FOXNews.com: Will America will soon fall, as just like Rome did?

FOXNews.com FOX News Network - We Report. You Decide. // via fulltextrssfeed.com

Will America will soon fall, as just like Rome did? Jul 31st 2013, 17:00 Unfortunately, the fall of Rome is a pattern repeated by empires throughout history...including ours? A group of libertarians gathered in Las Vegas recently for an event called "FreedomFest." We debated whether America will soon fall, as Rome did. Historian Carl Richard said that today's America resembles Rome. The Roman Republic had a constitution, but Roman leaders often ignored it. "Marius was elected consul six years in a row, even though under the constitution (he) was term-limited to one year." Here in America we've accomplished amazing things, but we shouldn't take our continued success for granted. Sounds like New York City's Mayor Bloomberg. "We have presidents of both parties legislating by executive order, saying I'm not going to enforce certain laws because I don't like them. ... That open flouting of the law is dangerous because law ceases to have meaning. ... I see that today. ... Congress passes huge laws they haven't even read (as well as) overspending, overtaxing and devaluing the currency." The Romans were worse. I object to President Obama's $100 million dollar trip, but Nero traveled with 1,000 carriages. Tiberius established an "office of imperial pleasures," which gathered "beautiful boys and girls from all corners of the world" so, as Tacitus put it, the emperor "could defile them." Emperor Commodus held a show in the Colosseum at which he personally killed five hippos, two elephants, a rhinoceros and a giraffe. To pay for their excesses, emperors devalued the currency. (Doesn't our Fed do that by buying $2 trillion of government debt?) Nero reduced the silver content of coins to 95 percent. Then Trajan reduced it to 85 percent and so on. By the year 300, wheat that once cost eight Roman dollars cost 120,000 Roman dollars. The president of the Foundation for Economic Education, Lawrence Reed, warned that Rome, like America, had an expanding welfare state. It started with "subsidized grain. The government gave it away at half price. But the problem was that they couldn't stop there ... a man named Claudius ran for Tribune on a platform of free wheat for the masses. And won. It was downhill from there." Soon, to appease angry voters, emperors gave away or subsidized olive oil, salt and pork. People lined up to get free stuff. Rome's government, much like ours, wasn't good at making sure subsidies flowed only to the poor, said Reed: "Anybody could line up to get these goods, which contributed to the ultimate bankruptcy of the Roman state." As inflation increased, Rome, much like the U.S. under President Nixon, imposed wage and price controls. When people objected, Emperor Diocletian denounced their "greed," saying, "Shared humanity urges us to set a limit." Doesn't that sound like today's anti-capitalist politicians? Diocletian was worse than Nixon. Rome enforced controls with the death penalty -- and forbid people to change professions. Emperor Constantine decreed that those who broke such rules "be bound with chains and reduced to servile condition." Eventually, Rome's empire was so large -- and people so resentful of centralized control -- that generals in outlying regions began declaring independence from Rome. At FreedomFest, Matt Kibbe, president of the Tea Party group FreedomWorks, also argued that America could soon collapse like Rome did. "The parallels are quite ominous -- the debt, the expansionist foreign policy, the arrogance of executive power taking over our country," says Kibbe. "But I do think we have a chance to stop it." That's a big difference between today's America and yesterday's Rome. We have movements like the tea party and libertarianism and events like FreedomFest that alert people to the danger in imperial Washington and try to fight it. If they can wake the public, we have hope. The triumph of liberty is not inevitable, though. And empires do crumble. Rome's lasted the longest. The Ottoman Empire lasted 623 years. China's Song, Qing and Ming dynasties each lasted about 300 years. We've lasted just 237 years so far -- sometimes behaving like a republic and sometimes an empire. In that time, we've accomplished amazing things, but we shouldn't take our continued success for granted. Freedom and prosperity are not natural. In human history, they're rare. John Stossel is host of "Stossel" on the Fox Business Network. He's the author of  "No, They Can't: Why Government Fails-But Individuals Succeed," "Give Me a Break" and of "Myth, Lies, and Downright Stupidity." To find out more about John Stossel, visit his website at johnstossel.com.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com. If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Read more »

FOXNews.com: What liberal media won't tell you -- blacks benefit most from Stand Your Ground

