Motivational-Inspirational-Historical-Educational-Political-Enjoyable
Promoting "God's Holy Values and American Freedoms"!
"Daily Motivations"
"When we all relate to each other as we would like to receive if our roles are reversed, we move closer to utopia. Every one of us can bring this closer, starting now. This includes how we relate to our own family, our neighbors and how we use our wealth and opportunities to help entire nations that lack our advantages." -- Bill Blackman
"When one must, one can." -- Yiddish Proverb
A culture of accountability makes a good organization great and a great organization unstoppable. -- Henry J. Evans
"Daily Devotions" (KJV and/or NLT)
The LORD is righteous in everything He does. (Psalm 145:17)
God is a righteous judge. All righteousness within the entire universe has its origin in Him.
Everything God does is perfectly right in every way. For God, righteousness is not an external standard that He must adhere to; righteousness is part of His very nature. It emanates from His inner being. If God were not inherently holy and just, He could not act righteously. As a result, whatever God wills is perfectly right. It is impossible for God to do anything wrong.
As a judge, He has never made a wrong determination. He has never had to reverse a decision when He learned more facts. No one can question His judgment in all His actions.
When you walk into a courtroom and face the judge, you may wonder, "Who gave this judge the power to decide between right and wrong? Who gave the judge the moral and legal authority to pronounce what is righteous behavior and what is grievous misbehavior deserving punishment?" Furthermore, these judges are subject to human passions and can misuse their authority.
But we are not talking about an appointed judge, prone to weaknesses. An infinite and powerful God does not need anyone to elect or appoint Him, to give Him righteousness. He was righteous before the beginning of time and always will be.
God is the standard by which every evaluation of righteousness must be compared.
Your View of God Really Matters …
If God really is the source of all righteousness, what do you have to do to be righteous enough to please God? Apart from taking God at His word, is there any other way to be righteous enough to satisfy God? (Read Romans 4:3-6 if you need help with this question.)
"The Patriot Post"
"Resolve to perform what you ought. Perform without fail what you resolve." -- Benjamin Franklin
Re: The Left
"President Obama, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi -- all of whom have in recent years promised unprecedented levels of transparency in government -- are flouting their own words by meeting in secret to write the final version of Obamacare. They are doing this to avoid the public meetings of a bipartisan conference committee representing the Senate and House and the multiple, on-the-record roll call votes required in both chambers on a conference committee report. The most radical expansion of central government power in American history is happening right under journalists' noses, and yet they raise not a peep of protest when the doors close, effectively barring them from doing their jobs at a critical juncture. ... It's time for a sit-down protest by journalists whose first job is to uphold the public's right to know what its government is doing. Invite readers to come join them in demanding open meetings. The last thing Reid and Pelosi want is the spectacle of the Capitol Hill Police dragging protesting journalists away from the closed doors. It's time to show some cojones, people." -- The Washington Examiner
Government
"President Obama is a great admirer of the Mayo Clinic. Time and again he has extolled it as an outstanding model of health-care excellence and efficiency. ... They 'offer the highest quality care at costs well below the national norm,' he wrote. 'We need to learn from their successes and replicate those best practices across our country.' On the White House web site, you can find more than a dozen other instances of Obama's esteem. So perhaps the president will give some thought to the Mayo Clinic's recent decision to stop accepting Medicare payments at its primary care facility in Glendale, Ariz. More than 3,000 patients will have to start paying cash if they wish to continue being seen by doctors at the clinic; those unable or unwilling to do so must look for new physicians. For now, Mayo is limiting the change in policy to its Glendale facility. But it may be just a matter of time before it drops Medicare at its other facilities in Arizona, Florida, and Minnesota as well. Why would an institution renowned for providing health care of 'the best quality and the lowest cost' choose to sever its ties with the government's flagship single-payer insurance program? Because the relationship is one it can't afford. Last year, the Mayo Clinic lost $840 million on its Medicare patients. At the Glendale clinic specifically, a spokesman told Bloomberg, Medicare reimbursements covered only 50 percent of the cost of treating elderly primary-care patients. Not even the leanest, most efficient medical organization can keep doing business with a program that compels it to eat half its costs. In breaking away from Medicare, the Mayo Clinic is hardly blazing a trail. Back in 2008, the independent Medicare Payment Advisory Commission reported that 29 percent of Medicare beneficiaries -- more than 1 in 4 -- have trouble finding a primary-care doctor to treat them. A survey by the Texas Medical Association that year found that only 38 percent of that state's primary-care physicians were accepting new Medicare patients. But if you think things are bad now, just wait until Congress enacts the president's health care overhaul." -- columnist Jeff Jacoby
For the Record
"For those of you who may have been off the grid over the weekend the big news was an item in a new book by Mullpal Mark Halperin and John Heilemann titled 'Game Change' in which Majority Leader Harry Reid was quoted as using inappropriate language when describing then-Senator Barack Obama. According to the reporting: 'Reid said Obama could fare well nationally as an African-American candidate because he was "light-skinned" and didn't speak with a "Negro dialect unless he wanted to have one."' Ok. The whole double standard thing was duly marinated over the weekend -- if this had been an Republican would Al Sharpton have given him/her a pass as he did to Reid? And so on. ... President Obama issued a statement forgiving Harry Reid before the ink had even dried on the pages of the book. Yet it took him three days to figure out what to say about the guy who tried to blow up that plane on Christmas Day. Second, according to the reporting, Reid made those statements to 'a group of reporters.' Whoa! Check, please! To a group of reporters? None of whom thought this was newsworthy? For whom did those reporters write, 'My Weekly Reader'? If not evidence of a double standard, then it is certainly evidence of journalistic incompetence." -- political analyst Rich Galen
Faith & Family
"The secular left -- and some self-described Christians -- criticize Brit Hume, the Fox News commentator, for suggesting that the solution to Tiger Woods' problems is a relationship with Jesus Christ. Hume made his remarks on 'Fox News Sunday.' Disclosure: I also appear on Fox News. Hume said, 'My message to Tiger would be: Tiger, turn to the Christian faith and you can make a total recovery and be a great example to the world..' That is a message shared for 2,000 years by those who follow Jesus of Nazareth. It apparently continues to escape the secular left that Christians feel compelled to share their faith out of gratitude for what Jesus has done for them (dying in their place on a cross and offering a new life to those who repent and receive Him as savior). In a day when some extremists employ violence to advance their religion, it is curious that many would save their criticism for a truly peace-bringing message such as the one broadcast by Brit Hume. Criticism of Hume has taken two forms. One is that it is hubris to presume the Christian faith is superior to other faiths. The other criticism is that Hume used Fox as a pulpit and if he wants to preach he should resign from the network and go door to door like a Jehovah's Witness. .... Christians like Hume are not trying to impose anything on anyone. They know the difference Jesus has made in their lives and they care enough about others to want to share His message in the hope that other lives will be similarly transformed." -- columnist Cal Thomas
Opinion in Brief
"If there is any lesson in the history of ideas, it is that good intentions tell you nothing about the actual consequences. But intellectuals who generate ideas do not have to pay the consequences. Academic intellectuals are shielded by the principles of academic freedom and journalists in democratic societies are shielded by the principle of freedom of the press. Seldom do those who produce or peddle dangerous, or even fatal, ideas have to pay a price, even in a loss of credibility. ... Even political leaders have been judged by how noble their ideas sounded, rather than by how disastrous their consequences were. ... It may seem strange that so many people of great intellect have said and done so many things whose consequences ranged from counterproductive to catastrophic. Yet it is not so surprising when we consider whether anybody has ever had the range of knowledge required to make the sweeping kinds of decisions that so many intellectuals are prone to make, especially when they pay no price for being wrong. Intellectuals and their followers have often been overly impressed by the fact that intellectuals tend, on average, to have more knowledge than other individuals in their society. What they have overlooked is that intellectuals have far less knowledge than the total knowledge possessed by the millions of other people whom they disdain and whose decisions they seek to override. We have had to learn the consequences of elite preemption the hard way -- and many of us have yet to learn that lesson." -- economist Thomas Sowell
The Gipper
"Since when do we in America believe that our society is made up of two diametrically opposed classes -- one rich, one poor -- both in a permanent state of conflict and neither able to get ahead except at the expense of the other? Since when do we in America accept this alien and discredited theory of social and class warfare? Since when do we in America endorse the politics of envy and division?" -- Ronald Reagan
Political Futures
"A Wall Street Journal/NBC poll taken in mid-December showed that 55 percent of Americans believed the country was headed in the wrong direction. Just 47 percent approved of the job Obama was doing as president. Twenty-two percent approved of the job Congress was doing. And a whopping 35 percent have positive feelings toward the Democratic Party. And yet the public seems to like Republicans even less. Just 28 percent have positive feelings toward the GOP -- a rating lower than poll results just before the party's defeats in 2006 and 2008. You can't make as many mistakes as Republicans did and expect to be forgiven quickly. That could lead to a dilemma for voters next November. Many will be fully ready to vote Democrats out of office but will not be fully ready to vote in Republicans. Faced with an either/or choice, they will weigh whether they want to get rid of Democrats more than they want to stay away from Republicans. That dilemma could have been avoided. A slightly less disastrous end to the Republican reign might well have resulted in one or two additional GOP senators this year. And that, in turn, might have prevented some of the runaway Democratic excesses we've seen. Republicans think about that a lot these days, as Democrats overreach in ways that could burden the country for generations. All GOP lawmakers can do now is to oppose. But in their heart of hearts, they know they share some of the blame." - olumnist Byron York
Insight
"Well, there's something known as American conservatism, though it does not even call itself that. It's been calling itself 'voting Republican' or 'not liking the New Deal.' But it is a very American approach to life, and it has to do with knowing that the government is not your master, that America is good, that freedom is good and must be defended, and communism is very, very bad." -- National Review founder William F. Buckley Jr. (1925-2008)
The Last Word
"2010 is going to be a tough year. We are going to have huge struggles over terrorism, war, shockingly large new deficits and public debt policies, crushing tax proposals on energy, income, health care and many other human activities. We have every right to dissent, and to do so vigorously even on such matters as terrorism policy. Contrary to White House and Democratic Party complaints in the last few days, there is nothing partisan or improper about sharply criticizing such administration policy. As a loyal conservative Republican, I nonetheless wrote an entire book in 2005 criticizing Bush's anti-terrorism policy and operations. As did many other conservative Republicans dissent. At a much, much grander level, Winston Churchill in the 1930s powerfully dissented from a policy of appeasement that Britain's leaders at the time were convinced were vital to secure the peace. Dissenting with honesty, ferocity and courage is one of Churchill's lessons to us today. And, whether fighting as an underdog in a political struggle or trying to keep things together as a breadwinner in this second hard economic winter, Churchill's last words in his last speech in Parliament as prime minister in 1955 are sturdy guides to conduct: 'Meanwhile, never flinch, never weary, never despair.'" -- columnist Tony Blankley
"The Web"
And Then It's Winter
http://members.shaw.ca/faithshannon/and-then-its-winter.html
Obama Administration Steers Lucrative No-Bid Contract for Afghan Work to Dem Donor
By James Rosen
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/01/25/obama-administration-steers-lucrative-bid-contract-afghan-work-dem-donor/
- FOXNews.com
The Obama administration this month awarded a $25 million federal contract for work in Afghanistan to a company owned by a prominent Democratic campaign contributor without entertaining competitive bids, Fox News has learned.
