both Ahmad and Awad were senior leaders of IAP, the Hamas front, neither of their biographical sketches posted on CAIR's website mentions their IAP past.)
Nabil Sadoun: A CAIR board member, Sadoun has served on the board of the United Association for Studies and Research, which investigators believe to be a key Hamas front in America. In fact, Sadoun co-founded UASR with Hamas leader Marzook. The Justice Department added UASR to the list of unindicted co-conspirators in the Holy Land case.
Mohamed Nimer: CAIR's current research director also served as a board director for UASR, the strategic arm for Hamas in the U.S. CAIR neglects to mention Nimer's and Sadoun's roles in UASR in their bios.
Rafeeq Jaber: A founding director of CAIR, Jaber was the long-time president of the Islamic Association for Palestine. In 2002, a federal judge found that "the Islamic Association for Palestine has acted in support of Hamas." In his capacity as IAP chief, Jaber praised Hezbollah attacks on Israel. He also served on the board of a radical mosque in the Chicago area.
Rabith Hadid: The CAIR fund-raiser was a founder of the Global Relief Foundation, which after 9/11 was blacklisted by Treasury for financing al-Qaida and other terror groups. Its assets were frozen in December 2001. Hadid was arrested on terror-related charges and deported to Lebanon in 2003.
Hamza Yusuf: The FBI investigated the CAIR board member after 9/11, because just two days before the attacks, he made an ominous prediction to a Muslim audience.
"This country is facing a terrible fate and the reason for that is because this country stands condemned," Yusuf warned. "It stands condemned like Europe stood condemned because of what it did. And lest people forget, Europe suffered two world wars after conquering the Muslim lands."
CAIR's founder Ahmad, while claiming to be a moderate and patriotic American, last decade told a group of Muslims in Northern California that they are in America to help assert Islam's rule over the country.
"Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant," a local reporter quoted him as saying, adding, "The Quran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth."
Ahmad insists he was misquoted. However, an FBI wiretap transcript quotes Ahmad agreeing with terrorist suspects gathered last decade at the secret Philly meeting to "camouflage" their true intentions.
He compared it to the head fake in basketball. "This is like one who plays basketball: He makes a player believe that he is doing this, while he does something else," Ahmad said. "I agree with you. Like they say, politics is a completion of war."
'Spies' on Capitol Hill?
"The alarm on the Hill isn't over Muslim staffers but CAIR-sponsored staffers – people who happen to be Muslim who have worked for a front group with proven ties to terrorism," author Sperry said. "That's the issue, and CAIR knows it, which is why they're so desperate to change the subject."
The CAIR document cited by Myrick and other congressmen, obtained during the "Muslim Mafia" undercover investigation, says: "We will focus on influencing congressmen responsible for policy that directly impacts the American Muslim community. (For example, congressmen on the judiciary, intelligence, and homeland security committees.) ... We will develop national initiatives such as a lobby day and placing Muslim interns in congressional offices."
According to "Muslim Mafia," Internal CAIR communications and other documents reveal that CAIR has strategically placed operatives inside the federal offices of Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee, D-Texas, Rep. Gregory Meeks, D-N.Y., and Rep. Joe Sestak, D-Pa., among others. Here are some that have been placed in congressional offices between 2006 and 2009:
Sestak aide Adeeba al-Zaman, for one, booked the congressman to speak at a $50-a-plate CAIR fundraiser in Philadelphia where he praised CAIR and Islam’s supposedly "peaceful" tenets. Sestak, a retired vice admiral, shared the spotlight with another special guest that night in April 2007 at the posh Hilton Philadelphia. As he and his congressional staff looked on, CAIR's national chairman presented an award to the founder of Bridges TV – Muzzammil Hassan – who recently confessed to murdering his wife by decapitation.
Before serving as Sestak's outreach coordinator, al-Zaman was communications director of CAIR's Philadelphia chapter. Her stepfather serves on the organization's board and also heads a local mosque, the Islamic Society of Greater Valley Forge, which is controlled by the Islamic Circle of North America, a Muslim Brotherhood front group, according to federal court documents.
Over at the Senate, CAIR has cultivated Muslim moles inside the offices of key Democrat leaders – including Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee's subcommittee on human rights. His aide Reema Dodin – who's in regular contact with CAIR – is a Palestinian rights activist who organized anti-Israel rallies as a campus radical at UC Berkeley.
Commenting on the 9/11 attacks as a leader of the radical Muslim Students Association – which was founded by Muslim Brotherhood members – Dodin explained away the suicide attacks as a tragic but inevitable response to U.S. support for Israel, which she says is "angering" Muslims the world over.
"No one wants to stop and think that these young men, in the prime of their lives, choose to do this to themselves. Why?" she said in an interview with a campus magazine. "Because now you have three generations of Palestinians born under occupation.
