ConservativeChristianRepublican-Report - 20100122

ConservativeChristianRepublican-Report - 20100122
Motivational-Inspirational-Historical-Educational-Political-Enjoyable

Promoting "God's Holy Values and American Freedoms"!



"Daily Motivations"

"Make failure your teacher, not your undertaker." -- Zig Ziglar

"Some people are always grumbling because roses have thorns. I am thankful that thorns have roses." -- Allophones Karr

Let us always meet each other with a smile, for the smile is the beginning of love. -- Mother Teresa



"Daily Devotions" (KJV and/or NLT)

Obey God because you are His children. Don't slip back into your old ways of doing evil; you didn't know any better then. (1 Peter 1:14)

If we are to behave with the character of Christ, we must trust and obey our loving heavenly Father.

A story is told of a loving father who was trying to save his daughter during a bombing raid in World War II. Fleeing a building that had just been hit and desperate for shelter, he spied a large hole from an earlier shell explosion. He leaped in, then lifted his arms to catch his child. The terrified girl cried out that she could not see him. He looked up and saw her silhouette illuminated by tracer lights and fire. The father called out to her, "I can see you. Jump!" When she heard the encouraging words of her father, she jumped into the safety of his arms.

Our wise and all-knowing God sees us everyday, and He knows how to protect us from dangers---both spiritual and physical. When we bend to His will and discipline, we are jumping into His invisible arms. We are demonstrating our love and are trusting in His wisdom rather than relying on our own understanding.

As we daily surrender our plans and desires to our loving Father, we reflect the character of Jesus. In obedience to His Father, Jesus sacrificed everything. He gave up His life and took upon Himself the horror and guilt of our sins. This choice to obey was not easy, as His battle in Gethsemane reveals. The Bible describes His sweat as "drops of blood" as He pleaded, "Father, if You are willing, take this cup from Me; yet not My will, but Yours be done" (Luke 22:42, NIV).

Your View of God Really Matters …

Like the little girl above, have you yet "jumped" into your Father's arms, with abandon and trust? If not, do so today, by faith. He will not let you fall.



"The Patriot Post"

"Public affairs go on pretty much as usual: perpetual chicanery and rather more personal abuse than there used to be..." --John Adams



Government & Politics

If By 'Transparent' You Mean 'Secret'...

After much bribery and arm-twisting, the Senate managed just before Christmas to pass its version of ObamaCare by a 60-39 vote (amazingly, without a single GOP "aye"). Now, the bill heads for conference deliberation televised by C-SPAN, just as the cable channel offered and Barack Obama promised numerous times http://www.breitbart.tv/the-c-span-lie-did-obama-really-promise-televised-healthcare-negotiations/.

Or not.

Democrats let slip this week that there would be no typical conference committee on the competing House and Senate versions of the health bill, as "leaders" opted instead for private negotiations with "key" congressmen and senators, none of whom is Republican. Once an agreement is reached, each legislative chamber will vote again and send the unified bill to the president.

Without a conference committee, a rule requiring public access to the conference report for at least 48 hours before a vote would conveniently not apply. That means even more liberty-stealing treachery can be slipped into the bill with little notice. Funny how the "public option" doesn't mean that the public gets to know what's in the bill.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) nevertheless had the gall to declare, "There has never been a more open process for any legislation in anyone who's served here's experience." In response, Wall Street Journal columnist James Taranto mocked, "Has a more false or awkwardly worded statement ever come out of anyone who has served as speaker of the House's mouth?"

In spite of Democrats' best efforts at "transparency," there are many extra-special things that we actually do know about the bill.. For example, on page 1,020, the Senate bill states: "It shall not be in order in the Senate or the House of Representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection." In other words, the bill creates an eternal law by prohibiting future elected Congresses from making changes to this subsection.

What's in the subsection in question? The infamous "death panel" -- the Independent Medicare Advisory Board (IMAB), whose objective will be to "reduce the per capita rate of growth in Medicare spending" (read: to ration health care).

