To hint that those who grew up in a household with a mother and father are somehow less black than those who did not is beyond ridiculous.America's in trouble race-relations-wise and in general as long as "being black" means what Jalen Rose seemingly thinks it does.
Melvin Bledsoe, whose son allegedly attacked an Army recruiting center in Arkansas, said in written testimony obtained by Fox News that Americans are ignoring the issue. He plans to describe how his son, Carlos, was radicalized when he went off to college in Nashville, Tenn. In his testimony, Bledsoe will explain how his son's personality changed and how, when he returned home for the holidays in 2005, he told his family he converted to Islam. From that point, he changed his name and eventually traveled to Yemen.
"Some Muslim leaders had taken advantage of my son. But he's not the only one being taken advantage of. This is going on in Nashville and in many other cities in America," Bledsoe plans to say. "In Nashville, Carlos was captured by people best described as hunters. He was manipulated and lied to. That's how he made his way to Yemen."
The results from a recent poll published by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life (http://www.pewforum.org/Politics-and-Elections/Tea-Party-and-Religion.aspx) reveal what social scientists have known for a long time: White Evangelical Christians are the group least likely to support politicians or policies that reflect the actual teachings of Jesus. It is perhaps one of the strangest, most dumb-founding ironies in contemporary American culture. Evangelical Christians, who most fiercely proclaim to have a personal relationship with Christ, who most confidently declare their belief that the Bible is the inerrant word of God, who go to church on a regular basis, pray daily, listen to Christian music, and place God and His Only Begotten Son at the center of their lives, are simultaneously the very people most likely to reject his teachings and despise his radical message.I've always enjoyed it when the moralistic, judgmental Liberals declared, "you can't legislate morality." Of course, every law is someone's morality. And Zuckerman's confusion on this point is a close cousin to his cluelessness on another point . . . that is, that there is a distinction between what an individual ought to do and what government ought to do (or force citizens to do).
"This type of initiative in Georgia and the recent attacks on publicly funded contraceptive programs nationally are out of step with the needs of women and families and out of step with American values," she added.
Planned Parenthood's Mammosham
Before you sign up to race for the cure, maybe it's best to get up to speed on what, exactly, you're running for. A few years ago, the Susan G. Komen Foundation, which raises millions of dollars a year for breast cancer research, admitted that it gives a portion of its proceeds to Planned Parenthood. When people grilled the Foundation on their partnership, Komen tried to tamp down the controversy by saying that Planned Parenthood "provides vital services." Considering the latest news, they might want to change that statement to "refers for vital services." Apparently, Planned Parenthood doesn't need our tax dollars for free mammograms--because they don't offer them! Pro-lifer Jill Stanek did some digging, and it turns out that one of the organization's biggest arguments for government funding is completely invalid. "If [the pro-life provisions in this budget] ever becomes law," Cecile Richards has warned, "millions of women in this country are going to lose their health care access, not to abortion services, to basic family planning--you know, mammograms, cancer screenings, cervical cancer."
That's interesting, Stanek says, because not one Planned Parenthood in America performs mammograms. Even the organization's website tells women to "ask your local health care provider, health department, or staff at your local Planned Parenthood center about where you can get a mammogram in your area." Obviously, Richards and friends will stoop to any level of deceit to keep the government checks rolling in. Meanwhile, what business does Susan G. Komen have funneling money to an organization that a) does nothing to prevent breast cancer, and b) lies that it does? There are plenty of respectable health clinics out there (1,200, in fact) that would host the screenings without promoting abortion--a procedure that may have more to do with causing breast cancer than curing it.
"Republicans in Indiana’s state senate on Wednesday killed a proposed “right-to-work” bill that would have reduced the power of unions in the state.Democrats only believe in majority rule when they're in the majority.
. . . .
"Democratic legislators fled the statehouse on Tuesday to block a vote on the proposed bill, following a similar move by Democratic lawmakers in Wisconsin over that state’s proposed legislation to limit collective bargaining rights for public sector unions."
Wisconsin Democratic senate minority leader Mark Miller told CBS' "The Early Show" on Monday that public employees had agreed to economic concessions and the governor needed to be open to a compromise on other matters.The GOP senate needs to start voting on all the things that don't need more than a simple majority to make a quorum. Seems like these Democrats are sore losers.
"The governor has not done anything except insist that it has to be his way, all or nothing," Miller said. "The governor needs to recognize that this is a democracy and in a democracy you negotiate."