FOXNews.com FOX News Network - We Report. You Decide. // via fulltextrssfeed.com

What liberal media won't tell you -- blacks benefit most from Stand Your Ground Jul 31st 2013, 15:54 Stand Your Ground laws have become a racial issue in the aftermath of the not guilty . President Obama and Attorney General Holder have weighed in, linking race and these laws.  On ABC News' "This Week," radio talk show host Travis Smiley declared what many think: "It appears to me, and I think many other persons in this country that you can in fact stand your ground unless you are a black man."  And they seem to have some evidence of this, now that the Tampa Bay Times has reviewed Florida's court cases to find "defendants claiming 'stand your ground' are more likely to prevail if the victim is black." In the wake of the not guilty verdict in the George Zimmerman trial musician Stevie Wonder's boycott of Florida until law is has been joined over the last few days by Harry Belafonte and Chaka Khan. Poor blacks who live in high crime urban areas are not only the most likely victims of crime, they are also the ones who benefit the most from Stand Your Ground laws. Meanwhile, the U.S. Civil Rights Commission has launched its own investigation on Stand Your Ground laws and the Senate Judiciary committee recently announced its plan to hold hearings in September. But the debate has everything backwards over who benefits from the law. Poor blacks who live in high crime urban areas are not only the most likely victims of crime, they are also the ones who benefit the most from Stand Your Ground laws. It makes it easier for them to protect themselves when the police can't be there fast enough. Rules that make self-defense more difficult would impact blacks the most. Blacks may make up just 16.6 percent of Florida's population, but they account for over 31 percent of the state's defendants invoking a Stand Your Ground defense. Black defendants who invoke this statute to justify their actions are acquitted 8 percent more frequently than whites who use that same defense. Prior to "Stand Your Ground," citizens had to retreat as far as possible and then announce to the criminal that they were going to shoot. The "Stand Your Ground" law drops the original requirement to retreat. But lethal force is still only justified when a reasonable person would believe that an attacker intends to inflict serious bodily harm or death. The law doesn't protect anyone who provokes a confrontation. Apparently forgotten are the reasons that "Stand Your Ground" laws exist. Delays in letting people defend themselves sometimes prevented people from doing so. Trying to define an "appropriate retreat" adds confusion. Prosecutors have sometimes abusively claimed that people who defended themselves could have retreated even farther. Despite the ruckus over the law after the George Zimmerman acquittal, his defense team never raised the "Stand Your Ground" law. Obviously, if Zimmerman was on his back and Trayvon Martin was holding him down (as the forensic and eyewitness evidence indicates), Zimmerman had no option to retreat. So the law was completely irrelevant. Those who claim racism as an element of Stand Your Ground laws point to data compiled by the Tampa Bay Tribune. The newspaper examined 112 cases where people charged with murder relied on Florida's Stand Your Ground law, starting with the first cases filed in 2006 up until a week ago. Their "shocking" finding: 71 percent of those who killed an African-American man or woman faced no penalty compared to 59 percent of those who killed a white person Yet, explosive claims of racism require more proof than that.  For example, just because two people are charged with murder doesn't mean the two cases are identical.  Using the Tribune data, blacks killed in these confrontations were 13 percentage points more likely to be armed than the whites who were killed, thus making it more plausible that their killers reasonably believed that they had little choice but to kill their attacker. By a 43 to 16 percent margin, the black men and women who were killed were also more often committing a crime. Further, there were also more cases with a witness around when a black was killed (69 to 62 percent). Besides information on the victim's and defendant's race and gender, the Tampa Bay Tribune collected a lot of other useful information on the cases: they looked at whether there were witnesses, whether the victim initiated the confrontation, whether the victim was armed, whether the defendant was on his own property when the shooting occurred, whether there was physical evidence, whether the defendant pursued the victim, and the type of case (was it a drug deal gone bad, home invasion, etc.). Surprisingly, the Tribune never examined if the data they collected might explain the different conviction rates.  Doing so actually reverses their claim. Everything else equal, in cases with only one person killed, killing a black person, rather than a white person, increases the defendant's odds of being convicted, though the result is not statistically significant. If you also include multiple murder cases, killing a black person increases the chances of conviction even more. These regressions also show that white defendants are more likely to be convicted than black defendants, and both effects are significantly greater than for Hispanics.  Whether the person killed initiated the confrontation and having an eyewitness were the most important factors in determining whether there was a conviction. We've heard it over and over: Stand Your Ground gave Zimmerman the confidence to leave his car, and if only Zimmerman had stayed in his car, this tragedy would have been prevented. Put aside that Zimmerman got out of his car because the operator asked where Martin was. Do we really want to live in a country where poor people in high crime urban areas hunker down, afraid to leave their homes? The third edition of the book, "More Guns, Less Crime," written by one of the authors here, is the first published peer-reviewed study examining laws that don't require victims retreat as far a possible and I found that there were benefits in terms of lower crime rates. Democrats make much of how they care about poor people. Yet, the taxes and fees they impose on gun ownership by law-abiding citizens say otherwise.  In Democratically-controlled Washington, D.C., it costs $534 to register and license a handgun. With New York's new background checks to buy ammunition, a fee averaging $85 is tacked on to each purchase of bullets. This spring when Republicans in Colorado offered an amendment to exempt those below the poverty level from having to pay the new fee to obtain a gun, it was Democrats who voted in lockstep to defeat it. Democrats want poor minorities votes, but they just don't want them to be able to defend themselves. John R. Lott, Jr. is a  FoxNews.com contributor. An economist and former chief economist at the United States Sentencing Commission, he is also a leading expert on guns. He is the author of several books, including "More Guns, Less Crime." His latest book is "At the Brink: Will Obama Push Us Over the Edge? (Regnery Publishing 2013)." Follow him on Twitter@johnrlottjr. Sherwin Lott is a junior at Johns Hopkins University.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com. If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Read more »

FOXNews.com: What Weiner's sexting scandal tells us about young women today

FOXNews.com FOX News Network - We Report. You Decide. // via fulltextrssfeed.com

What Weiner's sexting scandal tells us about young women today Jul 31st 2013, 14:26 Anthony Weiner obviously has problems that make him unfit to govern, but his addictive sexting behavior tells us at least as much about changes in gender roles—particularly the new eagerness of women to be overtly, graphically sexual—as it does about him.   Anthony Weiner assaulted no one; he had plenty of playmates happy to receive photographs of his private parts, flirt with Carlos Danger and gratify him and themselves, sexually. Today's women are, by the many millions, no different from men in their sexual appetites or lack of demureness. That's why Nancy Pelosi's statement that Anthony Weiner's behavior was offensive to women actually exposes a fault line between women of her age and women younger than, say, 30:  A very significant percentage of young women today are not offended by being sent overt, intensely erotic material and respond in kind. Some gender roles developed because of psychological facts, not in spite of them.  And when feminists urged and urge that we throw out all of them, they do a disservice to females and to the truth. The sexual liberation of women has liberated them to be just like men—who, whether anyone likes it or not, often enjoy sex outside of emotionally-connected, longstanding relationships.  This was an actual goal of feminists, and they began achieving it by (for example) publishing headlines on the cover of Cosmopolitan magazine urging women to share their best one-night stands, their bad-girl behavior and their techniques for achieving orgasm.   The wide dissemination of oral contraceptives furthered it, too. So has the abortion movement.  And so has the military—by moving to put women on the front lines, in combat roles. Women bought the feminist argument hook, line and sinker. The idea that they might actually want to preserve the role of resistor in the circuitry of sex, given the possibility that they might be more vulnerable emotionally and might be more vulnerable physically, was drummed out by those who argued, and continue to argue, that gender has no meaning—because males and females aren't just equal; they're no different from one another. The result is runaway sexual circuitry, fueled by the depersonalizing forces of the Internet, in general, and Facebook, Twitter and Tumblr, in particular.   From my perch as a psychiatrist talking to thousands of people a year, I can tell you that the average young woman no longer balks at sexting, watching pornography or being the aggressor sexually in a relationship.   Millions of female teenagers have heard the phrase "friends with benefits" and aren't reluctant to have sex as a pact of mutual physical fulfillment, with no strings attached. But I will tell you that, from what I hear in my office, the girls actually feel a whole lot worse about it, in their hearts, than the boys.  Because, you see, girls and boys, are not the same.   Some gender roles developed because of psychological facts, not in spite of them.  And when feminists urged and urge that we throw out all of them, they do a disservice to females and to the truth. So, don't think for a minute that the women who welcomed Anthony Weiner's sexual energy were being used by him, first or foremost. They were used by the Women's Movement long before he ever hit "send." Dr. Keith Ablow is a psychiatrist and member of the Fox News Medical A-Team. Dr. Ablow can be reached at info@keithablow.com.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com. If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Read more »