Meanwhile, the bill contains what amounts to a marriage penalty worth $2,000 or more in insurance premiums each year. The Wall Street Journal http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126281943134818675.html explains, "The disparity comes about in part because subsidies for purchasing health insurance under the plan from congressional Democrats are pegged to federal poverty guidelines. That has the effect of limiting subsidies for married couples with a combined income, compared to if the individuals are single."

Finally, Obama signaled this week that he's willing to break another campaign promise: The "no tax increases on the middle class" pledge. He threw his support behind the Senate's tax on higher end "Cadillac" insurance plans, something unions and House Democrats oppose.

The more the public learns about this continuing saga, the more vigorously opposed they become to "reform." No wonder Democrats want the process to remain secret.



The BIG Lies

"We will have a public, uh, process for forming this plan. It'll be televised on C-SPAN.... It will be transparent and accountable to the American people." --Barack Obama, November 2007

"That's what I will do in bringing all parties together, not negotiating behind closed doors, but bringing all parties together, and broadcasting those negotiations on C-SPAN so that the American people can see what the choices are, because part of what we have to do is enlist the American people in this process." --Barack Obama, January 2008

"[T]hese negotiations will be on C-SPAN..." --Barack Obama, January 2008

"We're gonna do all these negotiations on C-SPAN so the American people will be able to watch these negotiations." --Barack Obama, March 2008

"All this will be done on C-SPAN in front of the public.." --Barack Obama, April 2008

"I want the negotiations to be taking place on C-SPAN." --Barack Obama, May 2008

"[W]e'll have the negotiations televised on C-SPAN, so that people can see who is making arguments on behalf of their constituents, and who is, who are making arguments on behalf of the drug companies or the insurance companies." --Barack Obama, August 2008

"We will work on this process publicly. It'll be on C-SPAN. It will be streaming over the Net." --Barack Obama, November 2008



Democrat 'Constitutional Scholars' at It Again

When questioned several weeks back about the constitutional authority for ObamaCare, Obama's publicist, Robert Gibbs, issued this disclaimer: "I don't believe there's a lot of -- I don't believe there's a lot of case law that would demonstrate the veracity" of questions about constitutional authority. Ah, yes, "case law." That's code for amending our Constitution by judicial diktat rather than via its prescribed method as stated in Article V.

This week, Gibbs reiterated, "I do not believe that anybody has legitimate constitutional concerns about the [health care] legislation."

Furthermore, when asked where the authority to mandate that Americans buy health insurance -- that they be forced under penalty of fine or imprisonment to engage in a particular commercial enterprise -- is located in the Constitution, Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-CA) answered, "Well, I would assume it would be in the Commerce clause of the Constitution. That's how Congress legislates all kinds of various programs."

Congress too often uses this clause to do whatever it wants to do (the legislative target might, just might, some day engage in interstate commerce, don't you know,) but this incorrect interpretation certainly doesn't make this legislation constitutional.



Quote of the Week

"America's founders intended the federal government to have limited powers and that the states have an independent sovereign place in our system of government. The Obama/Reid/Pelosi legislation to take control of the American health-care system is the most sweeping and intrusive federal program ever devised. If the federal government can do this, then it can do anything, and the limits on government power that our liberty requires will be more myth than reality." --Wall Street Journal op-ed by Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Liberty University School of Law professor Kenneth Blackwell and American Civil Rights Union senior legal analyst Kenneth Klukowski



The Founding Fathers on Jesus, Christianity and the Bible

Elbridge Gerry

SIGNER OF THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE; MEMBER OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION; FRAMER OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS, GOVERNOR OF MASSACHUSETTS, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

He called on the State of Massachusetts to pray that . . .