"The unions, the public employees, have agreed to the economic demands, all they ask is they be able to retain the workers' rights and we are supporting them on that," he said.
Jay Heck, executive director of Common Cause in Wisconsin, a nonpartisan advocacy group, said that while the Democrats won't want to stay away for too long, there's nothing the Republicans can do to compel them to come back if Walker is unwilling to negotiate.
"There doesn't seem to be a lot of pressure from the districts for the senators to come back," Heck said. "And let's face it -- it's a budget repair bill that doesn't have to be done until June. There's no rush."
"Your Gravy Train Is Over . . . Welcome to the Recession" and "Sorry, we're late Scott. We work for a living."
The governor's proposal, part of a bill aimed at overcoming a $137 million deficit in the current budget and a projected $3.6 billion hole in the next two years, would allow collective bargaining on wages, but not pensions and health care. Workers would be required to pay more for both. And raises would be limited to the inflation rate, unless voters approved steeper boosts.
As I look at the union members swarm the Wisconsin capital, I have a familiar thought: A great advantage of the Left is that they are organized and determined — and have a lot of time. Paid time. The taxpayer is funding these “days of protest,” engaged in by the public-school teachers. They are using their “sick” leave, provided by the taxpayer, to go rallying.
And what are the other citizens of Wisconsin — the majority — doing? What they always do. Going about their business, or businesses; providing for their families. As we speak, some are having to stay home with their school-aged children, who have been locked out of their classrooms by their teachers — their “teachers.”
After a decade of lobbying, retailers in Michigan appear close to winning a repeal of the state's notorious Item Pricing Law. The law requires all stores to affix a price sticker to every jar of baby food, every box of Jell-O and every slithery bag of frozen spinach in their stores.
More hospitals and medical businesses in many states are adopting strict policies that make smoking a reason to turn away job applicants, saying they want to increase worker productivity, reduce health care costs and encourage healthier living.
Yesterday, we reached out to Rep. Lee, whose support for 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' and vote to reject federal abortion funding suggests a certain comfort with publicly scrutinizing others' sex lives.But I don't see the "scrutinizing" angle here, especially with the allusion to taxpayer funding of abortion. Ms. Maureen, I guess you believe that opposition to abortion is motivated by interest in the "sex lives" of the person seeking to perpetrate the abortion rather than the innocent, yet-to-be-born human?
This [story] from Spain -- Madrid's mayor proclaimed massive air pollution reductions except, ah, "The state prosecutor's office found that in 2009 the Madrid municipality had quietly moved nearly half its pollution sensors from traffic-clogged streets in the city centre to parks and gardens" -- reminds us of the cheapest way to cool the planet . . . :
As the new Republican legislature eases into its first legislative session under Gov. Bill Haslam, some lawmakers are trying to make fast use of their overwhelming majority. In an opening act of sorts, state Sen. Mae Beavers, R-Mt. Juliet, has introduced legislation calling for a constitutional amendment to popularly elect the state’s attorney general.
Former Attorney General Paul Summers, now a partner at the Nashville law firm Waller Lansden Dortch and Davis, tells The City Paper, “I can’t say I agree with what they want to do, but I do agree with the procedure.”And though I don't necessarily agree with Gen. Summers' view about the best way to choose an AG, I commend him for acknowledging that Beavers and Co. are following the correct procedure . . . contrast that with the way that folks tried to take over control of judicial selection.
Yee has been joined by Asian-American state and federal lawmakers who say Limbaugh's comments are inciting hate and intolerance amid a polarized atmosphere. A number of civil rights groups, including Chinese for Affirmative Action, Japanese American Citizens League and the California National Organization for Women, have joined Yee in calling on sponsors to pull advertisements from Limbaugh's program.
Calling it a threat to their independence and integrity, judges on the state's highest courts are descending into the muddy political trenches of the legislature to try to put down a conservative populist uprising.But having already been placed on the bench by a coalition of powerful special interests and powerful politicians, did sitting appellate judges get their supper for free?
The judges are apoplectic over the possibility of a change in state law that they say would put justice up for sale in Tennessee. It would end their comfy, hard-to-lose yes/no elections and force them to hit the hustings like common politicians to shake down fat cats, cut backroom deals, kiss babies, talk tough in TV ads and promise the moon to voters in competitive campaigns.