FOXNews.com: What would Martin Luther King say about Trayvon, race & America in 2013?

FOXNews.com FOX News Network - We Report. You Decide. // via fulltextrssfeed.com

What would Martin Luther King say about Trayvon, race & America in 2013? Jul 31st 2013, 11:00 On August 28, Americans will commemorate the 50th anniversary of the famous "March on Washington." In 1963, Dr. Martin Luther King, Junior stood on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial and delivered one of the most dramatic speeches of his lifetime. His "I Have A Dream" speech before 200,000 gathered on the Washington Mall was emotionally stirring, intellectually insightful, and spiritually enlightening.  Dr. King, a dedicated Baptist minister with brilliant oratory skills, the academic prowess of a scholar, and the wisdom of an ancient sage, faithfully and courageously challenged America to embrace his dream of a better, stronger and united America.  King dreamed of a day that black children and white children would live in a nation where they would not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.  He made an earnest appeal to all men and women from all faiths, nationalities and ethnicity to embrace freedom and justice for all. Dr. King would seek to elevate, motivate and demonstrate God's view for healing the painful wounds of the past and bridge the deep divide with the bonds of reconciliation. If Dr. King were alive today, he would be 84. What kind of America would he see?  How would he respond to the heated racial debate in the land stemming from the Trayvon Martin murder and the George Zimmerman trial verdict?  What would he do to address the black on black crime in our cities?  What would King say about the racial disparities in health, education, employment and incarceration?  What would King say about the role of the Church in all of this? Based on the speeches, essays, letters and books that Dr. King has written, I believe today he would take note of the various extreme points of view being discussed in today's public square He would listen to people agitate, bloviate, instigate and aggravate. Then he would seek to elevate, motivate and demonstrate God's view for healing the painful wounds of the past and bridge the deep divide with the bonds of reconciliation.  In 1963, as he sat in a Birmingham jail, he wrote about becoming an extremist to deal with the extreme issues of hate and division.  He advised Americans to become more like Jesus as an extremist in love -- "Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, pray for them who despitefully use you."  King posed a question to all Americans; should we become extremists of hate or extremists of love? In terms of education, Dr. King would continue to strongly encourage African-Americans to view education as the gateway out of poverty.  King applauded the constant streams of African-mericans who were completing college. But today, he would be concerned about the rising trend towards illiteracy in the black community. Dr. Howard Fuller, co-founder of the faith-based Black Alliance for Educational Options poignantly put it this way: "On February 6, 1960, four black students from North Carolina A&T College go to a segregated lunch counter at Woolworths in Greensboro and demand to be served. Today in 2013, four black students who are now welcome at the lunch counter sit down and can't read the menu. How does that happen?" Fuller, who drew inspiration from his parents and Dr. King to seek an education and rise from the housing projects of Milwaukee, Wisconsin to eventually become the city's first Black Superintendent of Schools believes King would be disappointed by the state of education in the black community.  Indeed, in his address to the Golden Anniversary Conference of the National Urban League in 1960, King sighted the steady decline of crippling illiteracy as a major factor in the rapid educational advances among blacks.  He believed education, along with faith in God, and a non-violent struggle against oppression would broaden the thinking of black Americans, provide a larger view of the world, but also a larger view of themselves. Sadly, some of us have taken our eyes off the prize. Dr. King would be troubled by the current and disturbing trends of violence in the black community.  He would be heartbroken to see the alarming rate of black on black violence in Chicago, Detroit, Baltimore, Philadelphia, New Orleans, and other urban areas. He would likely conduct peace marches through the heart of these killing fields.  He would challenge all Americans; but particularly blacks to do something about the violence; to increase the peace on the streets in urban America.  In an article he wrote for Ebony magazine in 1966 titled "Nonviolence: The Only Road to Freedom in 1966, King sounded the alarm that it is a moral imperative to be non-violent: "Only a refusal to hate or kill can put an end to the chains of violence in the world and lead us toward a community where men can live together without fear. Our goal is to create a beloved community."    As King addressed the issues of his time and promoted a society of brotherhood, he wanted to avoid being looked upon as a super and unrealistic optimist in an age of cynicism and pessimism.  He wrote on page 64 of his book, "Struggle to Love": As we struggle to defeat the forces of evil, the God of the universe struggles with us. Evil dies on the seashore, not merely because of man's endless struggle against it, but because of God's power to defeat it."  Dr. King did, and still does, encourage all of us to come to the table of brotherhood, to discuss our differences openly and honestly, to work and pray for a peace that surpasses all understanding.  Dr. King would remind us that in everything we do, we must act in love. Not in some sort of sentimental love.  He explained it would be difficult for men to love their enemies or oppressors in an affectionate sense. Because of that, he pushed the concept of Agape love. He explained that Agape love is not sentimental or affectionate, but is a reciprocal love.  A person will love out of a redeeming good will for mankind. It is the kind of sacrificial love that seeks nothing in return.  King wrote in "Facing The Challenge of A New Age," ...on the Agape level we love men not because we like them, not because their attitudes and ways appeal to us, but because God loves us. Here we rise to the position of loving the person who does the evil deed while hating the deed that the person does...we will be able to stand...with dignity and discipline."   As a child, I recall being excited to hear Dr. King speak. His words resonated with the same hopeful message that I received from June, my single parent mother.  Their words spoke promise into my soul. They made me feel that if I maintained my faith in God, gained knowledge of the world through a good education, plus worked hard in my career, and then I could accomplish anything.  My mother fervently believed that. She frequently used the words of Dr. King, the Bible, and her own wisdom to help me along my rocky journey to manhood.  One quote from Dr. King that my mother often shared with me is something we should all consider living by, "If I can help somebody as I travel on, if I can help somebody with a word or a song, If I can help somebody who is traveling wrong, then my living will not be in vain." Now is the time to help somebody. Now is the time to follow in King's footsteps and become drum majors for peace. Now is the time for us to "live together as brothers or perish together as fools." Kelly Wright is a general assignment reporter for Fox News Channel, based in the Washington, D.C. bureau. He is also a co-host on "America's News Headquarters" on Saturdays (1:00-2:00 PM/ET). Wright previously served as a co-host on "Fox & Friends Weekend." Wright is also an ordained minister and Gospel singer. Most recently, he was inducted into the Martin Luther King, Jr. Board of Sponsors at Morehouse College for his Fox News "Beyond the Dream" series. He is the author of "America's Hope in Troubled Times."