"Maybe if you start to look at Palestinians as human beings," she added, "you will stop the suicide bombers."
Dodin went on to justify violent jihad. "Islam does teach that you must defend yourself," she said. "You cannot lie down and allow yourself, your home, your property, your family, and your people to be consistently oppressed."
At the same time, she condemned U.S. strikes against the Taliban and al-Qaida in Afghanistan, complaining that the military was "just going to hit innocent civilians."
Today, Durbin's legislative aide points to the election of two Muslim congressmen – Democrats Ellison of Minnesota and Andre Carson of Indiana – as proof Muslims can penetrate "the system" and bring about change from within.
All told, there are now upwards of 50 Muslim activists working on Capitol Hill today, according to "Muslim Mafia." Their growing presence raises alarms, counterintelligence officials say, because a stated goal of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood is the infiltration of key government agencies and institutions like Congress.
Indeed, during a secret Muslim Brotherhood meeting he organized last decade, CAIR founder and former chair Omar Ahmad expressed the need to strengthen "the influence with Congress." He argued for using Muslims as an "entry point" to "pressure Congress and the decision makers in America" to change U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East and other policies.
The same FBI wiretaps reveal that CAIR’s other founder and current leader, Nihad Awad, early on proposed sponsoring internships and fellowships as a vehicle for infiltrating government "institutions."
Until it recently ran out of money, CAIR had been doing exactly that – sponsoring congressional fellowships. In 2007, CAIR budgeted $50,000 for two fellows, according to an internal spreadsheet. It filled at least one of those fellowship positions that year.
In a 2007 report to Awad, a copy of which was obtained during 2008's undercover operation, CAIR Legislative Director Corey Saylor reported that he "placed Samia Elshafie in the office of Representative Jackson-Lee." Elshafie has acted as the congresswoman’s office contact for human rights issues.
Saylor, in a recent on-camera Fox News Channel interview, repeatedly refused to condemn the terror groups Hamas or Hezbollah.
Since the election, Saylor, a white Muslim convert, has worked with Jihad F. Saleh, a top Meeks aide and program coordinator for the Congressional Muslim Staffers Association, to promote more Muslims into positions of power. They think the Muslim-friendly 111th Congress and the Obama administration offer fertile ground for planting agents for the cause.
"The past election was a watershed for the Muslim community," says Saleh, a black Muslim convert previously known as Benny "B.J." Williams.
Saleh, 34, has been busy conducting workshops for "Muslim professionals" to "capitalize" on the change in power and "ensure that Muslim Americans are prominent in the Obama administration."
As Larry Shaw, CAIR's national chairman, said recently: "We look forward to partnering with the Obama administration."
Disturbing Poll Numbers for Obama by Harris Interactive
by Proloy Bhatta
Only 45% of adults approved of Obama's performance as president.
61% believe the country is heading on the wrong track.
Methodology of this poll causes Obama to score an average of 17% lower in the lower two age brackets. So take it in stride.
Harris Interactive surveyed 2,293 adults from October 5 to 12.
Only 45% of adults approved of Obama's performance as president.
Democrats still stand behind their president, 77% approve of his job performance. Despite being ardent supporters of the Obama 2008 campaign, those aged 18-32 were mixed: 51% approved, 49% disapproved. Obama' approval rating is lower than 50% in every other age bracket and it goes lower by age; i.e. those aged 64+ give him an overall rating of 39%.
If Obama does not get the fervent support from the young generation in 2012 as he had in 2008, he would be in trouble.
61% believe the country is heading on the wrong track.
Comparison With Other Polls
This is in stark contrast with a few other polls conducted during the same time frame.
56% CBS; Oct 5 to 8
53% Marist; Oct 7 to 12
The 49% that Obama received in the latest Fox News Poll was not included for comparison because there were no overlap of polling dates. Fox conducted their poll on the 13th and 14th.
To account for the low approval ratings, one cannot skip the fact that it was conducted online. "Propensity score weighting was ... used to adjust for respondents’ propensity to be online" according to Harris but if there exists a bias within any of the demographics then it would show up in the results.
Anybody can sign up to take these online polls, just join directly through their website Harris Poll Online.
Approval Ratings by Category
Marist polled registered voters, Harris and CBS polled all adults.
Pollster Overall Dem Ind Rep
Harris 45 77 40 14
CBS 56 87 52 20
Marist 53 84 45 21
Obama consistently scores lower across all party IDs in the Harris poll.
Pollster Age 1 Age 2 Age 3 Age 4
Harris 51 42 45 39
Marist 70 57 46 46
Obama scores an average of 17% lower in the lower two age brackets and just an average of 4% lower in the higher two age brackets. So if there was a bias, it seems to be based on age.
It could be that young voters are more critical of Obama if they are either online or not registered to vote.