Sunday: U.S. Army soldiers patrol inside Pech Valley, Kunar province, in northeastern Afghanistan. Private consultants Checchi & Company won a no-bid contract from the Obama administration to 'train the next generation of legal professionals' in Afghanistan. (AP)
Despite President Obama's long history of criticizing the Bush administration for "sweetheart deals" with favored contractors, the Obama administration this month awarded a $25 million federal contract for work in Afghanistan to a company owned by a Democratic campaign contributor without entertaining competitive bids, Fox News has learned.
The contract, awarded on Jan. 4 to Checchi & Company Consulting, Inc., a Washington-based firm owned by economist and Democratic donor Vincent V. Checchi, will pay the firm $24,673,427 to provide "rule of law stabilization services" in war-torn Afghanistan.
A synopsis of the contract published on the USAID Web site says Checchi & Company will "train the next generation of legal professionals" throughout the Afghan provinces and thereby "develop the capacity of Afghanistan's justice system to be accessible, reliable, and fair."
The legality of the arrangement as a "sole source," or no-bid, contract was made possible by virtue of a waiver signed by the USAID administrator. "They cancelled the open bid on this when they came to power earlier this year," a source familiar with the federal contracting process told Fox News.
"That's kind of weird," said another source, who has worked on "rule of law" issues in both Afghanistan and Iraq, about the no-bid contract to Checchi & Company. "There's lots of companies and non-governmental organizations that do this sort of work."
Contacted by Fox News, Checchi confirmed that his company had indeed received the nearly $25 million contract but declined to say why it had been awarded on a no-bid basis, referring a reporter to USAID.
Asked if he or his firm had been aware that the contract was awarded without competitive bids, Checchi replied: "After it was awarded to us, sure. Before, we had no idea."
He declined to answer further questions, however, and again referred Fox News to USAID, saying: "I don't want to speak for the U.S. government."
Asked about the contract, USAID Acting Press Director Harry Edwards at first suggested his office would be too "busy" to comment on it. "I'll tell it to the people in Haiti," Edwards snapped when a Fox News reporter indicated the story would soon be made public. The USAID press office did not respond further.
Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., the ranking Republican on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, said Fox News' reporting on the no-bid contract in this case "disturbed" him.
Issa has written to USAID Administrator Rajiv Shah requesting that the agency "produce all documents related to the Checchi contract" on or before Feb. 5. Citing the waiver that enabled USAID to award the contract on a no-bid basis, Issa noted that the exemption was intended to speed up the provision of services in a crisis environment.
Yet "on its face," wrote Issa to Shah, "the consulting contract awarded to Checchi to support the Afghan justice system does not appear to be so urgent or attendant to an immediate need so as to justify such a waiver."
Corporate rivals of Checchi were reluctant to speak on the record about the no-bid contract awarded to his firm because they feared possible retribution by the Obama administration in the awarding of future contracts.
"We don't want to be blackballed," said the managing partner of a consulting firm that has won similar contracts. "You've got to be careful. We're dealing here with people and offices that we depend on for our business."
Still, the rival executive confirmed that open bidding on USAID's lucrative Afghanistan "rule of law" contract was abruptly revoked by the agency earlier this year.
"It's a mystery to us," the managing partner said. "We were going to bid on it. The solicitation (for bids) got pulled back, and we do not know why. We may never know why. These are things that we, as companies doing business with the government, have to put up with."
As a candidate for president in 2008, then-Sen. Obama frequently derided the Bush administration for the awarding of federal contracts without competitive bidding.
"I will finally end the abuse of no-bid contracts once and for all," the senator told a Grand Rapids audience on Oct. 2. "The days of sweetheart deals for Halliburton will be over when I'm in the White House."
Those remarks echoed an earlier occasion, during a candidates' debate in Austin, Texas on Feb. 21, when Mr. Obama vowed to upgrade the government's online databases listing federal contracts.
"If (the American people) see a bridge to nowhere being built, they know where it's going and who sponsored it," he said to audience laughter, "and if they see a no-bid contract going to Halliburton, they can check that out too."
Less than two months after he was sworn into office, President Obama signed a memorandum that he claimed would "dramatically reform the way we do business on contracts across the entire government."
Flanked by aides and lawmakers at the Dwight D. Eisenhower Executive Office Building on March 4, Obama vowed to "end unnecessary no-bid and cost-plus contracts," adding: "In some cases, contracts are awarded without competition….And that's completely unacceptable."
The March 4 memorandum directed the Office of Management and Budget to "maximize the use of full and open competition" in the awarding of federal contracts.
Federal campaign records show Checchi has been a frequent contributor to liberal and Democratic causes and candidates in recent years, including to Obama's presidential campaign.
The records show Checchi has given at least $4,400 to Obama dating back to March 2007, close to the maximum amount allowed. The contractor has also made donations to various arms of the Democratic National Committee, to liberal activist groups like MoveOn.org and ActBlue, and to other party politicians like Sen. John F. Kerry, former presidential candidate John Edwards and former Connecticut Senate candidate Ned Lamont.
Sources confirmed to Fox News that Checchi & Company is but one of a number of private firms capable of performing the work in Afghanistan for which USAID retained it.
For example, DPK Consulting, based in San Francisco and with offices in Washington, D.C. and elsewhere, states on its website that it has contracted with USAID and other federal agencies on more than 600 projects involving "governance and institutional development" across five continents.
Among DPK's most recent projects are the establishment of a new public prosecutor's office in Jenin, in the troubled West Bank area of the Palestinian Authority, and the improvement of court facilities in the Kyrgyz Republic in Central Asia. Similarly, BlueLaw International, based in Virginia, was awarded a $100 million contract by the State Department in April 2008 to strengthen the "rule of law" in Iraq.
Although Obama suggested in his remarks on March 4 that he hoped particularly to address problems associated with defense contracting, an Associated Press analysis last July found that the Defense Department frequently awards no-bid contracts under the aegis of the $787 billion stimulus program, and often at higher expense to U.S. taxpayers.
According to The AP, more than $242 million in federal contracts, or roughly a quarter of the Pentagon's contract stimulus spending, was awarded through no-bid contracts. And while procurement officers say competitive bidding can actually cost the taxpayers more -- because it involves delays and can thereby subject pricing for services and equipment to inflation -- the AP analysis found that defense-related stimulus contracts awarded after competitive bidding saved the Pentagon $34 million, compared with $4.4 million when no bidding was involved.
Figures kept by OMB Watch, a non-profit research and advocacy group that tracks federal spending, show that no-bid contracts have been common under administrations controlled by both parties.
During fiscal years 2000 and 2001, for example, when Bill Clinton was president, as much as $139.2 billion in federal contracts was awarded without competitive bidding. The OMB Watch figures show that the practice appears to have accelerated sharply during the Bush administration, but the figures are not adjusted for inflation.
Click here to read the contract award. https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=eb949a1cea8e807ad22011a88098b614&tab=core&_cview=0&cck=1&au=&ck=
Click here to read Rep. Issa's letter to USAID. http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/2010-01-25_DEI_to_Shah-USAID_-_request_info_Checchi_sole-source_contract_due_2-5.pdf
Obama's Cabinet Picks
(AP Photo/Alex Brandon)
Can you believe, or will you believe President Obama can not and/or will not speak with 6th. graders without a teleprompter? - oyh
http://news.yahoo.com/nphotos/slideshow/photo//100119/480/9131bc77c7534185bdbf267bb4ab8497/
President Barack Obama, accompanied by Education Secretary Arne Duncan, speaks to the media after a discussion with 6th grade students at Graham Road Elementary School in Falls Church, Va., Tuesday, Jan. 19, 2010.
Ten Commandments monument in place at Okla. bank
Associated Press
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Culture/Default.aspx?id=865726
POTEAU, OK - A Ten Commandments monument that supporters want to put on the lawn of an Oklahoma county courthouse has been installed outside a bank for the time being.