with one heart and voice we may prostrate ourselves at the throne of heavenly grace and present to our Great Benefactor sincere and unfeigned thanks for His infinite goodness and mercy towards us from our birth to the present moment for having above all things illuminated us by the Gospel of Jesus Christ, presenting to our view the happy prospect of a blessed immortality.32
And for our unparalleled ingratitude to that Adorable Being Who has seated us in a land irradiated by the cheering beams of the Gospel of Jesus Christ . . . let us fall prostrate before offended Deity, confess sincerely and penitently our manifold sins and our unworthiness of the least of His Divine favors, fervently implore His pardon through the merits of our mediator.33
And deeply impressed with a scene of our unparalleled ingratitude, let us contemplate the blessings which have flowed from the unlimited grave and favor of offended Deity, that we are still permitted to enjoy the first of Heaven’s blessings: the Gospel of Jesus Christ. 34
Endnotes

32. Elbridge Gerry, Proclamation for a Day of Thanksgiving and Praise, October 24, 1810, from a proclamation in our possession, EAI #20675.
33. Elbridge Gerry, Proclamation for a Day of Fasting and Prayer, March 13, 1811, from a proclamation in our possession, Shaw #23317.
34. Elbridge Gerry, Proclamation for a Day of Fasting and Prayer, March 6, 1812, from a proclamation in our possession, Shaw #26003.



"The Web"

Supreme Court Removes Limits on Corporate, Labor Donations to Campaigns

FOXNews.com

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/01/21/supreme-court-sides-hillary-movie-filmmakers-campaign-money-dispute/

In a stunning reversal of the nation's federal campaign finance laws, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 Thursday that free-speech rights permit groups like corporations and labor unions to directly spend on political campaigns, prompting the White House to pledge "forceful" action to undercut the decision.

AP2009

(In a stunning reversal of the nation's federal campaign finance laws, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 Thursday that free-speech rights permit groups like corporations and labor unions to directly spend on political campaigns, prompting the White House to pledge "forceful" action to undercut the decision.

In a written statement, President Obama said the high court had "given a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics." He called it a "major victory" for Wall Street, health insurance companies and other interests which would diminish the influence of Americans who give small donations. Obama pledged to "work immediately" with Congress to develop a "forceful response."

"The public interest requires nothing less," Obama said.

Siding with filmmakers of "Hillary: The Movie," who were challenged by the Federal Election Commission on their sources of cash to pay for the film, the court overturned a 20-year-old ruling that banned corporate and labor money. The decision threatens similar limits imposed by 24 states.

The justices also struck down part of the landmark McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill that barred union- and corporate-paid issue ads in the closing days of election campaigns.

Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the main opinion, which reads in part that there is "no basis for allowing the government to limit corporate independent expenditures."
"There is no basis for the proposition that, in the political speech context, the government may impose restrictions on certain disfavored speakers," he wrote. "The government may regulate corporate speech through disclaimer and disclosure requirements, but it may not suppress that speech altogether."

Dissenters included Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor.

"The notion that the First Amendment dictated [today's ruling] is, in my judgment, profoundly misguided," Stevens wrote for the others.

"In the context of election to public office, the distinction between corporate and human speakers is significant. Although they make enormous contributions to our society, corporations are not actually members of it," he added.

The ruling is sure to send a jolt to political campaigns throughout the country that are gearing up for the 2010 midterm elections. It will also impact the 2012 presidential race and federal elections to come.

Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain, whose name bears the law that was upended Thursday, said he hadn't read the decision but thought that it was headed that way when he listened to arguments presented last fall. McCain said he does not think it completely repudiates the law he wrote with Wisconsin Democratic Sen. Russ Feingold.

Feingold issued a statement that notes the decision does not overturn the ban on soft money donations to political parties, which can then distribute cash to candidates.

"But this decision was a terrible mistake," he said. "This court has just upended that prohibition, and a century's worth of campaign finance law designed to stem corruption in government. The American people will pay dearly for this decision when, more than ever, their voices are drowned out by corporate spending in our federal elections."