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com. If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Read more »

FOXNews.com: How liberals have it wrong about Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity

FOXNews.com FOX News Network - We Report. You Decide. // via fulltextrssfeed.com

How liberals have it wrong about Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity Jul 30th 2013, 18:42 Editor's note: Radio talk show icon Rush Limbaugh goes "On the Record" with Greta Van Susteren for a rare interview Tuesday, July 30 at 10 p.m. ET. Headlines have been blaring all over the digital universe about Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity being tossed off the radio airwaves by Cumulus and losing 40 stations in key markets. For example, Politico's Dylan Byers reported: "In a major shakeup for the radio industry, Cumulus Media, the second-biggest broadcaster in the country, is planning to drop both Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity from its stations at the end of the year, an industry source told POLITICO on Sunday. Cumulus has decided that it will not renew its contracts with either host, the source said, a move that would remove the two most highly rated conservative talk personalities from more than 40 Cumulus channels in major markets." However, in the words of the legendary radio broadcaster Paul Harvey, readers are not being told the rest of the story. Cumulus and Clear Channel have been buying up stations in major markets. Limbaugh and Hannity are syndicated by Premiere, which is owned by Clear Channel. Rather than pay fees to Cumulus to carry these shows it makes more sense to put them on their own properties, reduce local talent costs, and save those fees. The two top-rated talkers aren't going anywhere. They're just changing dial positions and, in many cases, to better signals. Seeing liberal bloggers declare victory about how a boycott of these shows' sponsors led to this makes my hair stand on end for four reasons.   Seeing liberal bloggers declare victory about how a boycott of these shows' sponsors led to this makes my hair stand on end for four reasons. First, that's not at all what happened, as these shows will land elsewhere. Second, and even more importantly, these two broadcasters, with whom I vehemently, vocally, and publicly disagree politically, have done more to keep the talk radio industry alive than anyone else. It's because of the success of these two shows that many stations have stayed in the talk format in the first place, allowing other shows to be heard. Much as liberals don't have nearly as many outlets as conservatives (According to Talkers Magazine, conservatives own the lion's share of the news/talk market), it would be even worse for the left if these shows weren't making it, because the industry would be closer to collapse at a time when terrestrial radio is struggling. Third, a boycott hurts the entire business. Advertisers run scared and are encouraged to avoid controversy, and that affects all programming, including progressive hosts. Fourth, what kind of liberal wants to clamp down on free speech and celebrate shutting someone up? The best antidote to free speech is -- free speech. As the German theologian Martin Niemoller famously said, "First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out because I was not a Socialist..." If I, as a liberal, didn't speak out against those who would squelch the free speech of conservatives, I wouldn't deserve to call myself a liberal. I will continue to speak out against the views of both Limbaugh and Hannity when I feel it's warranted, meeting their free speech with my own. But I will never forget that, without them, I'd have a much smaller platform on which to do it. Alan Colmes joined Fox News Channel in 1996. He served as the liberal counterpart and co-host of "Hannity & Colmes," a one-hour debate-driven talk show focusing on controversial newsmakers and issues of the day. After a string of successful radio shows on WNBC, WABC and WMCA in New York, Colmes gained a reputation as a hard-hitting liberal known for his electric commentary on the American agenda.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com. If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Read more »

FOXNews.com: Liberal media miss reality in jabs at Lauren Green's interview with 'Zealot' author Aslan