More than 200 people turned out for last week's unveiling of the monument at Community State Bank in Poteau, Oklahoma. The 7-foot by 5-foot granite monument is surrounded by lights.
Le Flore County commissioners initially agreed to put the monument on the courthouse lawn. But they later decided to wait for a Supreme Court decision on a similar monument in neighboring Haskell County.
Haskell County commissioners are appealing a ruling that a monument on their courthouse lawn is an unconstitutional endorsement of religion.
Legalism, the Mosaic Law, and the New Testament
by Gary DeMar
http://www.americanvision.org/article/legalism-the-mosaic-law-and-the-new-testament/
American Vision’s offering of E.C. Wines’ Commentaries on the Laws of the Ancient Hebrews brought many interesting responses. Some of them were troubling. One emailer asked, “Do you want legalism? I sure don’t!” Keeping God’s law is not legalism. Another emailer wrote, “Under the New Covenant, love the Lord God with all thy heart, mind, soul and strength. Love thy neighbor as thy self, encompasses all the law. We are not bound by Mosaic law! [Matt. 22:36–40].” I pointed out that in response to the question by the Pharisees about which is the Greatest Commandment, Jesus quoted the Mosaic law, in particular Leviticus 19:18 and Deuteronomy 6:5. Jesus went on to say that “on these two commandments depend the whole Law and Prophets” (Matt. 22:40). Jesus did not say that because of these two laws the law passes away.
Of course, we learn later in the NT that laws related to the redemptive work of Jesus are completed. There is no longer any need for animal sacrifices, earthly priesthood, a stone temple, or circumcision. Jesus is our lamb, priest, and temple. Circumcision is no longer needed because the final seed (Jesus) was born. Circumcision is a blood rite, cleansing the seed. All things related to blood are fulfilled in Jesus. But there is no NT indication that the moral application of the OT law has passed away. Paul makes reference to the OT law when he wants to define love. “Owe nothing to anyone except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law” (Rom. 13:8). How do you know when you love your neighbor? How do you know when you love Jesus? “If you love me,” Jesus said, “you will keep My commandments” (John 14:15). Paul defines love toward a neighbor in the same way:
For this, “You shall not commit adultery , You shall not murder , You shall not steal , You shall not covet,” and if there is any other commandment, it is summed up in this saying, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law (Rom. 13:9–10).
Loving your neighbor as yourself is a summary of the law. A summary does not nullify what it summarizes. Love isn’t a substitute for the law; love is defined by the law. Love is not a feeling; it’s an act. Love is what people do.
Jesus had His most vocal disputes with the Pharisees. This has led many Christians to believe that Jesus was opposed to the law, that He had come to nullify the law, because the Pharisees were all about keeping the law. The Pharisees, contrary to popular opinion, did not keep God’s law. They were not “the best people of their day.”[1] The best people were men like Simeon (Luke 2:25), Zacharias (Luke 1:6), and Joseph (Matt. 1:19), and women like Anna (Luke 2:36), Mary (Luke 1:46–56), and Elizabeth (Luke 1:6). Elizabeth and Zacharias “were both righteous in the sight of God, walking blamelessly in all the commandments and requirements of the Lord” (Luke 1:6). The commandments of God were neglected by the Pharisees (Mark 7:8). They “nicely set aside the commandment of God in order to keep [their] tradition” (Mark 7:9). Jesus told the Pharisees that they had the devil as their father (John 8:44), not because they kept God’s law, but because they substituted it for a set of man-made traditions. James B. Jordan sets the record straight about the Pharisees:
We are used to thinking of the scribes and Pharisees as meticulous men who carefully observed the jots and tittles [of God’s law]. This is not the portrait found in the Gospels. The scribes and Pharisees that Jesus encountered were grossly, obviously, and flagrantly breaking the Mosaic law, while keeping all kinds of man-made traditions. Jesus’ condemnation of them in Matthew 23 certainly makes this clear, as does a famous story in John 8. There we read that the scribes and Pharisees brought to Jesus a woman taken “in the very act” of adultery (John 8:1–11). How did they know where to find her? Where was the man who was caught with her? Apparently he was one of their cronies. Also, when Jesus asked for anyone “without sin” (that is, not guilty of the same crime) to cast the first stone, they all went away, because they were all adulterers.[2]
When the “scribes and the Pharisees . . . seated themselves in the chair of Moses,” that is, when the law was properly taught and applied, the people were to do all that they told them (Matt. 23:2–3a). At the same time, Jesus admonished the people “not to do according to their deeds” (v. 3b) which were contrary to the law (read all of Matt. 23).
Does keeping the law save us? Did it save the Israelites in the OT? James tells us that “for whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all” (James 2:10). One sin, one transgression of the law, is enough to condemn us to eternal judgment. Only Jesus kept the law perfectly. God “made Him [Jesus] who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him” (2 Cor. 5:21). Jesus “redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us” (Gal. 3:13). Salvation is by grace through faith (Eph. 2:8–10). In this sense, we are not under law but under grace (Rom. 6:14).
But does salvation by grace through faith mean that Christians are free to live any way they please since they are “redeemed from the curse of the law”? Paul asks it this way: “Do we then nullify the Law through faith? May it never be! On the contrary, we establish the Law” (Rom. 3:21). In another place Paul tells us that “the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully” (1 Tim. 1:8).
No one ever was or ever will be saved by keeping the law. This is the Bible’s point when Romans 6:14 says that the Christian is not under the law. This is far different from saying that the Christian is not obligated to obey the law as a standard of righteousness. In the very next verse, Paul states, “What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? May it never be!” (6:15).
Sin is defined as “lawlessness” (1 John 3:4). Obviously some law is still in force or there would be no sin, and if there is no sin then we do not need an Advocate with the Father. In addition, “if we confess our sins [‘lawlessness’]; He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins [lawlessness] and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness” (1 John 1:9).
While there are many questions about which OT laws still apply under the NT, there is no debate that keeping God’s law is an important part of the Christian life.
Government Unions Win, You Lose
http://paracom.paramountcommunication.com/hostedemail/email.htm?h=1818970b54c10a39b21d796949101884&CID=5683023226&ch=989BF12319A106F58839D418CE567129
Since President Barack Obama was sworn into office, the U.S. economy has shed 3.4 million jobs and the unemployment rate has risen to 10%. But not all sectors of the economy have been suffering equally. In fact, the sector of the economy most supportive of President Obama has not only avoided contraction, but has actually managed to grow instead.
According to a report released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) last Friday, in 2009 the number of federal, state and local government employees represented by unions actually rose by 64,000. Coupled with union losses in the private sector economy, 2009 became the first year in American history that a majority of American union members work for the government. Specifically, 52% of all union members now work for the federal, state or local government, up from 49% in 2008. Or, to better illustrate these statistics: three times more union members work in the Post Office than in the auto industry.
So what? Why should Americans care if unions are now dominated by workers who get their paychecks from governments, instead of workers who get their paychecks from private firms? There's one simple reason: private firms face competition; governments don't.
Collective bargaining, the anti-trust exemption at the heart of a union's power, was created to help workers seize their "fair share" of business profits. But if a union ends up extracting a contract from a private firm that eats up too much of the profits, then that firm will be unable to reinvest those profits and will lose out to competitors. But when a union extracts a generous contract from a government, the answer is always higher taxes or borrowing to pay for the bloated spending. And make no mistake: unionized government worker compensation is bloated.
As Heritage fellow James Sherk notes "[t]he average worker for a state or local government earns $39.83 an hour in wages and benefits compared to $27.49 an hour in the private sector. While over 80 percent of state and local workers have pensions, just 50 percent of private-sector workers do. These differences remain after controlling for education, skills and demographics."
Unionized government employees not only want to keep their bloated compensation packages, but their leaders are desperate for more members and more union dues. That is why public-sector unions have become a fierce lobbying force for higher taxes and more spending across the country. Organized labor once fought against taxes and regulations that impeded the economic interests of their employers, but now they are in alliance with environmentalists pushing private sector and economy-crippling cap-and-trade legislation.
It's worth noting that the BLS did not count the United Auto Workers working for General Motors and Chrysler as unionized government employees. But perhaps they should have. Our country will share their fate unless something is done about unionized government power.
How to Argue with a Liberal… and Win!
by Joel McDurmon
http://www.americanvision.org/article/how-to-argue-with-a-liberal-and-win/
Among the many pleasures that came with my joining the staff at American Vision in 2008, President Gary DeMar revealed to me dozens of boxes of books donated by a long-time supporter. Robert Metcalf and his Christian Studies Center had given a few thousand volumes to American Vision a few years prior, and these volumes needed sorting and stacking in our own libraries. It was almost like Christmas for a few hours each Friday as we opened boxes to see what books each held in store. We found many gems!
Among those gems I kept a curious little paperback called Clichés of Socialism. The title caught my interest and I began to flip through. I found dozens of short chapters each responding to a pithy popular myth promoted by liberals, leftists, socialists, and other societal pests: “The more complex the society, the more government control we need”; “The free market ignores the poor”; “Tax the rich to help the poor,” etc., etc. These and many other myths like them are refuted handily in this book.
Then I noticed that—despite the fact that the book originally appeared in 1962—many of these chapters have profound relevance for today’s debates. Consider today’s debate over socialized health-care, alongside these clichés: “Private businessmen should welcome government competition,” and “The government can do it cheaper because it doesn’t have to make a profit.” Recall the recent attacks on insurance companies making profits, and note the parallel with the same old argument, “No one must profit from the misfortune of others.” Hear the cries against “evil speculators” on Wall Street echoing from decades ago: “Speculation should be outlawed.” Hear the claims about how “the American people” now own 60% of General Motors since the government bailed it out and bought a stake in it, and realized it’s nothing new: “The Government is All of Us,” and “Under public ownership, we, the people, own it.” These myths are still so relevant today that this book will make an especially important reference for today conservatives and lovers of freedom. It may even educate a liberal or two should they have the capacity and willingness to learn.