The case involves the film by conservative group Citizens United, which criticized then-presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton during the 2008 Democratic presidential primary campaign.

Citizens United planned to air ads promoting its distribution through cable television video-on-demand services. The FEC said the film amounted to a campaign ad and that Citizens United, an incorporated entity that takes corporate money, could only use limited, disclosed contributions from individuals to promote and broadcast it.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, AFL-CIO, National Rifle Association and other groups sided with Citizens United in calling a loosening of restrictions.

"This is a victory for Citizens United, but even more so for the First Amendment rights of all Americans," said Citizens United President David Bossie. "The fault line on this issue does not split liberals and conservatives or Republicans and Democrats. Instead, it pits entrenched establishment politicians against the very people whom they are elected to serve."

In concluding his opinion, Kennedy drew a parallel with concern raised over a movie that many consider a classic, "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington." Kennedy wrote that some government officials tried to discourage the film's distribution. He said people will naturally disagree with the content and meaning of Hillary: The Movie, but "those choices and assessments, however, are not for the government to make."

But watchdog groups like Common Cause and Public Citizen called the ruling a blow to democracy. Public Citizen said it is "going to do everything we can to mitigate the damage from today's decision, and to overturn this misguided ruling."

Feingold said he too is working on new legislation to restore restraints on corporate participation.



Supreme Court decimates McCain-Feingold campaign finance law; Update: Citizens United reacts to victory

By Michelle Malkin

http://michellemalkin.com/2010/01/21/supreme-court-decimates-mccain-feingold-campaign-finance-law/

Many of you may remember a scathing documentary by Citizens United about Hillary Clinton from 2007. I blogged about it at the time here.

The film became the center of a huge legal battle over the free-speech-stifling McCain-Feingold campaign finance scheme.

Parts of the law were struck down by the Supreme Court when the Wisconsin Right to Life group challeged advertising provisions in 2007.

Today, the law took an even bigger hit as a majority sided with Citizens United:

In a stunning reversal of the nation’s federal campaign finance laws, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 Thursday that as an exercise of free speech, corporations, labor unions and other groups can directly spend on political campaigns.

Siding with filmmakers of “Hillary: The Movie,” who were challenged by the Federal Election Commission on their sources of cash to pay for the film, the court overturned a 20-year-old ruling that banned corporate and labor money. The decision threatens similar limits imposed by 24 states.

The justices also struck down part of the landmark McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill that barred union- and corporate-paid issue ads in the closing days of election campaigns.

Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the main opinion, which reads in part that there is “no basis for allowing the government to limit corporate independent expenditures.”

“There is no basis for the proposition that, in the political speech context, the government may impose restrictions on certain disfavored speakers,” he wrote. “The government may regulate corporate speech through disclaimer and disclosure requirements, but it may not suppress that speech altogether.”

Dissenters included Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor.

“The notion that the First Amendment dictated [today's ruling] is, in my judgment, profoundly misguided,” Stevens wrote for the others.

“In the context of election to public office, the distinction between corporate and human speakers is significant. Although they make enormous contributions to our society, corporations are not actually members of it,” he added.

The ruling is sure to send a jolt to political campaigns throughout the country that are gearing up for the 2010 midterm elections. It will also impact the 2012 presidential race and federal elections to come.

Yet another reminder of how wrong-headed McCain has been on so many, many issues.

***

Ed Morrissey has much more background and analysis at Hot Air.

The opinion is here (thanks to Steve G).

Nathan Wurtzel tweets: “Not at all sure GOPers who see SCOTUS decision as a political plus are seeing whole picture. It certainly is constitutionally correct.”

A couple of points:

Yes, unions will benefit from the ruling and spend more money. But sunlight is the best disinfectant. Full, transparent, accessible disclosure is the ultimate campaign finance reform.

As for viewing the decision through the “political plus” lens: I don’t. The Constitution matters more than electoral consequences. Too bad more in Washington don’t see it that way.

