Fire Dartmouth President?

J :) POLL Fire Dartmouth President?

Read article below and vote at DelphiForum’s Adult Christian Forum http://forums.delphiforums.com/kath/messages/?msg=224280.1
N.B. Federal regulation and subsidy of tertiary education makes this a public, not a private, issue. 

Dartmouth undone, Part Two
powerlineblog.com by Paul Mirengoff http://bit.ly/1spkjcR aka http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/05/dartmouth-undone-part-two.php

As Scott discusses below, Dartmouth has declared that it will not punish the BlackLivesMatter-supporting students who rampaged through Dartmouth’s Baker Library, cursing at and intimidating students as they tried to study for exams. Dartmouth’s decision is disgraceful.
If the concept of a “safe space” has any meaning, it applies to Baker Library. But if you’re angry and Black, you can disrupt that space by insulting students as they go about the business of learning.
Why did Dartmouth take no disciplinary action against the rampaging, threatening students? Meg Ramsden, Assistant Director, Alumni Leadership wrote:
__ After concluding its investigation with respect to the complaints and studying what was seen in the video in Baker-Berry Library, it was determined that there were no specific violations of the Standards of Conduct. In essence, no rules for which there are recorded and communicated sanctions were broken.
But Standard II of the Dartmouth Community Standards of Conduct prohibits Disorderly Conduct, defined as “any disruption of the orderly processes of the College.” Standard II also states:
__ The College requires orderly conduct of all students while in Hanover and its environs, as well as at any College-related function or activity, whether in Hanover or elsewhere. . . .
Studying in a college library is obviously an “orderly process of the College.” The BlackLivesMatter protesters disrupted it through disorderly behavior.
Thus, Rumsden’s claim that no specific violation occurred fails. It cannot be the real reason why Dartmouth let off every student who participated in the Baker Library rampage, even those who threatened students and screamed racist abuse (e.g., “Stand the f*** up!” “You filthy racist white piece of s***!”) at them.
What is the real reason? Either president Phil Hanlon is afraid to stand up to Dartmouth’s radical black students or he believes that their conduct is excusable. Either way, it’s clear that Hanlon is not competent to lead Dartmouth.
In her letter to alums, Ramsden states:
__ Students were counseled in serious conversations about judgment, the pledge of citizenship and behavior appropriate within a civil community.
But the students didn’t take the “serious conversations” seriously. Recently, Dartmouth’s BlackLivesMatter movement tore down a pro-police display that College Republicans erected to commemorate National Police Week. The College Republicans had received approval from Dartmouth to erect the display.
Why wouldn’t the BlackLivesMatter folks tear down the display? They know the administration won’t take action against them.
In her letter explaining why Dartmouth didn’t punish the Baker Library protesters, Rumsden invoked the First Amendment. She said that in an academic setting, “freedom of speech is mission crucial.” She concluded, inelegantly, that “the standards of the First Amendment are what are used to guide this process.”
But the destruction of the pro-police display make a mockery of this claim. Freedom of speech includes the right to display pro-police material. Yet black students were able to deprive other students of this right, apparently with impunity.
At Dartmouth, free speech is a one way street. It protects the right of left-wing Black students to racially insult and threaten white students, but does not protect the right of conservative students to articulate their ideas. How warped!
Is such a College still worthy of alumni support? [My emphasis. N.B. The author and the two other original Powerline bloggers are Dartmouth alumni. All three also have law degrees from differing distinguished institutions.]