The women interviewed in the film believe their children will be the losers as government pushes a “dependency” agenda and the country loses its competitive edge. “The current administration is promoting T-ball nation,” says Doreen Borelli. “With T-ball, you hit the ball, everyone gets on base, everyone supposedly wins and everyone goes for ice cream after the game. But life isn’t like that.
So no, Rep. Cohen didn't call Republicans Nazis, he just smeared them in terms that the Nazis pioneered. I'm sure his bubbe would be proud.Aside: I don't know about you, but I love me some yiddish.
He has also been targeted in multiple lawsuits, at least one charging that a woman died from a botched abortion.
But how could he have said otherwise? By the time Obama spoke, there was irrefutable evidence that shooting suspect Jared Loughner was deeply mentally ill and acted out of no recognizable political agenda. Obama simply could not have made the case that Loughner's acts were in any way the product of political rhetoric from right or left.As Ann Coulter wrote,
He didn't need to. The point Obama wanted to make was not that political rhetoric caused the violence but that such rhetoric -- like, for example, criticism directed at Barack Obama -- should be toned down. So even as he conceded that rhetoric did not cause the violence, Obama argued that it should be muted anyway. And he cloaked his appeal in so much emotionalism, in so many tear-jerking references to the recently departed, that some in his audience might not have noticed he was making the political point he wanted to make all along.
It's not that both sides did something wrong; neither side did anything wrong. The drama queens need to settle down.
He became an echo chamber for stray ideas, amplifying, for example, certain grandiose tenets of a number of extremist right-wing groups — including the need for a new money system and the government’s mind-manipulation of the masses through language.And this,
A few days later, during a meeting with a school administrator, Mr. Loughner said that he had paid for his courses illegally because, “I did not pay with gold and silver” — a standard position among right-wing extremist groups.It is pretty noteworthy, as reflected in the link/headline chosen by The Drudge Report, that the shooter was a GWB hater--"a tenet of a number of left-wing groups," you could say.
In February, an administrator reported to the campus police that [the shooter] had disrupted the class with his strange reaction to the reading of another student’s poem, taking a huge leap from its context to abortion, wars and killing people. The school official described him as “creepy.” They would keep an eye on him.Sorry, but the girl's poem was about an abortion, and it is not a big leap from abortion to "killing people" . . . unless you are a hard-core liberal. What lousy "journalists" . . .
According to Wade, Tennessee's Supreme Court justices and appellate judges uniformly oppose a switch to an electoral selection process.. . . .
"Contributing to campaigns from time to time doesn't mean that I cannot and most jurists cannot compartmentalize those issues," Wade said. "All of us have a constitutional right to support any candidate of our choice, and yet when I put on the black robe, partisan politics and friendships play no role.
Wade was the most frequent contributor to political campaigns over the past four election cycles among judges from Tennessee's highest courts.BTW, despite saying repeatedly that these big spending judges gave to both Democrats (who characteristically like the undemocratic and unconstitutional TN Plan) and Republicans (who more often than not oppose the TN Plan), the reporter failed to ask the obvious question (that, or failed to like the answer to said question): were the Republicans who got money from judges supporters of not electing judges?
All five Supreme Court justices back the Tennessee Plan for selecting and retaining judges.Look, because of my experience over on the years on this issue, I was aware that all the Supreme Court justices liked the Tennessee Plan--which ignores the constitution's requirement of contested elections. But it is stunning to think that this is common knowledge. Especially when you consider that they would be the ones deciding on whether a given system complies with the Tennessee Constitution.
State House Speaker Beth Harwell abolished 12 subcommittees Thursday in her first attempt to make good on her promise to streamline the labyrinth-like legislative process.Even though this sort of thing limits the legislative tricks available to Harwell and Republicans, it is a great means of increasing transparency and efficiency.
Harwell, the Nashville Republican who was elected as the new speaker at the start of the 107th General Assembly on Tuesday, did away with all but one subcommittee for each of the House’s 13 standing committees.
. . . .
Rep. Jimmy Naifeh, D-Covington, who often used the subcommittee system to kill legislation when he was House speaker, said he supports Harwell’s restructuring.
“She’s the new speaker, and if there are changes to be made now is the time to make them,” he said. “I’m going to be open to the idea. There’s always room to change things. You don’t do something just because it’s always been done that way.”
It's not that both sides did something wrong; neither side did anything wrong. The drama queens need to settle down.
We must reject the idea that every time a law's broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions.
