Global Warming is a LIE!
Speaking truth to old-stream media bias.
This is bizarre how this obviously biased MSNBC reporter tries to talk a 17 year old out of her opinion and her position...
New guidelines for cervical cancer screening say women should delay their first Pap test until age 21, and be screened less often than recommended in the past.
The advice, from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, is meant to decrease unnecessary testing and potentially harmful treatment, particularly in teenagers and young women. The group's previous guidelines had recommended yearly testing for young women, starting within three years of their first sexual intercourse, but no later than age 21.
Arriving on the heels of hotly disputed guidelines calling for less use of mammography, the new recommendations might seem like part of a larger plan to slash cancer screening for women. But the timing was coincidental, said Dr. Cheryl B. Iglesia, the chairwoman of a panel in the obstetricians' group that developed the Pap smear guidelines. The group updates its advice regularly based on new medical information, and Dr. Iglesia said the latest recommendations had been in the works for several years, "long before the Obama health plan came into existence."
She called the timing crazy, uncanny and "an unfortunate perfect storm," adding, "There's no political agenda with regard to these recommendations."
Sarah is not the problem, as Newsweek claims.
LOS ANGELES — The daughter of Gov. Sarah Palin has been arrested in Hollywood for allegedly driving drunk.
Los Angeles police say 36-year-old Alexandra Palin was stopped by officers on a Hollywood street at about 12:40 a.m. Thursday and failed a sobriety test.
Officer Bruce Borihanh says she was booked at the Hollywood police station and was held for about five hours. She was released at about 5:30 a.m. after posting $5,000 bail.
Borihanh didn't immediately have other details.
She has produced documentaries and has had several small acting roles.
THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP's earlier story is below.
Can you imagine the media reaction...?
There are a lot of legitimate reasons to criticize Sarah Palin, her new book, and her policies, but you don't have to stoop to sexism to do it. Newsweek's November 23 issue, however, does just that by publishing on its cover a photo of Palin in short running shorts and a fitted top, leaning against the American flag. Making matters worse is the equally offensive headline Newsweek editors chose to run alongside the photo -- "How Do You Solve a Problem like Sarah?" -- presumably a reference to the Sound of Music song, "Maria," in which nuns fret about "how" to "solve a problem like Maria," a "girl" who "climbs trees" and whose "dress has a tear."
Like her or not, Palin is a former governor and vice presidential candidate. She deserves the same respect every single one of her male counterparts receives when they are featured on the cover of the magazine. I must have missed the cover of Vice President Joe Biden in short shorts or of Mitt Romney in a bathing suit.
Newsweek's sexist treatment of Palin doesn't get any better inside its pages. The mag ran this photo to lead off its "Features" section, which focused on Palin:There's more, but wow. Never thought I would agree, and link, to anything MM has to say, especially in regards to Palin. It is true that even a broken clock is correct twice a day. More commentary from Le·gal In·sur·rec· tion, Outside The Beltway, Hot Air, Don Surber, Villainous Company, Another Black Conservative, Gateway Pundit, NewsBusters.org, Dr. Melissa Clouthier and The Other McCain
Then, for no apparent reason, illustrating Christopher Hitchens' piece on "Palin's base appeal," Newsweek ran a picture of this disgusting Sarah Palin-as-a-slutty-schoolgirl doll:
What kind of message is the magazine trying to send here?
Remember those $400.00 and $800.00 tax credits Barack Obama gave you in his stimulus plan? And remember that $250.00 gift he gave social security recipients?
Well, Obama decided he wants them back. Yep. According to the IRS, Obama has never asked for an adjustment of the tax tables, so millions of Americans are going to get taxed for having received the tax credits back in February — typically through adjustments the federal government demanded businesses make in employees' withholdings.
CO2 is not the main cause of global warming.
Smooth move,. Mr. Obama...
Army says morale down among troops in Afghanistan...
"The U.S. government is making a costly and open-ended commitment"
"Let's not pretend that it isn't a big deal, or that it will be self-financing, or that it will work out exactly as planned. It won't. What is really unfolding, I suspect, is the scenario that many conservatives feared. The Obama Administration is creating a new entitlement program, which, once established, will be virtually impossible to rescind."