I2C 160531ia qqq Fire Dartmouth President qq | I2C | 160531 1422 et

Nam Revisited

Remember, Reassign Honor and Shame -J :)
From a distance of over forty years we might remember the Vietnam conflict and, if the spirit moves us, re-evaluate that part of our national history.
Vietnamese Communist Leader Says US Anti-War Activists Helped Their Victory
Via @dailycaller dailycaller.com Richard Pollock  Reporter  http://bit.ly/1XIWnMZ aka http://dailycaller.com/2016/05/29/vietnamese-communist-leader-says-us-anti-war-activists-helped-their-victory/#ixzz4A6vGpNK2
In the weeks leading up to Memorial Day and President Barack Obama's scheduled trip to Vietnam, a prominent Vietcong communist leader privately thanked American anti-war activists for helping defeat the U.S.-allied government in Vietnam in the 1970s, saying protest demonstrations throughout the United States were "extremely important in contributing to Vietnam's victory."
For Vietnamese guerrilla leader Madam Nguyen Thi Binh, who sent the private letter from Hanoi dated April 20, "victory" meant the communist takeover of South Vietnam. The letter addressed veteran American anti-war activists who gathered in Washington, D.C., at a May 3 reunion of radical "May Day" anti-war leaders.
The Daily Caller News Foundation obtained a copy of the letter at the meeting.
Binh, now age 90, originally served as the highest ranking Vietnamese delegate to the Paris Peace Talks that imposed a ceasefire in the country in 1973.
The "Vietcong" was a ragtag group of communist guerrillas who were allied with the official communist government in North Vietnam. The country was cut in two in 1954, with the south seeking to build a democratic state allied to the West.
Binh's frank admission highlights a secret side of the communist's effective lobbying influence in the United States. Rather than live in the southern part of the country, which for decades she represented as a diplomat, it appears after the war Binh was living in Hanoi, the original capital of North Vietnam.
In her letter, she extolled the American anti-war movement, saying it was "a key component" that advanced the communist takeover of South Vietnam.
"The Vietnamese people have great appreciation for the peace and antiwar movements in the United States and view those movements' contribution as important in shortening the war," she wrote and which was read to an assembled group of "May Day" anti-war activists in Washington, D.C.
The "May Day tribe" consisted of thousands of radical anti-war protesters bent on shutting down Washington, D.C., in May 1971 through three days of massive civil disobedience. More than 12,000 protesters were arrested, for filling the streets to block feds from getting to work.
The Nixon administration was so fearful of violence against federal employees, it deployed 5,000 paratroopers from the 82nd Airborne Division and thousands more from the Marine Corps barracks to protect the 14th Street Bridge, a major thoroughfare into the nation's capital from Virginia.
The protesters rallying cry was, "if the government won't stop the war, we'll stop the government."
The war temporarily ended in 1973 when the Paris Peace Treaty was signed that imposed a ceasefire on all parties.
That ceasefire was abruptly broken in 1975, however, when the North Vietnamese forces launched a surprise "Spring Offensive."
Leading the offensive were hundreds of T-54 and T-55 heavy Russian tanks that left secret sanctuaries in neighboring Cambodia and flooded into South Vietnam. Regular North Vietnamese troops spearheaded the offensive, along with guerrillas tied to the Vietcong, which also called themselves the National Liberation Front of Vietnam.
By the time the Russian tanks were about to drive into Saigon, a liberal Congress filled with anti-war lawmakers already had hamstrung their South Vietnamese allies. Congress cut military aid to Saigon by 50 percent and handcuffed the South Vietnamese military facing the communist onslaught by barring any U.S. air support or other meaningful military assistance to the government.
The offensive was relatively quick, trapping hundreds of thousands of pro-American Vietnamese troops and millions of civilians who had trusted Washington and openly supported the United States.
The lasting images of those dark, chaotic days were captured by American news networks, which showed the panic in the capital city.
Harrowing pictures depicted U.S. helicopters frantically trying to ferry thousands of panic-stricken Vietnamese citizens and U.S. officials off the roof of the American Embassy. The videos depicted Vietnamese clinging from helicopters in a desperate effort to escape the onrushing communist army.
The defeat ultimately triggered an international humanitarian crisis where at least 800,000 Vietnamese "boat people" fled their communist conquerors. Many bravely undertook perilous journeys in small boats across the Gulf of Thailand to escape the new communist warlords. An unknown number of refugees drowned in the exodus.
After the communists defeated the South Vietnamese army, more than 1 million South Vietnamese citizens who had supported the United States were left behind and imprisoned in "re-education camps." About 100,000 faced summary execution by the communist victors.
Bill Cowan, who was a Purple Heart Marine platoon leader in Vietnam, told TheDCNF that U.S. troops were demoralized when the U.S. media only highlighted anti-war protesters and not the heroism of many of the Vietnamese who were trying to keep their country free.
"The media fueled the anti-war movement, empowering the protestors, the North Vietnamese, and the Vietcong," he told TheDCNF.
"It was rare to have a 'good news' story about what was happening there," Cowan said.
"I recall a reporter coming to interview me at the village I was living at and apologizing after she was done by saying, 'You know, this story will probably never see the light of day. My editors will quash it because it has too many good things in here about what you guys are doing.'" Cowan told TheDCNF.
Fred Rustmann, a former Central Intelligence Agency officer who was deployed in Vietnam for two years and later assigned to cover the Paris Peace Talks where Binh was the chief Vietcong delegate, called her "a great propagandist."
"She was really the propaganda arm of the Vietcong. And she was very effective. She was living in a villa in Paris in the southern suburbs, which was a very communist, socialist neighborhood," Rustmann told TheDCNF in an interview. He said ironically Binh spent more time in Paris than in Vietnam.
In Paris, "she was regularly interviewing with leftist news organization. She had these leftist kids and try to influence them. I believe she met several times with Jane Fonda."
Binh actually recalled in her latest letter many meetings she had with American anti-war activists. She wrote, "The first time I met representatives of the American anti-war movement was at a week-long conference held in Bratislava in 1967, with the attendees of about forty Americans."
"Before parting, we were shaking hands, holding hands," she recalled in her letter, adding, "During the war years, I also met many other Americans in different places organized by U.S. citizen groups opposed to the war."
Obama visited Vietnam last week for a three-day trip, and hailed its communist leadership and downplayed the human rights problems that persist.
Hours before Air Force One touched down, Vietnam had scheduled national "elections" for its one-party National Assembly. Reminiscent of previous old communist regimes from the Soviet Union days, the state-run press reported that 98.77 percent of the public "voted" in the election.
Only one sentence in Obama's main speech to the Vietnamese public made any reference to human rights problems in the country.
Vietnamese government officials also blocked dissidents from meeting with Obama or his advisers when the American delegation arrived in Ho Chi Minh City, formerly Saigon. White House Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes said it shows the meeting was "the source of significant discomfort" for Vietnam's rulers.
The White House never rescheduled the meeting, however, and Rhodes claimed the U.S. government was going to follow up to ensure the activists are not being punished.
During the president's visit, he lifted an arms embargo on Vietnam to allow the sale of modern weapons to the country. He did not tie the arms sales to any improvement in human rights.
I2C 160530ia qqq Nam Revisited b | I2C | 160530 1203 et