Citizens United reacts to the decision:

Statement From David N. Bossie, President of Citizens United

“Today’s U.S. Supreme Court decision allowing Citizens United to air its documentary films and advertisements is a tremendous victory, not only for Citizens United but for every American who desires to participate in the political process.

“As our case amply demonstrates, campaign finance legislation over the last two decades has imposed, as Justice Kennedy put it, a “censorship . . . vast in its reach.” By overruling Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce and striking down McCain-Feingold’s ban on so-called electioneering communications, the Supreme Court has made possible the participation in our political process that is the right of every American citizen – a right that had been severely curtailed under McCain-Feingold .

“This is a victory for Citizens United, but even more so for the First Amendment rights of all Americans. The fault line on this issue does not split liberals and conservatives or Republicans and Democrats. Instead, it pits entrenched establishment politicians against the very people whom they are elected to serve.

“First and foremost, I would like to thank Mr. and Mrs. Lawrence Kadish who have been incredibly generous from the very first day of this process. We would never have been able to reach the Supreme Court without their support. I also need to thank the thousands of donors who exercised their right to free speech to support Citizens United and this defense of the First Amendment.

“The Citizens United Board of Directors deserves a great deal of credit for recognizing the potential of this case and supporting my decision to take this fight head-on. I need to thank our legal team, beginning with Michael Boos, Vice President and General Counsel at Citizens United, and the leader of this tremendous legal team. That team included Jim Bopp, a man who has been fighting McCain-Feingold since its inception and did a phenomenal job with the early stages of this case. Finally, Ted Olsen, Matthew McGill, Amir Tayrani and the entire team at Gibson Dunn, are attorneys without peer and deserve a tremendous amount of credit for the work that they did on this case.

“Last and certainly not least, I need to thank my family for putting up with the long hours it took over the last four years to bring this case to the Supreme Court. I could not have done it without them.”



Obama's Broken Promises

http://stossel.blogs.foxbusiness.com/2010/01/20/obamas-broken-promises/

In a Reason Magazine interview last year, Ted Balaker asked me about my hopes for the incoming Obama administration. "Maybe Obama will be financially responsible," I said.

I’m so inclined to wishful thinking.

It's now been one year since Obama took office. He promised fiscal responsibility. Then he broke lots of those promises. Here is a list of some:

Promise #6: No Tax Increase on Families Making Under 250k

“Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase - not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes,” Obama said in a September 2008 town hall meeting in Dover.

Reality: In his first year in office, he proposed Cap and Trade, which would be a fat tax on everyone. He increased the cigarette tax by 159 percent, and now we have that proposed tax on fancy health care benefits.

During the campaign, he criticized John McCain for just suggesting that.

“My opponent can't make that pledge [not to raise taxes] and here’s why: for the first time in American history, John McCain wants to tax your health care benefits," he said in the same speech.

But now it's Obama who wants to tax health plans:

“This reform will charge insurance companies a fee for their most expensive policies,” he said in his health care address to Congress.

Promise #5: Ban Earmarks

"We are going to ban all earmarks,” Obama said at a press conference on January 6, 2009.

Reality: The first spending bill he signed had over 9,000 earmarks.

Promise #4: I Won't Force Americans To Buy Insurance

During the campaign, Obama attacked Hillary Clinton:

“She believes we have to force people who don’t have insurance,” he said in a primary debate in January 2008.

In a Feb. 2008 CNN interview, he added: “If a mandate was the solution, we could try that to solve homelessness by mandating that everybody buy a house.”

Reality: This September, he told Congress: “Under my plan, individuals will be required to carry basic health insurance.”

Promise #3: Health care negotiations will be on C-SPAN

Obama promised at least eight times that "we’re going to do all the negotiations on C-SPAN, So the American people will be able to watch.”

Reality: They haven’t been there.

Well, briefly. C-SPAN CEO Brian Lamb said, “The only time we’ve been allowed to cover the White House part of it was one hour inside the East Room, which was kind of just a show horse type of thing.”