ObamaCare serves the twin goals of "making the United States a more equitable country and furthering the Democrats' political calculus." The purpose is to further "redistribute income" by putting "health care further under government control", and in the process making the "middle class more dependent on government". As the party of government, "Democrats will benefit over the long run".
"Putting on my amateur historian's cap, I might even claim that some subterfuge is historically necessary to get great reforms enacted."
Whether or not you like it, Congress' health care bill ultimately comes down to one question: How much faith do you have that a politically appointed committee in Washington, D.C., can determine what's best? After last week's Bay Bridge failure, Bay Area residents would do well to consider the obvious parallel. If the government can't build a bridge that keeps us safe, can it really be trusted with the future of American health care?
If this had been Bush, you would have heard all about the ties in the MSM !
Former president George W. Bush wasted no time getting to Fort Hood to comfort survivors of the latest devastating Islamic terror attack on our soil. Yet the Marxist community activist we're asked to regard as the current president couldn't be bothered; he was too busy loafing at Camp David.
Maybe he just didn't want to draw attention to Nidal Malik Hasan's loose ties to the Obama Administration:
In 2008 The George Washington University Homeland Security Institute (HSPI) initiated a transition task force to help craft homeland security policies during Obama's transition period. In May of 2009 HSPI finished its report titled, "Thinking Anew-Security Priorities for the Next Administration." One of the members of this Obama transition project was none other than the Muslim murderer Nidal Hassan.
Hasan has also been loosely linked to Al Qaeda:
Major Nidal Malik Hasan worshipped at a mosque led by a radical imam said to be a "spiritual adviser" to three of the hijackers who attacked America on Sept 11, 2001.
Hasan, the sole suspect in the massacre of 13 fellow US soldiers in Texas, attended the controversial Dar al-Hijrah mosque in Great Falls, Virginia, in 2001 at the same time as two of the September 11 terrorists, The Sunday Telegraph has learnt. His mother's funeral was held there in May that year.
The preacher at the time was Anwar al-Awlaki, an American-born Yemeni scholar who was banned from addressing a meeting in London by video link in August because he is accused of supporting attacks on British troops and backing terrorist organisations.
Hasan's eyes "lit up" when he mentioned his deep respect for al-Awlaki's teachings, according to a fellow Muslim officer at the Fort Hood base in Texas, the scene of Thursday's horrific shooting spree.
As investigators look at Hasan's motives and mindset, his attendance at the mosque could be an important piece of the jigsaw. Al-Awlaki moved to Dar al-Hijrah as imam in January, 2001, from the west coast, and three months later the September 11 hijackers Nawaf al-Hamzi and Hani Hanjour began attending his services. A third hijacker attended his services in California.
Granted these links are much looser than Obama's close ties to Weather Underground terrorists Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, but they do give us only two degrees of separation between Al Qaeda and the Obamination Administration, through Hasan. Maybe that also explains why the liberal establishment is trying desperately to spin off the terror attack as a case of "compassion fatigue," ignoring the killer's screams of "Allahu Akhbar" before opening fire.On tips from Wiggins, V the K,
But what the hell does Nancy Pelosi care about our Constitution, anyway?
Democrats are all Jackasses!
NY-23 Congressman Bill Owens took one hour to break four campaign promises.
After being sworn into the US House the New York democrat announced that he had changed his mind and would endorse Pelosi's nationalized health care plan after all.
The Gouverneur reported, via RedState:
Congressman-elect Bill Owens was sworn in at noon today.
Owens indicated in a press release that he was now in favor of the bill in direct contrast to his earlier position during his campaign.
According to Politico.com, Mr. Owens assured voters that he felt the public option had no place in the health care reform bill. Contrary to that position, Mr. Owens now indicates that he intends to vote in favor of the bill even though it now contains a public option.
Of course, this surprises no one.
There is a huge 'Hidden Tax' built into The House bill that was just passed by the Pelosi congress by the slimest of margins.
