FROM: CBS 6 Richmond
A tall tree in the same area where Caylee Marie Anthony's remains were found was struck by lightning this afternoon.
The strong storm passing over east Orange County this afternoon sparked the electricity that hit the tree. It is not impeding the spectators from visiting the impromptu memorial sight a few dozen feet into the woods off of Suburban Drive, a sheriff's spokeswoman confirmed.
The tree did not catch fire.
Thursday, July 07, 2011
Lightning strikes near Caylee Anthony memorial
From: FOX 35 Orlando
If traffic management and crowd control aren't good reasons for Orange County deputies to keep people away from the Anthony Family home on Suburban Drive, perhaps the risk of incurring the wrath and fury of Mother Nature is cause to just stay home.
If traffic management and crowd control aren't good reasons for Orange County deputies to keep people away from the Anthony Family home on Suburban Drive, perhaps the risk of incurring the wrath and fury of Mother Nature is cause to just stay home.
As severe weather passed through East Orange County on Thursday afternoon, a large pine tree located near a memorial site for Caylee Marie was damaged by a bolt of blue. The tree, which is roughly 60 feet tall, was struck about 20-feet from the top. The strike left two 5-foot burn marks down the side of the tree. No one was injured.
The tree is about 5 feet off the pavement on Suburban Drive and the memorial is another 10 to 15 feet beyond that and down into the woods. A short trail which leads down into the woods to the memorial site is essentially at the foot of the tree.
The inclement weather is part of a tropical system which is moving up the Florida peninsula and is also threatening the final launch of the Space Shuttle Atlantis scheduled for Friday morning at 11:26 a.m.
Aside from the weather, the Anthony neighborhood was quiet Thursday with a few people bringing flowers and toys to the memorial for Caylee in the swampy, mosquito-filled spot where her remains were found.
"If Caylee could see all this, she would see how much people loved her," said 11-year-old Isobel Bulanhagui, who visited the memorial with her grandfather. The child pulled a battery out of her purse and laid it gently beside a sign that read "pass on the angel in your arms to your creator."
"I don't have much in my purse but this will give her energy," Isobel said.
The memorial, the fourth that has been erected since Caylee died, has quadrupled in size since Tuesday's verdict. Hundreds of teddy bears and stuffed animals were piled on the dirt, with hand-written notes, many that disparaged Anthony. More than two dozen flower bouquets sit wilting and 27 helium balloons are anchored to the ground.
George Anthony has asked the public to donate the items to charity rather than place them in the woods.
Scott ripped for SunRail OK
Rick Scott ripped for SunRail OK:
"Gov. Rick Scott's approval Friday of an Orlando-area commuter rail project drew blistering rebukes from both his tea party base and supporters of the high-speed rail project that Scott scuttled earlier this year."
The governor endorsed the $1.28 billion, 61-mile SunRail commuter project that will cost the state more than a half-billion dollars.
The project has the backing of Orlando-area elected and business officials and U.S. Rep John Mica, R-Winter Park, who is deciding whether to approve $75 million in dredging funds Scott has sought for the Port of Miami.
In February, Scott rejected a $2.4 billion federal allocation to launch a statewide high-speed rail project at no cost to Florida, disagreeing with the U.S. Secretary of Transportation and state transportation officials who said the federal government, the private sector and passenger revenue would pay for the Tampa-Orlando segment.
"These are two totally different projects; it's like comparing apples to oranges," Scott said at a media luncheon in St. Petersburg following the SunRail announcement that he delegated earlier in the day to his transportation secretary in Tallahassee.
"If you take the high-speed project, that was a federal project that they decided they wanted to put here, and they were not going to fund all the parts of it," he said.
That was a reference to about $300 million required to complete funding the high-speed project, which private companies said they would provide if they won the contract. Scott scuttled the project before putting it out to bid.
But Florida taxpayers will pay $651.6 million for SunRail.
The state will pay:
•$432 million to purchase the CSX track the commuter trains will use during the day and to improve an alternate CSX route between Ocala and Lakeland to remove daytime freight operations from the commuter tracks.
•$153.75 million for its 25 percent share of capital costs. Five local governments will chip in another 25 percent, while the federal government will pay 50 percent of the design-build costs for SunRail.
•$65.85 million to operate and maintain SunRail for its first seven years of operation, after which city and county jurisdictions will take over funding.
Although former Republican Govs. Jeb Bush and Charlie Crist were advocates for SunRail, the Legislature initially rejected it following critical news accounts of the project.
Lawmakers endorsed the project after Mica said state SunRail funding would be required for Florida to get federal high-speed rail money.
SunRail is expected to carry 4,300 weekday passengers on conventional train cars when it opens by May 2014. It will carry 7,400 passengers by 2030, 15 years after the system is expanded from its initial 31-mile segment.
It will not serve the Orlando attractions or Orlando International Airport. (By contrast, the light-rail system Hillsborough County voters rejected in November was projected to carry 21,250 daily passengers on a 28-mile route, with no state funding.)
"I don't know that I would have made the decision to go forward with this if I had been around three or four years ago, but I walked in with this passed," Scott said.
That didn't satisfy supporters of the high-speed rail project that Scott rejected or tea party advocates.
Republican state Sen. Paula Dockery of Lakeland, who supported high-speed rail but opposed SunRail, said in her blog that Scott betrayed the trust of the conservative electorate by moving forward with the least cost-efficient commuter rail project in the nation.
"This decision has completed the governor's transformation from businessman to political insider," Dockery said.
"It is unclear if, when making the decision, the governor had a change of heart, if he simply succumbed to the desires of the big money special interests, or if he has a severe case of amnesia and thought that he was supposed to be representing CSX instead of Florida's taxpayers."