*You’ll notice I rarely write the gunman’s name. This is deliberate. I remember the Weekly Standard writing an editorial about the Columbine killers back in the 1990s, focusing on the abominable irony that we so often remember the names of the perpetrators of mass murder but rarely recall the names of the victims. At the end, I lamented that the editorial perpetuated the killers’ fame by naming them, only to reread it and find that the writer had artfully avoided mentioning either one. News coverage requires specific names, but afterward, when we digest and analyze, it is good to forget the names of evil men who killed in order to be remembered.
If wanton violence has a cause other than mental illness, it is a culture that lionizes the savages. That culture is not the culture of the Tea Partiers so despised by the Left. Many Tea Partiers are part of what until recently was called “the Christian Right,” an amorphous group of Americans, not all of whom are actually Christians, tied together by their shared acceptance of basic Judeo-Christian principles, such as equality and the sanctity of life (even the lives of their ideological opponents). They love liberty, because in their hands it is guided by virtue. It leads to the good life and the good society, not to dissipation and anarchy. Many of them pray for President Obama despite their revulsion at most of his policies. All of them consider him their president and would rally behind him if the good of the nation demanded it. Their dissent does not diminish their patriotism.
For our opinion elites, though, they are a punch line or, when disaster strikes, a punching bag. Those elites scoff at the very idea of real, knowable virtue — unless it is rhetorically useful in showing that America has failed to measure up. They would erase any traditional understanding of virtue from public life, replacing it with their vapid “values.” Under these, the young learn, a terrorist can still be a hero if he kills for noble reasons, if it becomes fashionable to deny the humanity of those he takes as his enemies.
In the aftermath of the Tuscon carnage; before I learned the name of any victim beyond Representative Giffords and along with hearing the name of the shooter, I also learned I was to blame.
Beyond the ignorant premise that any Tea Partier anywhere had anything to do in any way with such senseless violence lies the sad reality that the obvious has yet again escaped the political Left. While a woman struggles for her life and her husband and children suffer in unimaginable limbo, 5 other families would trade anything for even long shot odds at getting their loved one back. In response, as a friend of mine tweeted, “My Conservative friends offer prayers, my Liberal friends offer blame."
. . . [T}hose who purport to care about the health of our political community demonstrate precious little actual concern for America's political well-being when they seize on any pretext, however flimsy, to call their political opponents accomplices to murder.
Lawyers and former judges are raising money from big law firms to try and preserve the current method of seating Tennessee's appellate court judges.My only quibble is with Kerr's flat assertion that, "Overall, the current system has worked beautifully to place appeals court judges who have followed the rule of law." Who says?
The irony is not lost: Those very legal eagles argue that allowing judges to be popularly elected would create a system in which special interests and big powerful law firms can buy the state's judiciary.
The Tennessee Plan will expire in 2012. Emboldened by new Republican majorities after November's elections, however, opponents may press the issue sooner. Opponents say that in addition to being unconstitutional, the Tennessee Plan makes judges unaccountable to voters.
'If elections are so crooked that you cannot elect a judge … then what does that say about our form of government?' said state Rep. Frank Niceley, R-Knoxville.
You would not be able to print enough money in a thousand years to pay for the government you would need if the traditional family continues to collapse.According to The City Paper, this is a "scandal." I don't think so. Belmont needs to stand by their policy, without regard to the cat calls from our culture's libertine left or squishy "center-right." There's no question that the Bible prohibits homosexual activity. Belmont may offend their biggest individual financial supporter. They may be swimming upstream against political correctness. They may lose a great soccer coach. But they needn't accept the premise that this or any other policies rooted in Judeo-Christian ethics are arbitrary or based in bigotry.
Washington (CNN) -- A House ethics subcommittee found longtime Democratic Rep. Charlie Rangel guilty Tuesday on multiple violations of House rules.
On Monday, Rangel, D-New York, walked out of the House ethics subcommittee trial, complaining he has not had sufficient time to hire a new legal team to respond to ethics allegations.
'The quickest way to 60 votes in the Senate is to have candidates who stand on principle,' DeMint said on CNN's 'State of the Union.'
He added that by wanting true conservatives to represent the party, 'I'm just talking about common-sense people who don't think that balancing a checkbook is a radical idea.'
Another political fable is that the current economic downturn is due to not enough government regulation of the housing and financial markets. But it was precisely the government regulators, under pressure from politicians, who forced banks and other lending institutions to lower their standards for making mortgage loans.It's politically unfortunate that the connotation of "regulate" is typicajavascript:void(0)lly benignly or even positively restrictive.