Until progressive liberals came along to make huge inroads into destroying it.
We had car shows, boat shows, beauty shows and dog shows.
We ran robots on the surface of Mars by remote control.
Our women came from all over the world in all shapes and sizes hues and scents.
We actually believed that all men are created equal and tried to make it come true.
Everybody liked our movies and loved our television shows.
We tried to educate everybody, whether they wanted it or not. Sometimes we succeeded.
We did Levis.
We held the torch high and hundreds of millions came. No matter what the cost.
We saved Europe twice and liberated it once.
We believed so deeply and so abidingly in free speech that we protected and even honored and in some cases even elected traitors.
We let you be as freaky as you wanted to be.
We paid you not to plant crops and not to work.
We died in the hundreds of thousands to end slavery here and around the world.
We invented Jazz.
We wrote the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Gettysberg address.
We went to the moon to see how far we could hit a golf ball...
Does the U.S. Constitution stand for anything in an era of government excess? Can that founding document, which is supposed to restrain the power and reach of a centralized federal government, slow down the juggernaut of czars, health insurance overhaul and anything else this administration and Congress wish to do that is not in the Constitution?
The Framers created a limited government, thus ensuring that individuals would have the opportunity to become all that their talents and persistence would allow. The left has put aside the original Constitution in favor of a "living document" that they believe allows them to do whatever they want and demand more tax dollars with which to do it.
Can they be stopped? Some constitutional scholars think the 10th Amendment offers the best opportunity. The 10th Amendment states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
In 1939, the Supreme Court began to dilute constitutional language so that it became open to broader interpretation. Robert G. Natelson, professor of constitutional law and legal history at the University of Montana, has written that even before Franklin D. Roosevelt's court-packing scheme, it was changing the way the Constitution was interpreted, especially "how the commerce and taxing powers were turned upside-down, the necessary and proper clauses and incidental powers, the false claim that the Supreme Court is conservative, how bad precedent leads to more bad court rulings, state elections as critical for constitutional activists, and more."
While during the last seven decades the court has tolerated the federal welfare state, Mr. Natelson says it has never, except in wartime, "authorized an expansion of the federal scope quite as large as what is being proposed now. And in recent years, both the Court and individual justices - even 'liberal' justices - have said repeatedly that there are boundaries beyond which Congress may not go. ... Chief Justice John Marshall once wrote that if Congress were to use its legitimate powers as a 'pretext' for assuming an unauthorized power, 'it would become the painful duty' of the Court 'to say that such an act was not the law of the land.' "
It would be nice to know now what those boundaries are and whether Congress is exceeding its powers as it prepares to alter one-sixth of our economy and change how we access health insurance and health care.
Mr. Natelson makes a fascinating argument in his essay "Is ObamaCare Constitutional?" using the court's Roe v. Wade ruling in 1973. In Roe, he writes, the court struck down state abortion laws that "intruded into the doctor-patient relationship. But the intrusion invalidated in Roe was insignificant compared to the massive intervention contemplated by schemes such as HB3200. 'Global budgeting' and 'single-payer' plans go even further and seem clearly to violate the Supreme Court's Substantive Due Process rules."
Constitutional attorney John Whitehead, president of the Rutherford Institute, tells me, "Although the states surrendered many of their powers to the new federal government, they retained a residuary and inviolable sovereignty that is reflected throughout the Constitution's text. The Framers rejected the concept of a central government that would act upon and through the states, and instead designed a system in which the state and federal governments would exercise concurrent authority over the people. The Court's jurisprudence makes clear that the federal government may not compel the states to enact or administer a federal regulatory program."
Lawyers are busy writing language only they can understand, which seeks to circumvent the intentions of the Founders. But it will be difficult to circumvent the last four words of the 10th Amendment, which state unambiguously where ultimate power lies: "or to the people."
Americans who believe their government should not be a giant ATM, dispensing money and benefits to people who have not earned them, and who want their country returned to its founding principles, must exercise that power before it is taken from them. The 10th Amendment is one place to begin. The streets are another. It worked for the left.
Cal Thomas is a nationally syndicated columnist.