When I began to read some of the chapters for the first time they immediately struck me as clear, concise, and powerful. Hardly any of them span more than a few pages, making short work of devastating the socialist worldview. Cliché by cliché, the liberals’ fragile intellectual empire crumbles beneath the force of logic, facts, and straight-talk. Written by several of the best conservative and libertarian minds of the former generation—Henry Hazlitt, Murray Rothbard, Leonard Read, Paul Poirot, Hans Sennholz, and many others—the incisive responses display a surprisingly conversational tone and provide many memorable arguments, stories, and examples. These characteristics make them easy and enjoyable to read. I realized quickly that this is a perfect book for the average person trying to combat the forces of socialism that today wish to trample the American Constitution and our legacy of freedom and free enterprise.
So, I decided to get this old book back in print today. Thankfully, the original edition carried an already written permission to reprint the work without special request. But since the original edition appeared in 1962 (only once updated in 1970), the facts and figures and some of the historical references had fallen a bit out date. So I asked permission from the original publisher, The Foundation for Economic Education (FEE), to publish an edited version. The staff at FEE—with their eye always on the need for furthering the message of free markets, limited government, and the moral superiority of free choice over government compulsion—amiably agreed with the small request that I make clear note of the things I edited. No problem. The project was on.
After a couple months of typesetting and editing, I arrived at the goal: to present the clarity, brevity, and power of the original work in a modernized version relevant for today’s readers. In doing so, I hope to help equip the average man to see through the many faces of socialism in our culture, and to stifle the retorts of liberals in the modern public square.
With the publication of this modernized, newly-titled edition of this book we at American Vision hope to help take back the America that seems to be slowly slipping away. Conservatives have always faced this feeling as progressives constantly wish to socialize everything and continually try to do so one issue at a time. Today is no exception, and the arguments are always the same. Conservatives just need to learn to stand against them with bravery and optimism. We need bravery to stand against what seems like the large machine of socialism, including the mainstream media, universities, unions, special interests, school systems, entrenched lifetime politicians in Congress, and corruption throughout them all. While they constitute a vast, imposing force, their errors are intellectual and moral. Truth and bravery to constantly state and spread the truth will help bring about their end.
But we must also have optimism. This means we must believe that the truth will ultimately prevail. The lack of such a belief has often caused the wane of conservativism historically, but has also supplied its strength to victory when we have believed. For if we do not believe we can change the future, then why fight for it? Standing up to the powerful institutions of socialism requires bravery, but looking past them to a better day requires optimism as well. Without these two virtues conservatives cannot overcome socialism; with them we just may. The knowledge and character exhibited in this book will equip the reader to build these qualities in his or her own heart and mind. Buy it or download it, enjoy it, and put it to work.
A Lesson from James Madison About Obamanomics
by Austin Hill
http://townhall.com/columnists/AustinHill/2010/01/24/a_lesson_from_james_madison_about_obamanomics?page=full&comments=true
He is not a “messiah,” he is not omniscient, and he is not capable, all on his own, of “fixing everything” that is wrong with America.
Here’s another bit of “news” that is beginning to “break:” The President’s repeated attempts to fix everything can actually make matters worse instead of better. And given the results of a poll released last week by Bloomberg news service – according to them 77% of American investors view the President as “anti-business”- it seems that this painful reality of “presidential fixes” is hitting-home.
For those who are surprised by Obama’s heavy-handed, big-government, “anti-business” policy proposals, I respectfully ask “why?” Were you watching and listening carefully during the last presidential election cycle? Or were you, perhaps, just caught-up in the “style” of the Obama experience, and ignoring the “substance” of his rhetoric?
In case you missed it, let me assure you – what we know today as “Obamanomics” is quite consistent with the themes and ideas upon which Senator Obama campaigned for the presidency. The difference, perhaps, is that it apparently “sounded so good” (at least to some people) as campaign rhetoric, but as policy it “hurts so bad.”
Take, for example, the President’s proposed “crackdown” on the banking industry from last week. Lending institutions aren’t lending enough as it is, not even to people with good credit, and threatening banks with more penalties and regulations will likely make this situation worse (notice how the stock market tumbled after Obama’s remarks).
Yet as a presidential candidate, Barack Obama was quite candid about his desire to control banks, so much so that he he once proposed taxing capital. I don’t mean taxing “capital gains,” or interest income. I mean that the man who is now our President campaigned, in part, on a pledge to tax money that is simply sitting in banks.
Our President also campaigned during the 2008 oil price spike on a promise to tax the so-called “windfall profits” of petroleum companies (as though more taxes would have driven prices down); he praised China during the 2008 Olympics for their willingness to “invest” in “infrastructure” (never before in my lifetime had a President openly praised a Communist government); and he frequently lectured about his desire to bring America to “economic justice,” never really explaining what that would entail, yet being clear that the American economic system is inherently “unjust.”
So rest assured – the President’s control over banks, General Motors, Chrysler, and the salaries that executives are “allowed” to earn, are all quite consistent with the vision that the candidate proposed.
But for those who still embrace this “big government” vision, yet are shocked that Barack Obama has allowed corruption to creep-in, I have different questions: why are you so fatally trusting of politicians? And why did you assume that Barack Obama would be corruption-free?
Writing at the Huffington Post last weekend, noted liberal columnist Robert Kuttner expressed frustration that Obama had cut deals with insurance and healthcare companies, in order to move his healthcare proposals forward. Kuttner also lamented that Senator Ben Nelson (D-Nebraska) was fighting-off such a huge backlash in his home state over his support of Obamacare that he was running TV ads claiming that Obamacare is not a government run program. “That's one hell of a slogan” Kuttner noted, “for a party that relies on democratically elected government to offset the insecurity, inequality and insanity generated by private commercial forces. If not-run-by-government is the Democrats' credo, why bother?”
Kuttner, like many liberals, is frustrated that Obamacare represents government that isn’t “big enough.” But notice the assumptions with which he is operating: business owners (“commercial forces”) are assumed to be necessarily greedy, self-interested, and destructive, but politicians are thought to be benevolent beings that only bring us the “security,” “equality,” and “sanity” that we need.
Kuttner’s feelings are what they are. But historical facts tell us that market competition tames the bad behavior of business owners (and the healthcare industry can and should be a lot more competitive), while simplisticly handing-over increasing control of economic resources to politicians enables politicians to be corrupt.
Our nation’s fourth President James Madison, writing in “The Federalist Papers” (“Federalist 51” to be precise), said it this way: “If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government……”
Today, our forty-fourth President Barack Obama is making-good on his pledges to control as much of our economy as he possibly can. Will America change course and embrace the wisdom of James Madison, and of history?
Or must we do things Obama’s way?
"The e-mail Bag"
YOU MAY BE A TALIBAN IF
1. You refine heroin for a living, but you have a moral objection to liquor.
2. You own a $3,000 machine gun and $5,000 rocket launcher, but you can’t afford shoes.
3. You have more wives than teeth.
4. You wipe your butt with your bare hand, but consider bacon “unclean.”
5. You think vests come in two styles: bullet-proof and suicide.
6. You can’t think of anyone you haven’t declared Jihad against.
7. You consider television dangerous, but routinely carry explosives in your clothing.
8. You were amazed to discover that cell phones have uses other than setting off roadside bombs.
9. You have nothing against women and think every man should own at least four.
10. You’ve always had a crush on your neighbor’s goat.
11. Your cousin is president of the United States
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Monday, January 25, 2010
ConservativeChristianRepublican-Report - 20100125
Motivational-Inspirational-Historical-Educational-Political-Enjoyable
Promoting "God's Holy Values and American Freedoms"!
"Daily Motivations"
"If you want children to keep their feet on the ground, put some responsibility on their shoulders." -- Abigail Van Buren
May you be blessed with all things good. -- Kate Nowak
"It is through creating, not possessing, that life is revealed." -- Vida D. Scudder
"Daily Devotions" (KJV and/or NLT)
I am the true vine, and My Father is the gardener. (John 15:1)
"Sucker shoots" is, by design, not a complimentary designation. Gardeners often find such shoots growing on plants, sucking nutrients away from the healthy branches on a vine, and creating knots of fibers where debris collects. A good gardener cuts away these shoots so that the branches can stay healthy and produce fruit.
Jesus explained that we are like branches and God is like a good gardener. He prunes away anything distracting or detrimental, cleaning us up so that we can produce the fruit of Christ likeness (John 15:1-2). God wants us to depend on Christ alone for our sustenance. Jesus said, "Remain in Me, and I will remain in you. For a branch cannot produce fruit if it is severed from the vine, and you cannot be fruitful unless you remain in Me." (John 15:4)
Because God is ever-present we never need to doubt that He is with us. However, there are many ways to know whether we are remaining in Him. John 15 identifies one sign to look for---obedience. Jesus said, "When you obey My commandments, you remain in My love, just as I obey My Father's commandments and remain in His love." (John 15:10) To remain obedient to God's commands is a sure sign that His love sustains us.
Your View of God Really Matters …
What is the one thing you must do today if you want to bear fruit tomorrow? How does Jesus' statement, "Follow me and I will make you fishers of men," relate to John 15:4?