Promise #2: Putting bills online

Obama promised “When there’s a bill that ends up on my desk as President, you the public will have five days to look online, and find out what’s in it before I sign it.”

Reality: He broke that promise when he singed his first bill, the Fair Pay Act. He's broken it since, for instance on the Credit Card Bill of Rights and an expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program.

Promise #1: Cutting spending

On the campaign trail, Obama promised to cut spending several times. In the second presidential debate, he said that “actually, I am cutting more than I’m spending. So it will be a net spending cut.”

In the third debate, he reiterated: “what I've done throughout this campaign is to propose a net spending cut.”

Of course, Republicans made claims like that, too. Bush Sr. is famous for his “Read my lips. No new taxes” line. Bush Jr. made statements like “Prosperity requires restraining the spending appetite of the federal government.”

Reality: Here’s a graph:

Under both parties, government’s appetite grows.

But look how sharply the line rose after Obama took office. Spending increased 2 TRILLION dollars -- more than any year in history.



Boehner: Democrats Vote to Keep Health Care Negotiations Secret

http://gopleader.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=167213

GOP Leader: “Democrats are already showing they haven’t learned the lessons of the Massachusetts special election.”

House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) issued the following statement after House Democrats voted to keep health care reform negotiations secret by rejecting consideration of Rep. Vern Buchanan’s (R-FL) resolution (H. Res. 847) making these talks public:

“By voting to keep health care reform negotiations secret, Democrats are already showing they haven’t learned the lessons of the Massachusetts special election. Despite repeatedly promising these talks would be public and broadcast on C-SPAN, President Obama and Washington Democrats continue to keep the American people in the dark. These secret deliberations are a breeding ground for backroom deals and legislative landmines that end up not being discovered until it’s too late. Only by having full transparency can the American people find out who’s getting the sweetheart deals and who’s getting the short end of the stick. Republicans will continue to seek any and all means to pass Rep. Buchanan’s transparency resolution so we can have the public health care talks the American people deserve.”

NOTE: Rep. Buchanan’s bipartisan resolution, which has more than 150 co-sponsors, is part of a transparency initiative Republicans introduced in November to make Congress more open and accountable to the people it serves. Last week, Rep. Buchanan filed a discharge petition which, if signed by 218 Representatives, would force a vote on his transparency resolution.



DumbAssity of the Day: Hillary Clinton Lifts Visa Ban on Islamic Terrorist “Scholars”

By Debbie Schlussel

http://www.debbieschlussel.com/15767/dumbassity-of-the-day-hillary-clinton-lifts-ban-on-extremist-muslim-scholars-from-terrorist-grp/

It’s bad enough that the State Department issued a two-year visa to Northewst Flight 253 terrorist Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, and then Hillary Clinton failed to revoke it when his father told officials in her (and our) embassy in Nigeria that his son was a terrorist. Hillary got away with that. And Barack Obama took little, if any, blame.



Hillary Admits Muslim Brotherhood Grandson, Tariq Ramadan

Now he and Hillary are lifting the ban on extremist Muslim “scholars” who openly support and endorse Islamic terrorism, including Tariq Ramadan, whose grandfather, Hassan El-Banna, founded the Muslim Brotherhood (the mother organization to HAMAS, Yasser Arafat, Al-Qaeda, and Al-Qaeda mastermind Ayman Al-Zawahiri). This is the group that masterminded the assassination of Anwar Sadat and the shooting murders of tourists in the massacre at the Temples at Luxor. Ramadan is an open supporter of HAMAS–to which he donated $1,336–and other Islamic terrorist groups. Plus, Ramadan worked for Iran!

Hellooooo . . . ? Did they learn NOTHING from Abdulmutallab’s near-murder of 300 American passengers over U.S. soil? Yes, apparently they did learn nothing. Un-frickin’-believable:

The State Department has cleared the way for two prominent but controversial scholars to return to the United States.