FOXNews.com FOX News Network - We Report. You Decide. // via fulltextrssfeed.com

Liberal media miss reality in jabs at Lauren Green's interview with 'Zealot' author Aslan Jul 30th 2013, 20:11 There's nothing the left likes better than attacking Fox News. Almost all liberal media "analysis" revolves around such activity, without ever noting the outlandishly liberal biases of the traditional outlets that outnumber Fox like the Persians outnumbered the Spartans. Throw in a chance to defend Islam and bash Christians and you get to light up the Internet like a Christmas (or Solstice) tree. That was the case when Lauren Green, religion correspondent for Fox News (the folks who run this website), interviewed the controversial author of the new book "Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth." In a Fox News.com Live interview Green dared to ask Reza Aslan, a Muslim who converted to Christianity and then back to Islam, the most obvious of questions: "Now, I want to clarify: You are a Muslim, so why did you write a book about the founder of Christianity?"  That bolding is important. It's how The Washington Post's Erik Wemple handled it in a piece headlined "Fox News must apologize to Reza Aslan."  Wemple did two pieces attacking Fox on this point, saying they were "stupid and prejudicial questions." Apparently Wemple needs a refresher course on the Society of Professional Journalists' Code of Ethics. It states: "The public is entitled to as much information as possible on sources' reliability." In the liberal media, one dare not ever question the motives of Muslims. The heck with that. In the liberal media, one dare not ever question the motives of Muslims. How do we know this? Just ask the Post.  Two months after 9/11, Wemple's own paper went to an Islamic expert to answer questions for readers on washingtonpost.com. The paper turned to Anwar Al-Awlaki – a man we later discovered was a terrorist so awful that Obama had him killed on sight by a drone armed with Hellfire missiles. In the video, Al-Awlaki criticized "this association between Islam and terrorism." Now that's apology worthy. The Post was really just piling on.  The Daily Beast called it "the interview that's been burning up the Internet." Actually, it was only burning up the left side of the Internet until the traditional media followed that lead.  The Huffington Post has written about it around the clock since the interview – with at least six different pieces, including a HuffPo Live segment, and a column calling Green "the Fox News Zealot" and another saying the Q&A was a "wacky interview." My favorite ridiculous HuffPo headline on this was: "Reza Aslan: Speaking Truth to Power." Aslan's so-called truth is that Jesus was not the son of God. In HuffPo land, anyone who is Christian is wrong. That is the core of lefty belief. The rest of the extensive left-wing web – Buzzfeed, Salon, The New Republic, Alternet, etc. – churned the story to make libs fume with anger. That was followed by the traditional media – the Post, New York Times, CNN et al. Aslan whined to Piers Morgan that it was "distasteful" to be asked about his credentials. Morgan, taking a break from his crusade against the Constitution, called the questions "ridiculous." During the interview, Aslan called his book "an historical biography of a man named Jesus of Nazareth. It seems to separate him from the Christology that arose around him in the generations that followed." Pretty much proving the point that Christian critics have said of his book – that he was supporting the principle tenet of his faith, that Jesus is not divine. Yet he was shocked and complained some felt he was "attacking their faith." Since that's exactly what he was doing. Unsurprisingly, Morgan gave a weak interview, letting Aslan once again get away without significant challenge to his work. The liberal reaction to Green's interview is a great example of journalists seeing what they choose to see, not reality. The interview wasn't her best, but that's not cause for the media feeding frenzy. The reason so many are after her is that she raised the uncomfortable question about why a Muslim was writing to deny the existence of the Christian faith. Sadly, most journalists did that so long ago that they fail to recognize the story. Dan Gainor is the Boone Pickens Fellow and the Media Research Center's Vice President for Business and Culture. He writes frequently about media for Fox News Opinion. He can also be contacted on Facebook and Twitter as dangainor.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com. If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Read more »

FOXNews.com: Hey Congress, nothing can happen if you won't talk with each other

FOXNews.com FOX News Network - We Report. You Decide. // via fulltextrssfeed.com

Hey Congress, nothing can happen if you won't talk with each other Jul 30th 2013, 15:58 Recently, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) gathered 97 of his Senate colleagues in the Old Senate Chamber for a three-and-a-half-hour private session – no staff or press, just senators. For the first time in several years, senators from both parties listened to each other. By all accounts, trust and communication improved.  By calling this session, Sen. Reid has shown he is the leader of the whole Senate, not just one partisan group. We can only hope our elected leaders from both chambers of Congress will take his cue and begin to work together for the good of our great nation. Increasingly over the last few years, America's leaders have been deeply divided on the key issues facing the United States.  It's high time for Congress to drop the party rhetoric and start leading. Elected leaders from both parties appear rarely to communicate or cooperate; hyper-partisanship has resulted in stalemates, a lack of budgets, continuing resolutions to fund government, sequestration rather than decision-making and general paralysis on our most important issues.  In the first half of 2013, Congress has passed only 18 bills, although the Democrat-controlled Senate has passed 29 bills and the Republican-controlled House has passed 89. The American people have taken notice of the gridlock. When House members and senators return to their districts and states, citizens want to know why they can't get things done. A recent Gallup poll showed congressional approval ratings at some of their lowest in history – a mere 15 percent of Americans approve of the job Congress is doing. The top reason for the high disapproval rating: partisan gridlock.  We may not all agree on every issue, but the American people understand that it is critical for people to work together to solve problems and move the nation forward. It's high time for Congress to drop the party rhetoric and start leading. So Sen. Reid's stab at inclusiveness last week was a breakthrough. It paved the way for a deal the next day, avoiding a change in Senate rules and opening the way for the Senate to approve seven key presidential nominations that have been held up for far too long.  Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) played a big role in encouraging Senate Republicans to work with Democrats to reach a compromise, receiving warm commendation from Sen. Reid. Now it is House Speaker John Boehner's (R-Ohio) opportunity to lead in a similar way. By every indication he is a decent person with humble beginnings who serves his nation to make it better. But now he must decide whether his job is to follow the wishes of the Republican majority in the House, or to lead the entire House to work together to solve major national problems.  One opportunity is immigration. All agree the system is broken.  The Senate last month passed a bipartisan bill to begin fixing our immigration system, but the bill faces a tough vote in the House.  Some have urged Rep. Boehner to follow the "Hastert Rule," named after former Speaker Dennis Hastert, who refused to bring legislation up for a vote unless a Republican majority supported it.  This approach is not leading. It is following.  If congressional members are putting the needs of their party ahead of the needs of the nation, they should not be in office. Ironically, the American people, and probably most rank and file House members, disagree with the House leaders and want compromises and solutions on tough issues like immigration, as well as issues like patent litigation reform, tax policy and the budget deficit.  Lack of leadership simply preserves the status quo. The U.S. is a great country, but we cannot begin to address – let alone fix – our problems if our politicians refuse to talk to each other.  House Speaker Boehner and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) should follow Sen. Reid's example. They have a chance to lead in Congress, and to encourage our elected representatives to lead this country. Whether they meet the challenge may well determine whether our children inherit a strong, first-rate nation – or something else entirely. Gary Shapiro is president and CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA)®, the U.S. trade association representing more than 2,000 consumer electronics companies. His latest book is "Ninja Innovation: The Ten Killer Strategies of the World's Most Successful Businesses," (William Morrow, January 2013). He is also author of the New York Times bestselling book, "The Comeback: How Innovation Will Restore the American Dream" Contact him on Twitter at @GaryShapiro.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com. If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Read more »