"The Patriot Post"
"The principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale." -- Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Taylor, 1816
"A penny saved is twopence clear." -- Benjamin Franklin, Poor Richard's Almanack, 1737
This Week's 'Alpha Jackass' Award
"I think it was a mistake to take health care on as opposed to continuing to spend the time on the economy." --Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE)
After being bribed with $100 million in Medicaid savings for his state in a "cash for cloture" deal, Nelson provided the 60th Senate vote for health care. We're glad he's come around, but talk about too little too late.
This Week's 'Braying Jenny' Award
"We want our final product -- as I'm sure everyone in the House and Senate would agree -- to insure affordability for the middle class." --Nancy Pelosi, whose main dilemma with the middle class is whether to use a Phillips or a flathead...
News From the Swamp: Democrats Cut and Run
The political world tilted on its axis this week with the announced retirements of three key Democrats -- Senators Christopher Dodd (CT) and Byron Dorgan (ND), and Colorado Gov. Bill Ritter. Each Democrat trotted out the standard "spending more time with the family" excuse, but the reality is that all three men were on the endangered list in this year's election cycle. Dodd in particular has been losing ground in his home state of Connecticut since 2008 when it became known that he was on the receiving end of a sweetheart mortgage deal from Countrywide Financial, one of the firms he publicly accused of causing the subprime mortgage meltdown and the ensuing financial crisis. In fact, Dodd is in such bad shape politically it seems that Democrats have a better chance of holding his seat without him in it.
The retirement announcements, which came within hours of each other, added to several Democrat House retirements announced at the end of 2009. The trend suggests that senior and some freshman Democrats are headed for the exits in expectation of a bruising midterm election. Several Demo strategists and congressional leaders were in full spin mode in an attempt to contain the damage and downplay the significance of these recent developments. Historically, the party in power loses seats in the midterms, so the fact that Democrats are cutting and running isn't particularly unusual -- in more ways than one.
Additionally, Democrats believe a string of congressional Republican retirements may blunt any potentially sweeping gains the GOP would otherwise make this year. What the pols and pundits don't realize, or what they don't want you to realize, is that Democrats around the country are increasingly losing public support for passing legislation that is attempting to convert America into a completely socialist country. High taxes, excessive regulation and larger, more intrusive government, combined with a complete disregard for national security in time of war, is a cocktail that is likely to create a bigger shift in November than liberals can imagine.
Meanwhile, Alabama Congressman Parker Griffith recently switched his party affiliation from Democrat to Republican, stating that he could not align himself with a party that was pushing a notoriously bad health care bill. He also added that Nancy Pelosi is divisive and polarizing and he cannot support her. All but one of his staff quit after Griffith's defection, stating that they hoped to "soon find ourselves in the employment of principled public officials." Sorry, kids, but you actually just left one.
Income Redistribution: The Death Tax Dies ... For Now
Founding Father Benjamin Franklin once observed that in this world, nothing is certain but death and taxes. That and the predictable Democrat gnashing of teeth when the federal estate tax expired for 2010.
Instead of celebrating the (temporary) end of unfair government double-jeopardy confiscation of a person's wealth, liberals fretted as if a family now keeping the fruits of their labors was some sort of undeserved gift from Congress. Liberal news reporters even bemoan a "loss" of $14 billion to the U.S. Treasury, although they fail to explain how that reduction in confiscations of private estates would meaningfully dent the trillions of dollars being accumulated in government debt through shameless spending.
Given the destructive power this particularly unfair tax has upon small businesses and family farms, the death tax should never be resurrected. Unfortunately, we can expect a Democrat-controlled Congress bent upon funding its grandiose health care schemes to have an epiphany about the pound of flesh it isn't extracting from departed Americans. Accelerated collections of the death tax through ObamaCare's death panels can't be far behind.
Bailout Bonanza
It's like Christmas, graduation and a slew of birthdays all in one for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, who recently found themselves the recipients of a limitless supply of blank checks signed by the U.S. government. Just in time (conveniently) to miss the year-end deadline after which congressional approval would be required, the Treasury Department nixed the $400 billion limit on bailout money authorized for Fannie and Freddie. Instead, on the heels of $111 billion in taxpayer dollars already doled out to the ailing mortgage giants, the Feds have adopted a "flexible formula" for bailout bucks. As history shows, even Stretch Armstrong has nothing on the flexibility of Uncle Sam, who can bend laws, wiggle around limitations, and reach over, under and through constitutional constraints to raid taxpayer pockets.
Meanwhile, in an oh-so-shocking (or not) development in the auto bailout saga, Chrysler and GM saw end-of-year sales drop by 3.7 percent and 5.7 percent, respectively, while Ford, Toyota and Honda reported significant sales increases -- as high as an impressive 33.5 percent for Ford. Of course, it must be coincidence that the duo with diminishing sales consists of the only two companies bailed out, taken over and now run by Barack Obama.
To Keep and Bear Arms
Late last month, two men wearing masks broke into the home of a family in Corpus Christi, Texas, in the wee hours of the morning. Upon hearing the noise, the owner of the home grabbed his gun and made his way towards the intruders. Upon confrontation, both parties exchanged fire. One of the attackers was hit and killed while his partner fled the scene. The ensuing investigation by the Corpus Christi Police Department revealed "an occupant, a resident, defending his home," according to Lt. Isaac Valencia, who further stated, "If you apply the Castle [doctrine], you have a right to defend your home." And, as noted in the previous story, gun owners do just that every day.
And Last...
As if the failed undi-bomber wasn't bad enough Christmas news for jihadis, this New Year's note just came in from the Department of Premature Detonation: "Fourteen suspected terrorists died Tuesday night when the bus they rigged with explosives blew up prematurely," CNN reports. "The explosion occurred as the suspects were riding the bus in the province of Kunduz," Afghanistan.
Around our humble shop, we like to call this sort of incident "self-solving." More to the point, however, it sounds like these jihadis had a bad case of ED -- explosive dysfunction.
"The Web"
Specter Tells Bachmann To Act Like A "Lady"
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/01/21/specter_tells_bachmann_to_act_like_a_lady.html
US Airways Flight #1549
http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=tE_5eiYn0D0
ClimateGate Smoking Gun Found, American Thinker Does Media's Job
By Noel Sheppard
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/11/25/climategate-smoking-gun-american-thinker-does-medias-job
As NewsBusters has been reporting since the ClimateGate scandal first broke last Friday, America's media have either been shamefully ignoring the sensitive information hacked from a British university's computer system or dishonestly telling the public there's nothing to it.
If these revelations furthered the global warming myth by implicating skeptical scientists in a conspiracy to adjust temperature data while shutting out opinions contrary to their own, press outlets would likely have their science divisions poring over every e-mail and document available to find the proverbial smoking gun.
Because in this instance any such research could uncover information contrary to the agenda of most news outlets, scientific editors and reporters have abdicated their investigative responsibilities in an obvious attempt to protect policies they support and advocate.
With that in mind, the American Thinker's Marc Sheppard, clearly doing the media's job, examined the computer program source code available in what was hacked from this British Climate Research Unit (CRU), and discovered that this scandal is everything the global warming-obsessed media fear:
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/11/25/climategate-smoking-gun-american-thinker-does-medias-job#ixzz0dZYhd8Ec
One can only imagine the angst suffered daily by the co-conspirators, who knew full well that the “Documents” sub-folder of the CRU FOI2009 file contained more than enough probative program source code to unmask CRU’s phantom methodology.
In fact, there are hundreds of IDL and FORTRAN source files buried in dozens of subordinate sub-folders. And many do properly analyze and chart maximum latewood density (MXD), the growth parameter commonly utilized by CRU scientists as a temperature proxy, from raw or legitimately normalized data. Ah, but many do so much more.
Skimming through the often spaghetti-like code, the number of programs which subject the data to a mixed-bag of transformative and filtering routines is simply staggering. Granted, many of these “alterations” run from benign smoothing algorithms (e.g. omitting rogue outliers) to moderate infilling mechanisms (e.g. estimating missing station data from that of those closely surrounding). But many others fall into the precarious range between highly questionable (removing MXD data which demonstrate poor correlations with local temperature) to downright fraudulent (replacing MXD data entirely with measured data to reverse a disorderly trend-line).
In fact, workarounds for the post-1960 “divergence problem”, as described by both RealClimate and Climate Audit, can be found throughout the source code. So much so that perhaps the most ubiquitous programmer’s comment (REM) I ran across warns that the particular module “Uses ‘corrected’ MXD - but shouldn't usually plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to the real temperatures.”
What followed was a highly-technical analysis of the source code that likely would be way over most readers' heads. However, the conclusion was staggering:
Clamoring alarmists can and will spin this until they're dizzy. The ever-clueless mainstream media can and will ignore this until it's forced upon them as front-page news, and then most will join the alarmists on the denial merry-go-round.
But here's what's undeniable: If a divergence exists between measured temperatures and those derived from dendrochronological data after (circa) 1960 then discarding only the post-1960 figures is disingenuous to say the least. The very existence of a divergence betrays a potential serious flaw in the process by which temperatures are reconstructed from tree-ring density. If it's bogus beyond a set threshold, then any honest men of science would instinctively question its integrity prior to that boundary. And only the lowliest would apply a hack in order to produce a desired result.
And to do so without declaring as such in a footnote on every chart in every report in every study in every book in every classroom on every website that such a corrupt process is relied upon is not just a crime against science, it's a crime against mankind.
Indeed, miners of the CRU folder have unearthed dozens of email threads and supporting documents revealing much to loathe about this cadre of hucksters and their vile intentions. This veritable goldmine has given us tales ranging from evidence destruction to spitting on the Freedom of Information Act on both sides of the Atlantic. But the now irrefutable evidence that alarmists have indeed been cooking the data for at least a decade may just be the most important strike in human history.