Attendees were encouraged not to bring political signs and flyers. Skeptical Democrats have countered that the event is "blatantly political." Many in the crowd wore shirts and hats in the colors of the American flag.So does wearing red, white and blue evince "blatant[] politic[s]"? I'd say that claiming it does evinces an ugly view of America. And then there's Sharpton's comments:
"In '63, they went to Washington for a strong national government to protect civil rights," Sharpton said in an interview earlier this week. "He and Palin are going there for a weak national government and to advocate state rights."I can hardly believe that Sharpton would be so stupid as to advocate on behalf of Big Government. Whether or not MLK was appealing to THE GOV'T by marching to DC--the Democrats in power sure seemed to need some arm-twisting to get on board with the Civil Rights movement--he was definitely appealing to the conscience of individual Americans. I hate to make the event "political," but since Sharpton brought it up, does he seriously believe that our problems in America at this juncture stem from a need for a bigger, more powerful Federal government?
Yesterday former Republican National Committee Chairman and Bush campaign chief Ken Mehlman publicly announced he was gay. That doesn't particularly interest me -- it's his business and it wasn't the world's most closely guarded secret -- but it has occasioned some commentary on the Republican Party and conservative movement that is interesting.Please read on . . .
WASHINGTON—A U.S. judge blocked the federal government from funding research involving human embryonic stem cells, a surprise blow to one of the most promising yet controversial areas of current scientific research.Many scientists (not to mention ethicists) disagree. And of there's private funding and California's funding. And adult stem cells are well worth the investment. Sorry to deny you this largely symbolic prize . . .
. . . .
Stem cells are the building blocks of the body's tissues and organs. Those derived from embryos can develop into any type of tissue and are considered especially promising for research into diseases such as diabetes and heart disease.
. . . .
"We have some words we'd like to ban, particularly among members not in the LGBT community, such as 'fag/faggot,' 'tranny' and 'he-she,'" David Hauslaib, editorial director of Queerty.com told ABCNews.com.Though I don't use any of these words, it's kind of hard to take seriously the complaints from someone like Mr. Hauslaib.
Like the N-word, these words are often used by the people most offended by them, but Hauslaib said that doesn't give others a free pass to use them.
"There's a reasonable argument that anyone using these words is doing harm, but it's unrealistic to think members of the LGBT community will stop saying 'fag' in jest, and that's an individual's right," Hauslaib said. "Words that are derogatory to any community generally get a pass when used by those who belong; anyone outside that culture, however, doesn't have permission because they are not directly impacted by such language."
Obama has favored a more private faith since he took office in January 2009, attending formal church services just a handful of times, including Easter of this year.His worship practices are just like W's!! (except that actions speak louder than words). And while I, too, use my Blackberry for daily devotions (www.youversion.com is the bomb), I think Obama seems uncomfortable with the idea that his devotions might possibly exclude "quotes from other faiths."
Like his predecessor George W. Bush, Obama has said he prefers worshiping at the chapel at Camp David. But the president rarely goes to the presidential retreat, and instead spends Sundays at the White House. Weekend activities often include basketball or golf.
Still, the president has said his Christian faith is part of his daily life. Last year, Obama told ABC's Terry Moran on 'Nightline' that he relied on his BlackBerry as one tool to keep the faith.
"My faith and neighborhood initiatives director, Joshua DuBois, he has a devotional that he sends to me on my BlackBerry every day," Obama said. "That's how I start my morning. You know, he's got a passage, scripture, in some cases, quotes from other faiths to reflect on."
At the same time, the number of Americans who said they believed, correctly, that Obama is Christian has declined from 48 percent in March 2009 to 34 percent today. But 43 percent of Americans now say they don't know what Obama's religion is at all.And this article in Time: One Fifth (Wrongly) Think Obama’s Muslim - Newsweek And this ABC online article: ("The Rev. Franklin Graham Says President Obama was 'Born a Muslim' -- Comments Come As Poll Shows One in Five Americans Wrongly Believes Obama Is Muslim" - ABC News) From inside the article:
The poll found that 18 percent of those surveyed wrongly identified Obama as Muslim, up from 11 percent in March 2009. At the same time, the number of Americans who said they believed, correctly, that Obama is Christian has declined from 48 percent in March 2009 to 34 percent today.They seem to be falling all over themselves to remind Americans of what they SHOULD believe.