Since the results of this poll is more of an outlier than it is a rule, look at it as such.
Unless there are more polls showing Obama's approval rating to be at or below 50% in all age groups, take the results here in stride.
Rahm, Axelrod: Fox 'Not News’
White House advisers pledged on Sunday to book administration officials on Fox News despite claims by the president's inner circle that the cable network is a GOP mouthpiece whose programming "is geared toward making money."
Last week, White House communications director Anita Dunn said Fox News operates "almost as either the research arm or the communications arm of the Republican Party." On Sunday, Rahm Emanuel, President Barack Obama's chief of staff, said, "It is not a news organization so much as it has a perspective."
Fox News commentators Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity have been strong Obama critics, and Bill O'Reilly has taken tough looks at the administration. Obama avoided "Fox News Sunday" when he visited five Sunday morning news shows last month, and a recent White House blog post accused Beck of lying. Beck has called Obama a racist.
Karl Rove, a Fox News contributor and former White House adviser to President George W. Bush, said the Obama administration is trying to demonize Fox News for asking questions officials do not like. He compared Obama's approach to that of President Richard Nixon, who included journalists on an "enemies list."
"This is a White House engaging in its own version of the media enemies list," Rove said. "And it's unhelpful for the country and undignified for the president of the United States to so do."
Appearing on ABC's "This Week," senior Obama adviser David Axelrod said Fox News shouldn't be treated as a news organization. "And the bigger thing is that other news organizations, like yours, ought not to treat them that way, and we're not going to treat them that way," he said.
Still, Axelrod said administration officials would appear on the channel. He shrugged off News Corp. chairman Rupert Murdoch's remark to shareholders last Friday that since the White House began criticizing Fox News commentators their ratings have risen.
"You know, I'm not concerned. Mr. Murdoch has a talent for making money, and I understand that their programming is geared toward making money," Axelrod said. "The only argument Anita was making is that they're not really a news station. ... It's not just their commentators, but a lot of their news programming. It's really not news. It's pushing a point of view."
Emanuel appeared on CNN's "State of the Union" and Rove on "Fox News Sunday."
White House boasts: We 'control' news media
Communications chief offers shocking confession to foreign government
By Aaron Klein
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
TEL AVIV – President Obama's presidential campaign focused on "making" the news media cover certain issues while rarely communicating anything to the press unless it was "controlled," White House Communications Director Anita Dunn disclosed to the Dominican government at a videotaped conference.
"Very rarely did we communicate through the press anything that we didn't absolutely control," said Dunn.
"One of the reasons we did so many of the David Plouffe videos was not just for our supporters, but also because it was a way for us to get our message out without having to actually talk to reporters," said Dunn, referring to Plouffe, who was Obama's chief campaign manager.
"We just put that out there and made them write what Plouffe had said as opposed to Plouffe doing an interview with a reporter. So it was very much we controlled it as opposed to the press controlled it," Dunn said.
Check out the hot new best-seller -- "Muslim Mafia"
Continued Dunn: "Whether it was a David Plouffe video or an Obama speech, a huge part of our press strategy was focused on making the media cover what Obama was actually saying as opposed to why the campaign was saying it, what the tactic was. … Making the press cover what we were saying."
Video of Dunn's remarks at the conference can be seen below:
Dunn was speaking at a Jan. 12, 2009, event focusing on Obama's media tactics and hosted by the Global Foundation for Democracy and Development, which seeks to promote collaboration between the U.S. and the Dominican Republic. The event was held in Santo Domingo and was attended by the country's president.
Dunn has been facing some criticism since she led a White House campaign last week against Fox News, slamming the top-rated network as an "arm of the Republican Party" and "opinion journalism masquerading as news."
Fox hit back this past Friday, releasing a video of Dunn speaking to high school students last June in which she lists her two "favorite political philosophers," including Communist Chinese leader Mao Tse-tung, whose draconian policies are blamed for the deaths of tens of millions of people.
Video of Dunn's speech, broadcast during a segment of Glenn Beck's evening show on the Fox News Channel, can be seen below:
With additional research by Brenda J. Elliott
"The e-mail Bag"
How to get to Heaven from Ireland
I was testing children in my Dublin Sunday school class to see if they understood the concept of getting to heaven..
I asked them, 'If I sold my house and my car, had a big jumble sale and gave all my money to the church, would that get me into heaven?'
'NO!' the children answered.
'If I cleaned the church every day, mowed the garden, and kept everything tidy, would that get me into heaven?'
Again, the answer was 'No!' By now I was starting to smile.
' Well, then, if I was kind to animals and gave sweeties to all the children, and loved my husband, would that get me into heaven?'
Again, they all answered 'No!'. I was just bursting with pride for them.
I continued, ' Then how can I get into heaven?'
A six year-old boy shouted out " YUV GOTTA BE DEAD.........."