State Department spokesman Darby Holladay said Wednesday that Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has signed orders enabling the scholars’ entry if they obtain visas.

The professors are Tariq Ramadan of Oxford University and Adam Habib of the University of Johannesburg.

Holladay said Clinton decided to use her exemption authority for the benefit of the professors.

“For the benefit of the professors”? What about the benefit of America’s national security? Did she bother to think of that, after she already screwed up monumentally in the case of Abdulmutallab? The government said, previously, that Habib “engaged in terrorist activity.”

The American Civil Liberties Union said it expects the scholars will now get visas within weeks of requesting them.

In an ACLU statement, Habib called it a personal victory and also a victory “for democracy around the world.”

Figures they’re involved. Keep in mind that Hillary didn’t make this decision on her own. This is a joint Obama-Clinton venture into DumbAssity (a word I coined and which fits like a glove here and, sadly, so many other instances in this administration). It’s a “gesture” (as if we need more of them) of “outreach” to the extremist Muslim world. Disgusting.

In August, a Dutch university, Erasmus University, fired Ramadan over his extremism and his work for the Islamic Republic of Iran. Why didn’t we get the hint from the Dutch? The Wall Street Journal got it right:

We’d certainly agree that working for the Islamic Republic doesn’t become a supposedly moderate “integration adviser” who was tasked with bridging the divide between Rotterdam’s Muslim and non-Muslim communities. . . .

Mr. Ramadan . . . likes to talk about democracy and following the rule of law—but only as long as the law doesn’t contradict an Islamic principle. He rejects terrorism and violence but thinks that blowing up eight-year-old Israeli children is “contextually explicable.” He supposedly stands for a modern Islam, but he refused to reject the stoning of adulterers when then-interior minister and future French President Nicolas Sarkozy challenged him on the subject in a 2003 TV debate. All Mr. Ramadan could bring himself to say was to call for a “moratorium” on the practice.

Yeah, we really need more of that poison in America. The cancer continues. If Ramadan is a “religious scholar,” so is Charles Manson, and he should be released from prison immediately.

This isn’t just DumbAssity. It’s Super Double Secret Probation DumbAssity. America . . . Desperate But Not Serious in the War Against Islamic Extremism and Terrorism.



"The e-mail Bag"

TEACHING MATH THROUGH THE DECADES.

Teaching Math in 1950
A logger sells a truckload of lumber for one hundred dollars.
His cost of production is 4/5 of the price. What is his profit?


Teaching Math in 1960
A logger sells a truckload of lumber for one hundred dollars.
His cost of production is 4/5 of the price, or eighty dollars.
What is his profit?

Teaching Math in 1970
A logger exchanges a set "L" of lumber for a set "M" of money.
The cardinality of set "M" is 100.
Each element is worth one dollar.
Make 100 dots representing the elements of the set "M."
The set "C", the cost of production contains 20 fewer points than set "M”.
Represent the set "C" as a subset of set "M" and answer the following question: What is the cardinality of the set "P" of profits?

Teaching Math in 1980
A logger sells a truckload of lumber for one hundred dollars.
His cost of production is eighty dollars and his profit is 20 dollars.
Your assignment: Underline the number 20.

Teaching Math in 1990
By cutting down beautiful forest trees, a logger makes a very good living and is prosperous.
What do you think of this way of making a living?
Topic for class participation after answering the above question: How do you think the forest birds and squirrels felt as the logger cut down their trees?
There are no wrong answers.

Teaching Math in 2000
A logger sells a truckload of lumber for one hundred dollars.
His cost of production is one hundred and twenty dollars.
How does Arthur Andersen determine that his profit margin is sixty dollars?

Teaching Math in 2010
El hachero vende un camion carga por un mil dollares.
Qual es la cuesta de producion? (My three years of college Spanish is long gone, but I think this is incomplete -- unless this is intentional and I don't get it. Help! np)