I blame pollsters themselves. They have created a world where everything is an opinion, nothing is a fact, everybody is entitled to an opinion, and every opinion is equally valid. The Pew press release about this latest poll is scrupulously neutral. It talks about 'the view that Obama is a Muslim,' as if it is just like any other view about the president's religion. Not a word in it hints that there might be a right answer and a wrong one . . ."This is stupid. I guess Kinsley thinks that "push polls" are a more accurate view of what people think than plain ol' polls?
My faith and political beliefs are deeply intertwined. I am a Democrat because I am a Mormon, not in spite of it.
In South Korea, where attitudes toward the North go to the core of the country's politics, opposition politicians have expressed deep skepticism with the official line that Pyongyang was at fault. Choi Moon Soon of the opposition Democratic Party, a member of the National assembly, is typical. He told TIME on August 13 that he believes the ship simply ran aground, and that the government concocted the whole North Korea attack story as a way to influence local elections that were held on June 2. (Elections which President Lee's ruling party actually lost.) He says he doesn 't believe the government will ever publish the report, and questions even whether it actually exists.As TIME magazine reports, Choi Moon Soon (lyrical, huh?) is wrong. He would make a great "truther."
The obscenity issue is one of several controversies swirling around Greene's long shot candidacy. Observers have also questioned how the 32-year-old nominee, who is believed to have very little personal wealth, was able to afford the $10,440 filing fee required to get his name on the Democratic Senate primary ballot.Well, it appears (here) that a pretty thorough (and transparent) investigation disproves CNN's thesis. Great reporting CNN!!
South Carolina's top law enforcement agency said it determined that Greene used his own money to pay the fee, though the state attorney general's office said it did not receive a request from the agency to subpoena Greene's bank records.
Surely if fans of President Obama’s program feel free to call it socialist, critics may be permitted to do likewise.
Yarbro could also challenge the result — essentially suggesting something went wrong in the voting. A challenge would go before the state Democratic Party's executive committee.Yikes.
So, if you want to make a “negative” statement about things like judicial activism, Tennessee’s method of electing Supreme Court judges, etc, then the best way to make that statement is to vote “no.”While I can't really say whether these two judges--Sharon Lee and John McLarty, are "judicial activists," I do think your "no" vote will signify that you disagree with them avoiding contested elections, which are plainly required by our Constitution. Go ahead, they won't take it personally. ;)
If you approve of the current system and current judicial philosophy that prevails in this country (and state), then the best way to communicate that is to vote “yes.” It would be my opinion that not to vote would leave the Judges, Governor and legislature in a position of not knowing why there were fewer people voting in the judicial elections compared to gubernatorial, congressional or state legislative races. Not to vote will leave them wondering if the low vote totals signify voter apathy or an unwillingness to vote for someone you don’t know anything about.
Divorce lawyers and marriage therapists say that for most couples, the motivation to remain married is financial. According to federal law, an ex qualifies for a share of a spouse’s Social Security payment if the marriage lasts a decade. In the case of more amicable divorces, financial advisers and lawyers may urge a couple who have been married eight years to wait until the dependent spouse qualifies.. . . .
For others, a separation agreement may be negotiated so that a spouse keeps the other’s insurance until he or she is old enough for Medicare. If one person has an existing condition, obtaining affordable health care coverage is often difficult or impossible. The recession, with its real estate lows and health care expense highs, adds incentives to separate indefinitely.
What [Family Therapist, and obvious cultural stick-in-the-mud Toni] Coleman finds surprising is that the primary consideration is practical and financial, not familial. The effect of endless separations on the children rarely seems a priority.Wow.
“People split up and have these God-awful joint custody arrangements, so you would think that they stay separated for the kids’ sake, but I’m not seeing that,” she said. “It usually comes down to money.”
For all the emotional debate that began about a decade ago on allowing the use of embryonic stem cells, it's adult stem cells that are in human testing today. An extensive review of stem cell projects and interviews with two dozen experts reveal a wide range of potential treatments.
Start thinking. This time around, those voted into office could have long-lasting legacies.
Former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop has written an extensive letter to members of the Senate calling for a no vote on the Supreme Court nomination of Elena Kagan. The letter focuses attention on the Clinton administration memos Kagan authored showing her attempting to manipulate abortion opinion.Our senators should vote "no" on judicial activists like Kagan.