FOXNews.com: Do the math -- Common Core = a massive, risky experiment on your kids

FOXNews.com FOX News Network - We Report. You Decide. // via fulltextrssfeed.com

Do the math -- Common Core = a massive, risky experiment on your kids Jul 30th 2013, 16:22 Controversy is swirling about the new Common Core national standards, which are designed to transform K-12 education in English language arts and math.  Especially in the area of math, Common Core proponents insist that it is the only way to address the problem of lagging achievement by American students. But the Common Core math standards fall far short of what students need for more advanced work.  In some ways Common Core amounts to a massive experiment with our children – an experiment we think the states would be wise to reconsider. Most educators would agree that mathematical education in the U.S. is in crisis, and that the reason is the way math is currently taught. But Common Core does nothing to address this problem. And in fact, in many areas the national standards are fully as poor as the standards of the weakest states. Hidden in Common Core is the real objective – presenting the minimal amount of material that high-school graduates need to be able to enter the work force in an entry-level job. One of Common Core's most glaring deficiencies is its handling of adding, subtracting, multiplying, and dividing numbers.  Remember "fuzzy math"? It's back with a vengeance under Common Core.  The classic method of, for example, adding two-digit numbers is to add the digits in the "ones" column, carry the remainder to the "tens" column, and then add the "tens" digits. This "standard algorithm" works first time, every time.  But instead of teaching this method, which enables students to solve problems quickly and routinely, Common Core creates a two-step process.  The first is to let students choose from several alternative algorithms (number lines, estimating, etc.) for doing one-digit additions, subtractions, and multiplications.  The second is probably to extend these student constructions to more complex calculations. (We say "probably" because the standards are not at all clear on this point.)  There is no point where the student-constructed algorithms are explicitly replaced by the very efficient standard methods for doing one-digit operations. Why does Common Core adopt this convoluted method of teaching math? The stated reason is that learning the standard algorithm doesn't give students a "deeper conceptual understanding" of what they're doing. But the use of student-constructed algorithms is at odds with the practices of high-achieving countries and is not supported by research. Common Core is using our children for a huge and risky experiment. There are also severe problems with the way Common Core handles percents, ratios, rates, and proportions – the critical topics that are essential if students are to learn more advanced topics such as trigonometry, statistics, and even calculus.  As well, the way Common Core presents geometry is not research-based -- and the only country that tried this approach on a large scale rapidly abandoned it.   In addition to these deficiencies, Common Core only includes most (but not all) of the standard algebra I expectations, together with only some parts of standard geometry and algebra II courses. There is no content beyond this. Hidden in Common Core is the real objective – presenting the minimal amount of material that high-school graduates need to be able to enter the work force in an entry-level job, or to enroll in a community college with a reasonable expectation of avoiding a remedial math course.  There is no preparation for anything more, such as entering a university (not a community college) with a reasonable expectation of being able to skip the entry-level courses.  (Virtually no university student who has to take an entry-level math course ever gets a degree in a technical area such as the hard sciences, engineering, economics, statistics, or mathematics.)   Common Core thus amounts to a disservice to our students. It puts them at least two years behind their peers in high-performing countries, and leaves them ill-prepared for authentic college course work. Those who doubt that this low-level workforce-development is the goal of Common Core should ponder the admission of Jason Zimba, one of the chief drafters of the math standards.  In a public meeting of the Massachusetts State Board of Education in 2010, Dr. Zimba testified that Common Core is designed to prepare students only for a non-selective community college, not a university.  In the waves of Common Core advocacy, from Republicans as well as Democrats, this was indeed an unusual moment of candor. So before states forge ahead with a set of standards created, owned, copyrighted, and controlled by anonymous interests outside the state, they should be aware that those interests seem to be motivated by the desire for minimal workforce-development rather than genuine math education.  Is the Common Core experiment the best we can do? Parents and teachers should refuse to settle for this Common Core mediocrity, and demand truly world-class standards for the good of our students and our country. Dr. James Milgram, Professor of Mathematics at Stanford University, has extensive experience developing mathematics standards throughout the nation and served on the Validation Committee for the Common Core Standards. Emmett McGroarty, serves as Executive Director of the American Principles Project's Preserve Innocence Initiative which informs Americans about the dangers of centralizing education through the Common Core. He is co-author of "Controlling Education From the Top: Why Common Core Is Bad for America."

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com. If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Read more »