Indeed, but this raises another question: where are America's science editors and reporters concerning this matter?
If a software designer, consultant, and business owner in his spare time can uncover this, why can't America's leading science periodicals or key "journalists" in this debate?
Is investigative journalism truly dead in this country, or is it only employed to uncover truths that either buttress the media's view of the world or undermine those that don't?
Consider that in the past two years, we have witnessed the press:
Ignore important facts about a presidential candidate in order to get him elected
Ignore or gloss over important facts about a President's appointees to get them approved by Congress
Ignore important facts about a President's "czars"
Ignore important facts about a major "community organizing" group
In the case of the latter two issues, conservative bloggers, talk show hosts, and Fox News were alone in coverage until the mainstream media eventually came aboard kicking and screaming.
Now, revelations about some of the country's leading climate scientists and activists -- who have ties to the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as well as the ear of the White House and leading members of Congress -- are going largely ignored or soft-soaped.
Such is transpiring weeks before a major international climate meeting in Copenhagen and as legislation that could have almost unimaginable negative consequences on the economy is being seriously considered by Congress.
Where does it all end, and when are Americans going to demand their news media stop acting as a propaganda arm for the far-leftwing of this nation?
Exit question: Will Sheppard's discovery force the global warming-obsessed press to finally start covering this growing scandal?
Wine, women, and song - tax dollars misused on federal employee travel
Rick Moran
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/01/wine_women_and_song_tax_dollar.html
It wouldn't be this bad if the agencies just enforced the rules and laws already on the books with regard to travel by federal employees.
But the list of fraud, waste, and abuse by bureaucrats who want to stay an extra day to get in a round of golf, or who want to facilitate meetings with lovers, or just outright steal from the taxpayer is a long one according to this piece in the Washington Times:
Some employees still pad legitimate travel expenses, get the government to pay for "extras" or make taxpayers pick up the tab for out-of-town trips that never took place.
For most of 2008, for example, Derrick Hampton, a legal technician in the Treasury Department's office of the comptroller of currency, entered claims into the department's computerized travel reimbursement system. The problem was, Hampton didn't travel out of town on any official business, officials later said. And he wasn't authorized to input travel claims.
It wasn't until Hampton had received about $25,000 for trips he never took that the scam unraveled, authorities said. He pleaded guilty last year in federal court in Washington to theft.
In other cases, employees targeted in travel investigations managed to avoid getting hauled into court and kept their jobs.
At the National Science Foundation (NSF), one senior manager extended trips and initiated travel "to facilitate his relationships with female companions, one of whom is an NSF employee," according to an internal inspector general's memo on the case. The trips included meetings in faraway destinations such as Tokyo, Vancouver and Paris.
When asked by investigators whether it was appropriate to consider a woman's presence in Vancouver when deciding whether to speak at workshop there, documents show the official responded, "Yeah, why not?"
That fellow at the NSF with a mistress in every port is still employed by the organization. He was even named to receive an award but it was pulled before the agency embarrassed itself further.
A common abuse by federal employees is flying business class instead of coach as the law requires. But stuff like that is only discovered in a formal audit - something that happens rarely. In 2007, the GAO discovered $146 million in wasted upgrades to business class, and there's no sign that the practice has been discontinued.
Senator Charles Grassley has introduced legislation to try and make agencies more accountable on travel expenses. But in the end, enforcement is still going to be a problem. As long as the abuses are tolerated at the top, there's no chance these practices will disappear anytime soon.
Hat Tip: Ed Lasky
A farmer had some puppies he needed to sell.
http://www.bentbay.dk/5_puppies.htm
He painted a sign advertising the 4 pups. And set about nailing it to a post on the edge of his yard. As he was driving the last nail into the post, he felt a tug on his overalls. He looked down into the eyes of little boy.
"Mister, I want to buy one of your puppies."
"Well," said the farmer, as he rubbed the sweat off the back of his neck, "These puppies come from fine parents and cost a good deal of money." The boy dropped his head for a moment. Then reaching deep into his pocket, he pulled out a handful of change and held it up to the farmer.
"I've got thirty-nine cents. Is that enough to take a look?" "Sure," said the farmer. And with that he let out a whistle. "Here, Dolly!" he called. Out from the doghouse and down the ramp ran Dolly followed by four little balls of fur. The little boy pressed his face against the chain link fence. His eyes danced with delight.
As the dogs made their way to the fence, the little boy noticed something else stirring inside the doghouse.
Slowly another little ball appeared, this one noticeably smaller. Down the ramp it slid. Then in a somewhat awkward manner, the little pup began hobbling toward the others, doing its best to catch up....
"I want that one," the little boy said, pointing to the runt. The farmer knelt down at the boy's side and said, "Son, you don't want that puppy. He will never be able to run and play with you like these other dogs would."
With that the little boy stepped back from the fence, reached down, and began rolling up one leg of his trousers.
In doing so he revealed a steel brace running down both sides of his leg attaching itself to a specially made shoe.
Looking back up at the farmer, he said, "You see sir, I don't run too well myself, and he will need someone who understands."
With tears in his eyes, farmer reached down and picked up the little pup.
Holding it carefully handed it to the little boy.
"How much?" asked the little boy. "No charge," answered the farmer, "There's no charge for love."
We need to show more sympathy for these people...
http://aquietcatholic.blogspot.com/2008/08/we-need-to-show-more-sympathy-for-these.html
They travel miles in the heat.
They risk their lives crossing a border.
They don't get paid enough wages.
They do jobs that others won't do or are afraid to do.
They live in crowded conditions among a people who speak a different language.
They rarely see their families and they face adversity all day every day...
I'm not talking about illegal aliens, I'm talking about our troops!
"The e-mail Bag"
Immigration
A guy traveling through Mexico on vacation lost his wallet and all of his identification. Cutting his trip short, he attempted to make his way home but was stopped by the U.S. Customs Agent at the border.
"May I see your identification, please?" asked the agent.
"I'm sorry, but I lost my wallet," replied the guy.
"Sure buddy, I hear that every day. No ID, no entry," said the agent. "But I can prove I'm an American!" he exclaimed. "I have a picture of Ronald Reagan tattooed on one side of my butt and George Bush on the other."
"This I gotta see," replied the agent.. With that, the guy dropped his pants and showed the agent his behind.
"By golly, you're right!" exclaimed the agent. "Have a safe trip back to Chicago."
"Thanks!" he said. "But how did you know I was from Chicago?"
The agent replied, "I recognized Obama in the middle."
Promoting "God's Holy Values and American Freedoms"!
"Daily Motivations"
"If you want children to keep their feet on the ground, put some responsibility on their shoulders." -- Abigail Van Buren
May you be blessed with all things good. -- Kate Nowak
"It is through creating, not possessing, that life is revealed." -- Vida D. Scudder
"Daily Devotions" (KJV and/or NLT)
I am the true vine, and My Father is the gardener. (John 15:1)
"Sucker shoots" is, by design, not a complimentary designation. Gardeners often find such shoots growing on plants, sucking nutrients away from the healthy branches on a vine, and creating knots of fibers where debris collects. A good gardener cuts away these shoots so that the branches can stay healthy and produce fruit.
Jesus explained that we are like branches and God is like a good gardener. He prunes away anything distracting or detrimental, cleaning us up so that we can produce the fruit of Christ likeness (John 15:1-2). God wants us to depend on Christ alone for our sustenance. Jesus said, "Remain in Me, and I will remain in you. For a branch cannot produce fruit if it is severed from the vine, and you cannot be fruitful unless you remain in Me." (John 15:4)
Because God is ever-present we never need to doubt that He is with us. However, there are many ways to know whether we are remaining in Him. John 15 identifies one sign to look for---obedience. Jesus said, "When you obey My commandments, you remain in My love, just as I obey My Father's commandments and remain in His love." (John 15:10) To remain obedient to God's commands is a sure sign that His love sustains us.
Your View of God Really Matters …
What is the one thing you must do today if you want to bear fruit tomorrow? How does Jesus' statement, "Follow me and I will make you fishers of men," relate to John 15:4?
"The Patriot Post"
"The principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale." -- Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Taylor, 1816
"A penny saved is twopence clear." -- Benjamin Franklin, Poor Richard's Almanack, 1737
This Week's 'Alpha Jackass' Award
"I think it was a mistake to take health care on as opposed to continuing to spend the time on the economy." --Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE)
After being bribed with $100 million in Medicaid savings for his state in a "cash for cloture" deal, Nelson provided the 60th Senate vote for health care. We're glad he's come around, but talk about too little too late.
This Week's 'Braying Jenny' Award
"We want our final product -- as I'm sure everyone in the House and Senate would agree -- to insure affordability for the middle class." --Nancy Pelosi, whose main dilemma with the middle class is whether to use a Phillips or a flathead...
News From the Swamp: Democrats Cut and Run
The political world tilted on its axis this week with the announced retirements of three key Democrats -- Senators Christopher Dodd (CT) and Byron Dorgan (ND), and Colorado Gov. Bill Ritter. Each Democrat trotted out the standard "spending more time with the family" excuse, but the reality is that all three men were on the endangered list in this year's election cycle. Dodd in particular has been losing ground in his home state of Connecticut since 2008 when it became known that he was on the receiving end of a sweetheart mortgage deal from Countrywide Financial, one of the firms he publicly accused of causing the subprime mortgage meltdown and the ensuing financial crisis. In fact, Dodd is in such bad shape politically it seems that Democrats have a better chance of holding his seat without him in it.