Specifically, Koop refers to the ways in which Kagan influenced the language of a 1997 statement by American College of Obstetrics and Gynecologists on partial-birth abortions.
Whereas ACOG found no occasion in which the three-day-long abortion procedure is medically necessary for women, Kagan pressured ACOG to include language saying there may be instances where it is and the Supreme Court eventually relied on that language to overturn state bans on the abortion procedure.
That eventually kept partial-birth abortions legal for several years longer until the Supreme Court reversed itself when considering a national ban Congress approved with medical findings that partial-birth abortions are medically unnecessary.
For the first time federal officials have the power to overhaul the system under Obama's Affordable Care Act, which gives them authority to stop paying a provider they suspect is fraudulent. Critics have complained the current process did nothing more than rubber-stamp payments to fraudulent providers.Maybe we'll let the Dem Fraud hawks keep this lone provision when Obamacare is repealed . . .
McCartney is the third recipient of the Gershwin Prize. Hailing from England and having earned no university degrees of his own, the Beatle may not know W. was the first American president to earn a master’s degree in business administration. (The fact the MBA is from Harvard really irks the left.) Not to mention Bush is married to a librarian.
Barack Obama is the target of a shadowy smear campaign designed to derail his bid for the US Presidency by falsely claiming he had a close friendship with an attractive African-American female employee.Emphasis mine.
The whispers focus on a young woman who in 2004 was hired to work on his team for his bid to become a senator.
The woman was purportedly sidelined from her duties after Senator Obama’s wife, Michelle, became convinced that he had developed a personal friendship with her.
The allegations were initially circulated in August, just two weeks before the convention at which Obama finally beat his opponent for the Democratic Party nomination, Hillary Clinton.
The woman, now 33, vigorously denies the vicious and unsubstantiated gossip.
But critics say the Muslims who now call Tennessee home are looking to expand their places of worship far beyond their need. What's more, they say, the organizations building the Islamic centers have provided no account for how they received the massive funding their projects require.
Of even greater concern, some critics say, are fears that a radical Islamic agenda may be behind the planning for these large Islamic centers.
To be certain, it is a bailout. And it perpetuates the moral hazard that causes the so-called “too big to fail” financial institutions to take risks they otherwise would not.
How? In part, the bill expressly includes a revolving $50 billion TARP-like fund designed to capitalize failing financial institutions that might otherwise be finding their way to bankruptcy court — where they belong. Republicans are calling it a "permanent bailout fund."
Bertone, the Vatican secretary of state, who is sometimes called the "deputy pope," told a news conference in Santiago on Monday:
"Many psychologists and psychiatrists have shown that there is no link between celibacy and paedophilia, but many others have shown, I have recently been told, that there is a relationship between homosexuality and paedophilia."
"This pathology is one that touches all categories of people, and priests to a lesser degree in percentage terms," he said. "The behaviour of the priests in this case, the negative behaviour, is very serious, is scandalous."
Forty-seven percent. That’s the portion of American households that owe no income tax for 2009. The number is up from 38 percent in 2007, and it has become a popular talking point on cable television and talk radio. With Tax Day coming on Thursday, 47 percent has become shorthand for the notion that the wealthy face a much higher tax burden than they once did while growing numbers of Americans are effectively on the dole.
Close to four months after the Supreme Court's landmark ruling to roll back restrictions on corporate political spending, conservatives continue to downplay its significance.Actually, a closer look merely demonstrates that "corporate" expenditures are only a smidgeon higher than expenditures from "lawyers and lobbyists" (ahhh, if only we all were able to, as individuals, give serious money to candidates we supported . . .). But the underlying message of the article (i.e., the message espoused by the experts selected by Eliza Newlin Carney to comment on the subject) is that electing judges is unwise because voters somehow don't appreciate Rule of Law. All the anti-judicial-election commenters imply that we need low-key campaigns for judges because voters cast ballots based on the political positions of judicial candidates. Actually, polling data reflect that voters care more about judicial activism than they do about a judge's position on particular issues.
Predictions that the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling will unleash a torrent of corporate money are wildly overblown, free speech advocates insist. As evidence, they argue that corporate money has yet to flood elections in the 26 states that already impose no limit on corporate spending.
But a closer look at state-level elections suggests that independent political expenditures by corporations, unions and other special interests are substantial. This is particularly true in judicial elections, which have gotten dramatically costlier, nastier and more controversial over the past decade. The Citizens United ruling may impact judicial races even more drastically than federal elections, some experts argue.