FOXNews.com: Five ways Obama can man up and punch back against Putin

FOXNews.com FOX News Network - We Report. You Decide. // via fulltextrssfeed.com

Five ways Obama can man up and punch back against Putin Jul 30th 2013, 12:19 Across the commentariat pundits are wringing their hands over the Snowden affair, whining there is nothing the U.S. can do to stop Russia from granting him asylum. For five years there has been a sparring match between the two most powerful presidents in the world -- Obama and Putin. Putin has won every round, and as a result he's got all the leverage. Or so it would seem. So what do you do when you don't have leverage? You go and get some. It's time for President Obama to man up and punch back. Being petty may not be something President Obama is comfortable with, but it is Putin's preferred method of operation. Unless Obama beats Putin at his own game he's unlikely to get the Russian president's attention or respect. Putin seems to enjoy humiliating Obama and pushing back against American policies. Originally President Obama tried to deal with Putin by offering grand gestures. He was rebuffed every time. He offered to reset relations with Russia and had Secretary of State Clinton give Foreign Minister Lavrov an oversized computer button with "RESET" written in Russian. Putin responded by saying we didn't get the translation right. Obama then cancelled the planned missile shield in Poland and the Czech Republic as a goodwill gesture in hopes Putin would respond by canceling their cooperation with Iran's nuclear weapons program. Instead Russia ramped it up. Obama recently offered to cut U.S. nuclear stockpiles by a third if Russia reciprocated. They said they might think about it, but only after the U.S. cut its missile defense program. While Obama may be given to high minded rhetoric and sweeping proposals, Putin is decidedly not. The Russians have a very transactional approach to dealing with other countries -- it's always a tit for tat. For example, when Congress passed the Magnitsky Act denying visas for a handful of Russians involved in the persecution and murder of a whistleblower, they responded by denying visas to Americans who wanted to adopt Russian orphans. And now we have Mr. Snowden sitting in the transit lounge of Moscow airport.Putin already has gotten what he wanted out of Snowden – not just intelligence data, but knowledge of the methodology we use to gather intelligence. He has also humiliated President Obama, who started out saying there would be serious consequences if Snowden wasn't returned. When it became obvious Russia wasn't giving him back, Obama was forced to dismiss Snowden as a 29-year-old hacker too insignificant to bother with. According to Putin biographer Fiona Hill, the Russian president and former spymaster is a man who likes to get into people's heads, to read them and then play to their weaknesses. Every time the U.S. and Russian president have met Putin has lectured Obama on something -- on privacy, treason, Syria, Iran, even radical Islam. Putin seems to enjoy humiliating Obama and pushing back against American policies. Why? Because he knows he can get away with it. Can you imagine Putin trying to do the same to Reagan? It's time for the American president to do the same.It's time to show Mr. Putin there are consequences to his actions. Only then will Putin stop exploiting President Obama, and trying to foil his every move. How best to make the point? Hit Putin where it hurts most – his ego. The 60-year-old Putin recently divorced his matronly looking wife of thirty years to take up with a gorgeous, limber 30-year-old former Olympic gymnast. When Obama claimed first dibs on the gym at the Dublin G-8 meeting recently, Putin one-upped him by inviting photographers to snap pictures of him doing a muscular breaststroke in an icy Irish lake. While vacationing in Siberia, Putin posed bare-chested for a photo spread of himself horseback riding. Watch the YouTube video of him crooning 'Blueberry Hill' to a group of Hollywood celebrities and notice how Putin's face hardly moves – a dead giveaway of plastic surgery or Botox or both. This is a man who cares about his image. It's time to rain on his parade. First, cause some trouble at the upcoming September G-20 Summit meeting in St. Petersburg. Russia is the G-20's new president– and it's a symbol that they've arrived (or re-arrived) as a superpower. Obama may not be able to organize a boycott of the entire G-20 summit, since the other 18 countries are mad because Snowden revealed the NSA was spying on them. But at a minimum Obama should cancel the one-on-one pre-summit meeting he was supposed to have in Moscow with Putin. It's getting a little too crowded at the Moscow airport with Snowden living in the transit lounge. Second, suggest that a top-tier American university is thinking of offering Russian dissident Alexei Navalny a fellowship once he gets out of jail for criticizing Putin and the Russian government. This position could be touted as similar to the one given to blind Chinese dissident and human rights activist Chen Guangcheng last year. Third, talk up recent think tank reports that the Russian energy sector is in trouble. Leak stories that the U.S. intelligence community is studying the implications of the coming collapse of the Russian economy if they don't get foreign investment and technology to develop new oil fields. Because, despite Putin's new emphasis on creating new industries, Russia has failed to create an export economy outside of the energy industry. After all, who buys Russian cars, or computers or clothes? Fourth, have the State and Defense Department officials suggest that, given recent advances in Iran's nuclear program, we are taking a second look at reinstating the missile defense shield for Poland and the Czech republic. Obama could stop in for a pre-summit meeting with the Polish president before going to the G-20 session, and bring along a few U.S. energy experts to discuss how the U.S. can help Poland develop their new natural gas discoveries. Finally, hint that the U.S. has concerns about security for the upcoming Sochi winter Olympics, given the continuing unrest in Chechnya. As for those senators who suggest we should boycott the Olympics, how about instead we win every medal in sight. Can you imagine how Putin will feel if his gymnast girlfriend has to put a medal around an American neck? This may sound more First Wives Club than diplomacy, but if the Russians want to play tit for tat, we need to beat them at their own game. Obama may think actions like this are beneath him, but Putin does not. Obama may not be threatened by Putin's pettiness, but Putin would be if the shoe was on the other foot... If Putin realizes he's the one being humiliated, that working against the U.S. will cost him dearly, he may be more amenable to U.S. interests. One thing is certain -- the Mr. Nice Guy approach Obama has used with Putin heretofore hasn't worked. As for Snowden – at this point he's a liability for the Russians as well as us. They've got what they wanted from him, and we're not getting him back. U.S. and Russian mid-level officials should work behind the scenes to find a country Snowden can go to that gets the issue behind both of our countries. Maybe Snowden can go to some lousy banana republic -- and spend the rest of his days in a third rate hotel, writing his memoirs while trying to get room service to deliver and the ceiling fan to work. Wikileaks can foot the bill. Kathleen Troia "K.T." McFarland is a Fox News National Security Analyst and host of FoxNews.com's "DefCon 3." She is a Distinguished Adviser to the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies and served in national security posts in the Nixon, Ford and Reagan administrations. She wrote Secretary of Defense Weinberger's November 1984 "Principles of War Speech" which laid out the Weinberger Doctrine. Be sure to watch "K.T." every Wednesday at 1 p.m. ET on FoxNews.com's "

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com. If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Read more »

FOXNews.com: Boy Scouts don't understand that stigmatizing obese kids doesn't help anyone

