One sees great things from the valley,
only small things from the peak.
G. K. Chesterton
Tweet of the Day
No doubt the look on the face of Fed chief Janet Yellen if Sen. Paul asked her to imagine a world without the Fed. pic.twitter.com/pDPYX6Lm8v
— Ronald Guillemette (@raguillem) February 23, 2015
Chart of the Day: 77-center Hillary Clinton's Staff |
| Courtesy of Carpe Diem |
 |
| See here |
 |
| Via CNBC: Janet Yellen asked to imagine a world without the Fed #sarcasm |
No Child Left Behind expired on September 30, 2007, yet Congress has continued to fund it year after year. Now, there are people in Congress who want to reauthorize this big-government program.When Are Hollywood "Progressives" Going To Keep Their Politically Correct Mouths Shut?
Instead of doubling down on No Child Left Behind, Congress should stop funding it. The law expired more than seven years ago! We owe it to our children—and we have a constitutional duty as members of Congress—to return education decisions to parents and states. (via FB)
I was just explaining in yesterday's post reasons why I don't watch the Oscars telecasts anymore. One of the specific reasons dealt with crackpot leftist rants. What I didn't realize at the time I wrote that is that one of the winning actresses, Patricia Arquette, decided to revisit the politics of the 1970's:
It is time for women. Equal means equal. And the truth is, the older women get, the less money they make. It's inexcusable that we go around the world and we talk about equal rights for women in other countries when we don't have equal rights for women in America...And we don't because when they wrote the Constitution, they didn't intend it for women. So even though we sort of feel like we have equal rights in America, right under the surface, there are huge issues that are applied that really do affect women. It's time for all the women in America and all the men that love women, and all the gay people and all the people of color that we've all fought for, to fight for us now,,,,People think we have equal rights. We won't until we pass a Constitutional amendment in the United States of America where we pass the ERA once and for all,This is crackpot feminist ideology. If you look at the founding documents, it's fairly clear that, e.g., in the Declaration of Independence, we see references in gender-neutral terms like "citizens" and "the people"; whereas Jefferson does use gender-inclusive meanings of "men" in describing natural rights, in fact, he specifically references natural laws as applicable to the "one people" in the first paragraph. The same holds true of the Constitution, replete with "we the people", "the person" and "citizen". In fact, references to "male citizens" are relatively rare, e.g., section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment--and it is specific to the right to vote. Sections 1 and 3 specifically make reference to persons and their unalienable rights, not just "male citizens". The intent of section 2 was to penalize states that deprived freed blacks of the right to vote. But it is notable when discussing public office itself, the term "male citizen" is not used.
In fact, Susan B. Anthony reviewed how the courts regarded, e.g., whether women were exempt from prosecution and taxation due to any gender-specific interpretation of the use of 'men', 'he', 'his', etc, in the law:
Anthony argued that the meaning of the pronoun "male" in legal statutes and constitutional law must be interpreted consistently. Citing case law, Anthony stipulated, "in all the penalties and burdens of government (except the military) women are reckoned as citizens equally with men," and that the "question of the masculine pronouns--yes, and nouns too--has been settled by the United States Supreme Court". In other words, Anthony argued that inasmuch as the law held women accountable to criminal, civil, and tax statutes that employed the pronoun "male," it also imparted to women the privileges and immunities expressly guaranteed to "male" citizens. Read consistently, Anthony pointed out that the law either excluded women from all legal responsibilities and rights, or recognized women as equal to men. Rejecting popular counterarguments regarding the meaning of the term "male" in the Fourteenth Amendment, Anthony concluded: "But, it is urged, the use of the masculine pronouns, he his, and him, in all the constitutions is proof that only men were meant to be included in their provisions. If you insist on this version of the letter of the law, we shall insist that you be consistent and accept the other horn of the dilemma, and exempt women from taxation for the support of the government and from the penalties for the violation of laws".I don't think Anthony was right in her interpretation of clause 2; I'm not arguing that women shouldn't have been universally allowed to vote, but I think the clause was attempting to reflect a commonality of state eligibility at the time. Azerrad further notes:
Contrary to what many civics textbooks incorrectly teach, the original Constitution did not restrict the right to vote to white, property-owning males aged 21 or older.New JOTY Nominee: DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson
The Constitution defers to the states on voting eligibility in federal elections. As is plainly written in Article I, Section 2: “the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.”
As a result, voting eligibility varied by state. Certain states denied blacks the right to vote—but a majority did not. And—here comes the whopper—women were voting in New Jersey at the time of the Founding! For the first time in recorded history, women voted alongside men in elections...The 19th Amendment, therefore, did not give women the right to vote. It guaranteed women the right to vote. By the time it was ratified in 1920, more than three-fourths of the states already allowed women to vote in some or all elections.
Self-explanatory fear-mongering to win a budget battle in Congress:
"I would say that, if anyone is planning to go to the Mall of America today, they have got to be particularly careful. And, as the statement you read indicates, there will be enhanced security there that will be apparent to people who are there," Johnson told CNN's "State of the Union" with Gloria Borger.Facebook Corner
(IPI). At present, active state employees contribute about 17% of the total cost for their own coverage, as well as their dependents, which is far less than most state workers across the country pay, let alone what private-sector workers in Illinois pay.
How much do the politicians pay ??? Yes that is a big fat ZERO
Ignorant populists like the OP as usual don't know what the hell they're talking about. As per FactCheck.org: "Members of Congress have good health insurance by any standard, but it’s not free and not reserved only for them – and it’s not government insurance. House and Senate members are allowed to purchase private health insurance offered through the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, which covers more than 8 million other federal employees, retirees and their families."
But, you might say, this isn't Illinois state political whores. Whereas this source bettergov.org is using figures from 2012: "Health insurance: Legislators pay $684 to $1,014 annually for a single premium depending on salary and type of plan." Now, of course, those figures are dirt-cheap compared to households paying on their own up to $10K or more. But it's not free.
Instead of shooting off your mouth and exposing your ignorance, try researching the topic you're writing about. It took me less than 10 minutes to debunk your garbage.
Choose Life: The Unexpected Blessing of Children
The couple in this clip had a firstborn son but struggled to have a second child; the wife had been diagnosed in the interim with PCOS, a medical condition which is a leading cause of female subfertility. The clip is a few years old; the wife subsequently gave birth to a healthy baby girl.
Political Cartoon
 |
| Courtesy of Gary Varvel via Townhall |
James Taylor, "Don't Me Be Lonely Tonight"