Mar11v25 Pray Forgive

Pray f0r, and forgive, them that hurt you. -J :)

Mark 11:25 KJV And when ye stand praying, forgive, if ye have ought against any: that your Father also which is in heaven may forgive you your trespasses.

Job 42:10 KJV And the LORD turned the captivity of Job, when he prayed for his friends: also the LORD gave Job twice as much as he had before.

From post 18 on the thread entitled “Forgiveness Without Repentance?” in the General folder at Adult Christian Forum hosted by DelphiForums.com

http://forums.delphiforums.com/kath/messages/?msg=224132.18

[…] The Cross is the instrument by which all men receive a temporary forgiveness of sins that lasts until the Great White Throne judgement.

Those who have not received eternal forgiveness are then reunited with their sins (and their fallen spirits) in the lake of fire.

Our Lord realized that only those whom the Father had given Him would have the great eternal benefit from His blood sacrifice.

But He died for all men to effect at the least a temporary forgiveness for all.

Each man decides for himself before physical death whether he wants to make his temporary state of forgiveness eternal.

When we act as instructed by:

Mark 11:25 KJV And when ye stand praying, forgive, if ye have ought against any: that your Father also which is in heaven may forgive you your trespasses.

We affirm as our Lord's representatives that state of temporary forgiveness that He has bought for all men that they might have opportunity to hear the Gospel and receive eternal forgiveness.

Failure to forgive is to some extent a denial of our salvation.

And the remnants of the old man, his thoughts and habits and memories, will to some extent afflict us until we forgive.

A very desirable and often essential first step is, as the post responded to suggests is to pray for those who have hurt us.

Job 42:10 KJV And the LORD turned the captivity of Job, when he prayed for his friends: also the LORD gave Job twice as much as he had before.

Dr. Donald Grey Barnhouse was directed by this verse to pray for those leaders of his own denomination that had become his adversaries in several bitter conflicts. After he had prayed for his friends his radio ministry took off and became quite prominent in the mid-twentieth century. (Weekly rebroadcasts were available nationwide and beyond a few decades back and may still be available. Maybe on Youtube.)