FOXNews.com FOX News Network - We Report. You Decide. // via fulltextrssfeed.com

Boy Scouts don't understand that stigmatizing obese kids doesn't help anyone Jul 29th 2013, 16:54 The Boy Scouts of America (BSA) raised eyebrows this summer when the group announced that the quadrennial Boy Scout Jamboree, which wrapped up last week in West Virginia, would ban children whose body mass index (BMI) was over 40 and require children whose BMI was above 32 to submit medical information to be included in the event.   While the BSA deserves credit for its commitment to the heath and well-being of children, and for its efforts to address the difficult issue of childhood obesity, the decision risks perpetuating a stigma which could in fact make the problem worse. Childhood obesity is a complex and varied disorder with respect to causes, physical and emotional consequences, and treatment.  Yet many people view childhood obesity in a singular, negative way.   Obese children and adolescents are more likely to engage in unhealthy dietary practices such as overly restrictive eating, which paradoxically can result in binge eating. There is perhaps no group that is the subject of more stigma than obese children. This plays out in the form of teasing, ridicule for their appearance, blame for their condition, and an assumption that they are lazy or lack willpower.  All this, despite evidence of powerful genetic, biological and environmental forces that maintain childhood obesity. And beyond the physical, obese children can also be seen as mentally unsound even though obese children can demonstrate considerable resilience and the American Psychiatric Association does not consider obesity a mental health disorder. Stigma can lead to intense body image dissatisfaction and low self-esteem among obese children. This can be perpetuated by peers as well as adults, including teachers and health care practitioners. Rather than motivating children to lose weight in a healthy manner, stigma often leads to unhealthy practices that accentuate the problem.  For example, obese children and adolescents are more likely to engage in unhealthy dietary practices such as overly restrictive eating, which paradoxically can result in binge eating. Further, childhood experiences often form the foundations for adult life.  Ridicule about childhood weight can lead to poor physical and mental health in adults.   In fact, people with eating disorders frequently report childhood teasing and social exclusion as the basis for their poor self-esteem and body image as an adult.  Further, the stress associated with stigma of obesity can result in weight gain and cardiovascular issues. The stigma of obesity thus contributes to further public health consequences. The BSA's decision to formally and publicly exclude obese children from the Jamboree runs the risk of feeding into the stigma of obesity on all fronts. First, by having rigid exclusion criteria they are erroneously saying that all obese children are the same in terms of health and fitness. Second, the exclusionary policy alienates children and their families from an exercise-based activity, which could actually improve their health. Finally, the BSA policy models exclusionary behavior towards obese children – if the adults can do it, why not kids?  The statement by BSA officials that children who cannot lose weight in time of the event have "self-selected" out of the event is if anything a testimony to this perception of exclusion and the potential damage done by this decision. So what can be done? Certainly the Boy Scouts of America in setting its policy did not intend to perpetuate a stigma. To address the public health impact of obesity, it is essential that reducing stigma be a core element of its approach for future events. First, the BSA should publicly condemn the teasing or exclusion of obese children and reverse it's decision to exclude obese children. Second, the BSA should develop safety measures that codify its interest and concern for the health and well-being of all children at its events, including required medical personnel. Third, the BSA should publicly embrace a wide range of approaches to manage obesity, including those that target behaviors rather than weight loss per se. Finally, there must be specific outreach to advocacy groups that specialize in reducing stigma. Leaving stigma unaddressed unfortunately signals that the BSA passively accepts it.  Attempting to manage childhood obesity is a noble goal, but we must not overlook the real impact of general public perceptions on the problem.  If we want a healthier society, we have to consider not just the physical implications, but the very real social and psychological aspects of obesity as well. Dr. Michael A. Friedman is a clinical psychologist in Manhattan and a member of EHE International's Medical Advisory Board. Follow EHE on Twitter: @EHEintl.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com. If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Read more »

FOXNews.com: What Pope Francis really said about gays -- and no, it's not new

FOXNews.com FOX News Network - We Report. You Decide. // via fulltextrssfeed.com

What Pope Francis really said about gays -- and no, it's not new Jul 29th 2013, 19:24 Pope Francis doesn't do interviews. Or at least that's what we thought.  He said that about himself just one week ago on the way to Rio de Janeiro for World Youth Day.    Then World Youth Day happened.  And it happened in a big way.   According to official reports from City Hall, 3.2 million young people gathered on Copacabana Beach to see him, pray with him, and hear his proposal about the meaning of life.  The Bible and the Catholic Church have never taught that it is a "sin" to be homosexual. His closing message to them was simple: Go back to your homes, and serve others without fear.  Hours later, perhaps taking to heart his own closing message about fearless service, Pope Francis offered an 80 minute, unscripted question-and-answer session with the international press corps. In its entirely, the press conference on the pope's plane traveling from Brazil back to the Vatican was fascinating.  (For more, please look at my Twitter reports.) But, unfortunately, if you were reading the headlines from some media outlets, you would have learned just one thing. As the Huffington Post put it: "Breakthrough: Pope OK with Gays." This is the worst coverage of a religious story I have seen to date.  Let's begin with the fact that the pope has always been "OK" with homosexuals.  In fact, by the demands of his own religion he is required to be much more than just "OK."  The Christian faith teaches that every person is endowed by God with an inviolable dignity and therefore deserves our unconditional respect and love.  A section of an Associated Press report also got the story very wrong.  Summarizing the pope's comments on homosexuals in the priesthood, the AP reported: "Francis was much more conciliatory [than Pope Benedict], saying gay clergymen should be forgiven and their sins forgotten."   Pope Francis didn't say that, and the report is wrong on so many levels.   First of all, it suggests that being gay itself, is a sin. What Pope Francis really said, in response to a reporter's question about homosexual priests who are living a celibate life was this: "If someone is gay and he searches for the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge?"  Pope Francis simply and compassionately reiterated Biblical teaching. The Bible and the Catholic Church have never taught that it is a "sin" to be homosexual.  They teach it is a sin to have homosexual sex because it goes against the laws of God's nature, specifically his plan for human sexuality.   When Pope Francis says "who am I to judge" he is saying—and I think we need to hear more of this from religious leaders—that active homosexuals deserve the same kindness, love, and mercy that all of us sinners would hope to receive from God and from others.  We don't make judgments about anyone's personal worth—God has already done that when he created us out of love.  I would hope next time Pope Francis offers to meet with the press, they would take to heart his message about fearless service and report to their readers what he actually said, rather than what they wish they had heard.  Father Jonathan Morris is a Fox News contributor and program director of "The Catholic Channel" on SiriusXM radio, Channel 129. He is author of "God Wants You Happy: From Self-Help to God's Help" and "The Promise: God's Purpose and Plan for When Life Hurts." For more visitwww.FatherJonathan.com. Follow him on Twitter (@fatherjonathan) and visit his Facebook page: www.facebook.com/fathermorris.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com. If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Read more »