The retirement announcements, which came within hours of each other, added to several Democrat House retirements announced at the end of 2009. The trend suggests that senior and some freshman Democrats are headed for the exits in expectation of a bruising midterm election. Several Demo strategists and congressional leaders were in full spin mode in an attempt to contain the damage and downplay the significance of these recent developments. Historically, the party in power loses seats in the midterms, so the fact that Democrats are cutting and running isn't particularly unusual -- in more ways than one.
Additionally, Democrats believe a string of congressional Republican retirements may blunt any potentially sweeping gains the GOP would otherwise make this year. What the pols and pundits don't realize, or what they don't want you to realize, is that Democrats around the country are increasingly losing public support for passing legislation that is attempting to convert America into a completely socialist country. High taxes, excessive regulation and larger, more intrusive government, combined with a complete disregard for national security in time of war, is a cocktail that is likely to create a bigger shift in November than liberals can imagine.
Meanwhile, Alabama Congressman Parker Griffith recently switched his party affiliation from Democrat to Republican, stating that he could not align himself with a party that was pushing a notoriously bad health care bill. He also added that Nancy Pelosi is divisive and polarizing and he cannot support her. All but one of his staff quit after Griffith's defection, stating that they hoped to "soon find ourselves in the employment of principled public officials." Sorry, kids, but you actually just left one.
Income Redistribution: The Death Tax Dies ... For Now
Founding Father Benjamin Franklin once observed that in this world, nothing is certain but death and taxes. That and the predictable Democrat gnashing of teeth when the federal estate tax expired for 2010.
Instead of celebrating the (temporary) end of unfair government double-jeopardy confiscation of a person's wealth, liberals fretted as if a family now keeping the fruits of their labors was some sort of undeserved gift from Congress. Liberal news reporters even bemoan a "loss" of $14 billion to the U.S. Treasury, although they fail to explain how that reduction in confiscations of private estates would meaningfully dent the trillions of dollars being accumulated in government debt through shameless spending.
Given the destructive power this particularly unfair tax has upon small businesses and family farms, the death tax should never be resurrected. Unfortunately, we can expect a Democrat-controlled Congress bent upon funding its grandiose health care schemes to have an epiphany about the pound of flesh it isn't extracting from departed Americans. Accelerated collections of the death tax through ObamaCare's death panels can't be far behind.
Bailout Bonanza
It's like Christmas, graduation and a slew of birthdays all in one for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, who recently found themselves the recipients of a limitless supply of blank checks signed by the U.S. government. Just in time (conveniently) to miss the year-end deadline after which congressional approval would be required, the Treasury Department nixed the $400 billion limit on bailout money authorized for Fannie and Freddie. Instead, on the heels of $111 billion in taxpayer dollars already doled out to the ailing mortgage giants, the Feds have adopted a "flexible formula" for bailout bucks. As history shows, even Stretch Armstrong has nothing on the flexibility of Uncle Sam, who can bend laws, wiggle around limitations, and reach over, under and through constitutional constraints to raid taxpayer pockets.
Meanwhile, in an oh-so-shocking (or not) development in the auto bailout saga, Chrysler and GM saw end-of-year sales drop by 3.7 percent and 5.7 percent, respectively, while Ford, Toyota and Honda reported significant sales increases -- as high as an impressive 33.5 percent for Ford. Of course, it must be coincidence that the duo with diminishing sales consists of the only two companies bailed out, taken over and now run by Barack Obama.
To Keep and Bear Arms
Late last month, two men wearing masks broke into the home of a family in Corpus Christi, Texas, in the wee hours of the morning. Upon hearing the noise, the owner of the home grabbed his gun and made his way towards the intruders. Upon confrontation, both parties exchanged fire. One of the attackers was hit and killed while his partner fled the scene. The ensuing investigation by the Corpus Christi Police Department revealed "an occupant, a resident, defending his home," according to Lt. Isaac Valencia, who further stated, "If you apply the Castle [doctrine], you have a right to defend your home." And, as noted in the previous story, gun owners do just that every day.
And Last...
As if the failed undi-bomber wasn't bad enough Christmas news for jihadis, this New Year's note just came in from the Department of Premature Detonation: "Fourteen suspected terrorists died Tuesday night when the bus they rigged with explosives blew up prematurely," CNN reports. "The explosion occurred as the suspects were riding the bus in the province of Kunduz," Afghanistan.
Around our humble shop, we like to call this sort of incident "self-solving." More to the point, however, it sounds like these jihadis had a bad case of ED -- explosive dysfunction.
"The Web"
Specter Tells Bachmann To Act Like A "Lady"
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/01/21/specter_tells_bachmann_to_act_like_a_lady.html
US Airways Flight #1549
http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=tE_5eiYn0D0
ClimateGate Smoking Gun Found, American Thinker Does Media's Job
By Noel Sheppard
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/11/25/climategate-smoking-gun-american-thinker-does-medias-job
As NewsBusters has been reporting since the ClimateGate scandal first broke last Friday, America's media have either been shamefully ignoring the sensitive information hacked from a British university's computer system or dishonestly telling the public there's nothing to it.
If these revelations furthered the global warming myth by implicating skeptical scientists in a conspiracy to adjust temperature data while shutting out opinions contrary to their own, press outlets would likely have their science divisions poring over every e-mail and document available to find the proverbial smoking gun.
Because in this instance any such research could uncover information contrary to the agenda of most news outlets, scientific editors and reporters have abdicated their investigative responsibilities in an obvious attempt to protect policies they support and advocate.
With that in mind, the American Thinker's Marc Sheppard, clearly doing the media's job, examined the computer program source code available in what was hacked from this British Climate Research Unit (CRU), and discovered that this scandal is everything the global warming-obsessed media fear:
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/11/25/climategate-smoking-gun-american-thinker-does-medias-job#ixzz0dZYhd8Ec
One can only imagine the angst suffered daily by the co-conspirators, who knew full well that the “Documents” sub-folder of the CRU FOI2009 file contained more than enough probative program source code to unmask CRU’s phantom methodology.
In fact, there are hundreds of IDL and FORTRAN source files buried in dozens of subordinate sub-folders. And many do properly analyze and chart maximum latewood density (MXD), the growth parameter commonly utilized by CRU scientists as a temperature proxy, from raw or legitimately normalized data. Ah, but many do so much more.
Skimming through the often spaghetti-like code, the number of programs which subject the data to a mixed-bag of transformative and filtering routines is simply staggering. Granted, many of these “alterations” run from benign smoothing algorithms (e.g. omitting rogue outliers) to moderate infilling mechanisms (e.g. estimating missing station data from that of those closely surrounding). But many others fall into the precarious range between highly questionable (removing MXD data which demonstrate poor correlations with local temperature) to downright fraudulent (replacing MXD data entirely with measured data to reverse a disorderly trend-line).
In fact, workarounds for the post-1960 “divergence problem”, as described by both RealClimate and Climate Audit, can be found throughout the source code. So much so that perhaps the most ubiquitous programmer’s comment (REM) I ran across warns that the particular module “Uses ‘corrected’ MXD - but shouldn't usually plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to the real temperatures.”
What followed was a highly-technical analysis of the source code that likely would be way over most readers' heads. However, the conclusion was staggering:
Clamoring alarmists can and will spin this until they're dizzy. The ever-clueless mainstream media can and will ignore this until it's forced upon them as front-page news, and then most will join the alarmists on the denial merry-go-round.
But here's what's undeniable: If a divergence exists between measured temperatures and those derived from dendrochronological data after (circa) 1960 then discarding only the post-1960 figures is disingenuous to say the least. The very existence of a divergence betrays a potential serious flaw in the process by which temperatures are reconstructed from tree-ring density. If it's bogus beyond a set threshold, then any honest men of science would instinctively question its integrity prior to that boundary. And only the lowliest would apply a hack in order to produce a desired result.
And to do so without declaring as such in a footnote on every chart in every report in every study in every book in every classroom on every website that such a corrupt process is relied upon is not just a crime against science, it's a crime against mankind.
Indeed, miners of the CRU folder have unearthed dozens of email threads and supporting documents revealing much to loathe about this cadre of hucksters and their vile intentions. This veritable goldmine has given us tales ranging from evidence destruction to spitting on the Freedom of Information Act on both sides of the Atlantic. But the now irrefutable evidence that alarmists have indeed been cooking the data for at least a decade may just be the most important strike in human history.
Indeed, but this raises another question: where are America's science editors and reporters concerning this matter?
If a software designer, consultant, and business owner in his spare time can uncover this, why can't America's leading science periodicals or key "journalists" in this debate?
Is investigative journalism truly dead in this country, or is it only employed to uncover truths that either buttress the media's view of the world or undermine those that don't?
Consider that in the past two years, we have witnessed the press:
Ignore important facts about a presidential candidate in order to get him elected
Ignore or gloss over important facts about a President's appointees to get them approved by Congress
Ignore important facts about a President's "czars"
Ignore important facts about a major "community organizing" group
In the case of the latter two issues, conservative bloggers, talk show hosts, and Fox News were alone in coverage until the mainstream media eventually came aboard kicking and screaming.
Now, revelations about some of the country's leading climate scientists and activists -- who have ties to the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as well as the ear of the White House and leading members of Congress -- are going largely ignored or soft-soaped.
Such is transpiring weeks before a major international climate meeting in Copenhagen and as legislation that could have almost unimaginable negative consequences on the economy is being seriously considered by Congress.
Where does it all end, and when are Americans going to demand their news media stop acting as a propaganda arm for the far-leftwing of this nation?
Exit question: Will Sheppard's discovery force the global warming-obsessed press to finally start covering this growing scandal?
Wine, women, and song - tax dollars misused on federal employee travel
Rick Moran
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/01/wine_women_and_song_tax_dollar.html
It wouldn't be this bad if the agencies just enforced the rules and laws already on the books with regard to travel by federal employees.