I2C 160524aa Mar11v25 Pray Forgive | I2C | 160524 1359 et

1Ki16v31 Clinton Cash 0

First Look: "Clinton Cash" -J :) 
1 Kings 16:31 KJV  And it came to pass, as if it had been a light thing for him to walk in the sins of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, that he took to wife Jezebel the daughter of Ethbaal king of the Zidonians, and went and served Baal, and worshipped him.

First look at explosive Hillary documentary, ‘Clinton Cash’
nypost.com By Betsy McCaughey http://j.mp/0ClintonCash0 aka http://nypost.com/2016/05/17/first-look-at-explosive-hillary-documentary-clinton-cash/

Hillary Clinton says that when she and her husband moved out of the White House 15 years ago, they were “dead broke.” Today, they’re worth more than $150 million.

In the new documentary “Clinton Cash,” it becomes all too clear how the former first couple went from rags to filthy rich — with the emphasis on filthy.

As the movie shows, the Clintons are political Teflon dons compared with another Beltway power couple, former Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell and his wife, Maureen.

The McDonnells were convicted of accepting more than $150,000 in gifts from a businessman while the governor was in office. Meanwhile, the Clintons raked in 700 times that amount — $105 million — under the pretext of speaking fees while Hillary was in public office.

Yet while the McDonnells face time in the Big House, the Clintons are once again aiming for the White House.

The documentary is based on a book by former Hoover Institution fellow Peter Schweizer and was just screened during the Cannes Film Festival. It is set to be shown in major US cities, including Philadelphia during the Democratic National Convention there in July.

Schweizer’s research has withstood a year of intense scrutiny from critics because it is fact, not fiction. And the facts are compelling.

The film whisks you around the globe, retracing how the Clintons personally pocketed six-figure speaking fees and collected billions of dollars for their family foundation.

How? By trading on Hillary’s position as secretary of state and possible future president.

She and her ex-president husband sold out to titans, dictators and shady characters in Nigeria, Congo, Kazakhstan and the United Arab Emirates, not to mention at Goldman Sachs and TD Bank.

Modal Trigger

Along the way, the Clintons betrayed the values they profess on the campaign trail: human rights, environmentalism and democracy.

That’s why Schweizer is bringing the documentary to the Democratic convention — to show the party faithful how the Clintons used and abused their liberal principles to amass a fortune.

The Clintons earned the bulk of their money from speaking fees. It was simple: Bill’s fees skyrocketed when Hillary became secretary of state in 2009, suggesting that countries and companies hiring him counted on getting more than just Bill — they also expected to land what his wife had to offer.

For example, a Nigerian newspaper publisher tied to the ruling People’s Democratic Party — which is anything but democratic — paid Bill a whopping $1.4 million to deliver two speeches in 2011 and 2012. The Clintons closed their eyes to the human-rights abuses by Nigeria’s brutal president, Goodluck Jonathan, as they collected their checks.

Secretary Clinton even made an official visit to Nigeria in 2012, congratulating Jonathan on his non-existent “reform efforts.” It was American legitimacy bestowed at a bargain price. And just the opposite of what Human Rights Watch had implored her to do.

Here’s another example of the pair’s lucrative shenanigans. TD Bank never engaged Bill Clinton to speak during his first eight years out of the White House. But in 2009, four days after Hillary was nominated as secretary of state, Bill made the first of a string of speeches for which TD paid almost $2 million. An astounding amount.

And guess what? TD Bank was the single largest shareholder in the Keystone XL pipeline, which required State Department approval. Lo and behold, Hillary Clinton decided to support the pipeline — a heresy to environmentalists — and delayed the Obama administration’s rejection of it.

Coincidence? There’s no smoking gun proving the Clintons’ speaking fees came with promises in return. But Schweizer says the evidence points to a pattern of conduct that other politicians would never get away with. They’ve been sent to jail for less.

Just look at the McDonnells. Their lawyers argue that they are innocent because they merely opened doors. They never expressly said, “Pay me, and I’ll do what you want.”

The McDonnells appealed to the US Supreme Court, where their conviction may be overturned. Chief Justice John Roberts has suggested that politicians shouldn’t be convicted of corruption unless there’s proof of a quid pro quo.

That might be a good rule for courts.

But voters can smell the corruption in pay-to-play politics. That’s why on Election Day, they should vote against the Queen of Crooked, Hillary Clinton.

Betsy McCaughey is a senior fellow at the London Center for Policy Research.

I2C 160519aa 1Ki16v31 Clinton Cash 0 | I2C | 160519 1602 et