But the list of fraud, waste, and abuse by bureaucrats who want to stay an extra day to get in a round of golf, or who want to facilitate meetings with lovers, or just outright steal from the taxpayer is a long one according to this piece in the Washington Times:
Some employees still pad legitimate travel expenses, get the government to pay for "extras" or make taxpayers pick up the tab for out-of-town trips that never took place.
For most of 2008, for example, Derrick Hampton, a legal technician in the Treasury Department's office of the comptroller of currency, entered claims into the department's computerized travel reimbursement system. The problem was, Hampton didn't travel out of town on any official business, officials later said. And he wasn't authorized to input travel claims.
It wasn't until Hampton had received about $25,000 for trips he never took that the scam unraveled, authorities said. He pleaded guilty last year in federal court in Washington to theft.
In other cases, employees targeted in travel investigations managed to avoid getting hauled into court and kept their jobs.
At the National Science Foundation (NSF), one senior manager extended trips and initiated travel "to facilitate his relationships with female companions, one of whom is an NSF employee," according to an internal inspector general's memo on the case. The trips included meetings in faraway destinations such as Tokyo, Vancouver and Paris.
When asked by investigators whether it was appropriate to consider a woman's presence in Vancouver when deciding whether to speak at workshop there, documents show the official responded, "Yeah, why not?"
That fellow at the NSF with a mistress in every port is still employed by the organization. He was even named to receive an award but it was pulled before the agency embarrassed itself further.
A common abuse by federal employees is flying business class instead of coach as the law requires. But stuff like that is only discovered in a formal audit - something that happens rarely. In 2007, the GAO discovered $146 million in wasted upgrades to business class, and there's no sign that the practice has been discontinued.
Senator Charles Grassley has introduced legislation to try and make agencies more accountable on travel expenses. But in the end, enforcement is still going to be a problem. As long as the abuses are tolerated at the top, there's no chance these practices will disappear anytime soon.
Hat Tip: Ed Lasky
A farmer had some puppies he needed to sell.
http://www.bentbay.dk/5_puppies.htm
He painted a sign advertising the 4 pups. And set about nailing it to a post on the edge of his yard. As he was driving the last nail into the post, he felt a tug on his overalls. He looked down into the eyes of little boy.
"Mister, I want to buy one of your puppies."
"Well," said the farmer, as he rubbed the sweat off the back of his neck, "These puppies come from fine parents and cost a good deal of money." The boy dropped his head for a moment. Then reaching deep into his pocket, he pulled out a handful of change and held it up to the farmer.
"I've got thirty-nine cents. Is that enough to take a look?" "Sure," said the farmer. And with that he let out a whistle. "Here, Dolly!" he called. Out from the doghouse and down the ramp ran Dolly followed by four little balls of fur. The little boy pressed his face against the chain link fence. His eyes danced with delight.
As the dogs made their way to the fence, the little boy noticed something else stirring inside the doghouse.
Slowly another little ball appeared, this one noticeably smaller. Down the ramp it slid. Then in a somewhat awkward manner, the little pup began hobbling toward the others, doing its best to catch up....
"I want that one," the little boy said, pointing to the runt. The farmer knelt down at the boy's side and said, "Son, you don't want that puppy. He will never be able to run and play with you like these other dogs would."
With that the little boy stepped back from the fence, reached down, and began rolling up one leg of his trousers.
In doing so he revealed a steel brace running down both sides of his leg attaching itself to a specially made shoe.
Looking back up at the farmer, he said, "You see sir, I don't run too well myself, and he will need someone who understands."
With tears in his eyes, farmer reached down and picked up the little pup.
Holding it carefully handed it to the little boy.
"How much?" asked the little boy. "No charge," answered the farmer, "There's no charge for love."
We need to show more sympathy for these people...
http://aquietcatholic.blogspot.com/2008/08/we-need-to-show-more-sympathy-for-these.html
They travel miles in the heat.
They risk their lives crossing a border.
They don't get paid enough wages.
They do jobs that others won't do or are afraid to do.
They live in crowded conditions among a people who speak a different language.
They rarely see their families and they face adversity all day every day...
I'm not talking about illegal aliens, I'm talking about our troops!
"The e-mail Bag"
Immigration
A guy traveling through Mexico on vacation lost his wallet and all of his identification. Cutting his trip short, he attempted to make his way home but was stopped by the U.S. Customs Agent at the border.
"May I see your identification, please?" asked the agent.
"I'm sorry, but I lost my wallet," replied the guy.
"Sure buddy, I hear that every day. No ID, no entry," said the agent. "But I can prove I'm an American!" he exclaimed. "I have a picture of Ronald Reagan tattooed on one side of my butt and George Bush on the other."
"This I gotta see," replied the agent.. With that, the guy dropped his pants and showed the agent his behind.
"By golly, you're right!" exclaimed the agent. "Have a safe trip back to Chicago."
"Thanks!" he said. "But how did you know I was from Chicago?"
The agent replied, "I recognized Obama in the middle."
Saturday, January 23, 2010
Stop Rogers, Kuehler, and Openshaw From Selling CMC-Union
A few days ago, the headlines across America were “The Scott Heard Round the World”. This was in reference to Republican Party candidate Scott Brown’s special election victory for US Senate in Massachusetts, as he defeated Democrat Party candidate Martha Coakley, replacing a seat previously held for nearly fifty (50) years by the late Ted Kennedy.
President Obama, Senator Harry Reid, Speaker of the House Nance Pelosi and most of their other elected Democrat Party members on Capitol Hill are cramming ‘ObamaCare’ through our throats, even though most political polls clearly show Americans are opposed 58% to 32% regarding either of the two (2) various pieces of ObamaCare legislation.
Currently, right here in Union County, three elected UC Commissioners; namely Kim Rogers, Chairwoman, Tracy Kuehler, Vice Chairwoman, and Lanny Openshaw appear to be single-minded to auction off (y)our Carolina Medical Center-Union (CMC-Union). Just as there is so much opposition across America to ‘ObamaCare’, there is similar massive opposition by the citizens of Union County allowing this sale of CMC-Union. Where did these political nonconformists come from? Why would these three Commissioners move into Union County, NC from somewhere afar, only to become candidates for elected office; win for the office; then attempt to destroy one of Union County’s most valued, precious assets? Why would these same three radical thinking, off-the-wall county commissioners become so obstructive and/or destructive to further improving our general ‘Health Care’ in Monroe, Waxhaw, or anywhere else within Union County, NC? What is really in their minds to act so unprofessionally and/or incompetently? Yes, I do suggest their political activity is unprofessional and/or incompetent.
In recent years, and due to my deteriorating health, I have become a somewhat frequent patient at CMC-Union. There has been many positive and significant improvements in health care at CMC-Union since the management changeover in 1995! If these three UC Commissioners demand a change in management, have a public hearing to justify the action and then, do so; but don’t sell our hospital. Please, get your head screwed on correctly.
Should these off-the-wall political thinking commissioners continue an effort to sell CMC-Union, I hope some local municipalities and/or independent groups will put together an effort seeking a ‘court order’ to stop any sale of CMC-Union and preserve this most important asset. Furthermore, now may be the time for other elected municipal office holders to seek state legislation support of a ‘recall’ of Union County Commissioners upon receipt by petition of ten (10) percent of the qualified voters of Union County. For the betterment of our entire community, these three commissioners must be defeated and/or removed from public office. CMC-Union belongs to all Union County’s taxpayers; not just a few to bargain our hospital away.
President Obama, Senator Harry Reid, Speaker of the House Nance Pelosi and most of their other elected Democrat Party members on Capitol Hill are cramming ‘ObamaCare’ through our throats, even though most political polls clearly show Americans are opposed 58% to 32% regarding either of the two (2) various pieces of ObamaCare legislation.
Currently, right here in Union County, three elected UC Commissioners; namely Kim Rogers, Chairwoman, Tracy Kuehler, Vice Chairwoman, and Lanny Openshaw appear to be single-minded to auction off (y)our Carolina Medical Center-Union (CMC-Union). Just as there is so much opposition across America to ‘ObamaCare’, there is similar massive opposition by the citizens of Union County allowing this sale of CMC-Union. Where did these political nonconformists come from? Why would these three Commissioners move into Union County, NC from somewhere afar, only to become candidates for elected office; win for the office; then attempt to destroy one of Union County’s most valued, precious assets? Why would these same three radical thinking, off-the-wall county commissioners become so obstructive and/or destructive to further improving our general ‘Health Care’ in Monroe, Waxhaw, or anywhere else within Union County, NC? What is really in their minds to act so unprofessionally and/or incompetently? Yes, I do suggest their political activity is unprofessional and/or incompetent.
In recent years, and due to my deteriorating health, I have become a somewhat frequent patient at CMC-Union. There has been many positive and significant improvements in health care at CMC-Union since the management changeover in 1995! If these three UC Commissioners demand a change in management, have a public hearing to justify the action and then, do so; but don’t sell our hospital. Please, get your head screwed on correctly.
Should these off-the-wall political thinking commissioners continue an effort to sell CMC-Union, I hope some local municipalities and/or independent groups will put together an effort seeking a ‘court order’ to stop any sale of CMC-Union and preserve this most important asset. Furthermore, now may be the time for other elected municipal office holders to seek state legislation support of a ‘recall’ of Union County Commissioners upon receipt by petition of ten (10) percent of the qualified voters of Union County. For the betterment of our entire community, these three commissioners must be defeated and/or removed from public office. CMC-Union belongs to all Union County’s taxpayers; not just a few to bargain our hospital away.
Friday, January 22, 2010
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)
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)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)