Karen Jaroch, chairwoman of the Tampa 912 Project and a tea party advocate, said now that the decision has been made, she hopes SunRail bucks the trend and does not follow in the footsteps of "subsidy-laden" Amtrak and Tri-Rail.
"We will not give a pass to the governor on this, nor will we overlook the myriad politicians who told us privately that SunRail is a boondoggle but wouldn't stand up for Floridians by coming out publicly for fear of standing up to corporate interests and political elites," Jaroch said.
Doug Guetzloe, founder of Orlando-based Ax The Tax, said Scott abandoned the taxpayers of Florida who will respond in kind.
"He's fired as an advocate for taxpayers," Guetzloe said.
Democrats were predictably critical.
"Governor Scott used all the right arguments to green light the wrong rail project," state Sen. Arthenia Joyner of Tampa said. "It had everything to do with hypocrisy and allegiance to his Republican brethren."
"Gov. Rick Scott's approval Friday of an Orlando-area commuter rail project drew blistering rebukes from both his tea party base and supporters of the high-speed rail project that Scott scuttled earlier this year."
The governor endorsed the $1.28 billion, 61-mile SunRail commuter project that will cost the state more than a half-billion dollars.
The project has the backing of Orlando-area elected and business officials and U.S. Rep John Mica, R-Winter Park, who is deciding whether to approve $75 million in dredging funds Scott has sought for the Port of Miami.
In February, Scott rejected a $2.4 billion federal allocation to launch a statewide high-speed rail project at no cost to Florida, disagreeing with the U.S. Secretary of Transportation and state transportation officials who said the federal government, the private sector and passenger revenue would pay for the Tampa-Orlando segment.
"These are two totally different projects; it's like comparing apples to oranges," Scott said at a media luncheon in St. Petersburg following the SunRail announcement that he delegated earlier in the day to his transportation secretary in Tallahassee.
"If you take the high-speed project, that was a federal project that they decided they wanted to put here, and they were not going to fund all the parts of it," he said.
That was a reference to about $300 million required to complete funding the high-speed project, which private companies said they would provide if they won the contract. Scott scuttled the project before putting it out to bid.
But Florida taxpayers will pay $651.6 million for SunRail.
The state will pay:
•$432 million to purchase the CSX track the commuter trains will use during the day and to improve an alternate CSX route between Ocala and Lakeland to remove daytime freight operations from the commuter tracks.
•$153.75 million for its 25 percent share of capital costs. Five local governments will chip in another 25 percent, while the federal government will pay 50 percent of the design-build costs for SunRail.
•$65.85 million to operate and maintain SunRail for its first seven years of operation, after which city and county jurisdictions will take over funding.
Although former Republican Govs. Jeb Bush and Charlie Crist were advocates for SunRail, the Legislature initially rejected it following critical news accounts of the project.
Lawmakers endorsed the project after Mica said state SunRail funding would be required for Florida to get federal high-speed rail money.
SunRail is expected to carry 4,300 weekday passengers on conventional train cars when it opens by May 2014. It will carry 7,400 passengers by 2030, 15 years after the system is expanded from its initial 31-mile segment.
It will not serve the Orlando attractions or Orlando International Airport. (By contrast, the light-rail system Hillsborough County voters rejected in November was projected to carry 21,250 daily passengers on a 28-mile route, with no state funding.)
"I don't know that I would have made the decision to go forward with this if I had been around three or four years ago, but I walked in with this passed," Scott said.
That didn't satisfy supporters of the high-speed rail project that Scott rejected or tea party advocates.
Republican state Sen. Paula Dockery of Lakeland, who supported high-speed rail but opposed SunRail, said in her blog that Scott betrayed the trust of the conservative electorate by moving forward with the least cost-efficient commuter rail project in the nation.
"This decision has completed the governor's transformation from businessman to political insider," Dockery said.
"It is unclear if, when making the decision, the governor had a change of heart, if he simply succumbed to the desires of the big money special interests, or if he has a severe case of amnesia and thought that he was supposed to be representing CSX instead of Florida's taxpayers."
Karen Jaroch, chairwoman of the Tampa 912 Project and a tea party advocate, said now that the decision has been made, she hopes SunRail bucks the trend and does not follow in the footsteps of "subsidy-laden" Amtrak and Tri-Rail.
"We will not give a pass to the governor on this, nor will we overlook the myriad politicians who told us privately that SunRail is a boondoggle but wouldn't stand up for Floridians by coming out publicly for fear of standing up to corporate interests and political elites," Jaroch said.
Doug Guetzloe, founder of Orlando-based Ax The Tax, said Scott abandoned the taxpayers of Florida who will respond in kind.
"He's fired as an advocate for taxpayers," Guetzloe said.
Democrats were predictably critical.
"Governor Scott used all the right arguments to green light the wrong rail project," state Sen. Arthenia Joyner of Tampa said. "It had everything to do with hypocrisy and allegiance to his Republican brethren."
Wednesday, July 06, 2011
Egypt party leader: Holocaust is 'a lie'
From: Washington Times
A leader of Egypt’s top secular party says the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks were “made in the USA,” the Holocaust is “a lie” and Anne Frank’s memoir is “a fake” — comments sure to roil the post-revolution political debate in the Arab world’s most populous country.
A leader of Egypt’s top secular party says the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks were “made in the USA,” the Holocaust is “a lie” and Anne Frank’s memoir is “a fake” — comments sure to roil the post-revolution political debate in the Arab world’s most populous country.
Ahmed Ezz El-Arab, a vice chairman of Egypt's Wafd Party, made the remarks in an exclusive interview with The Washington Times last week while in the Hungarian capital attending the Conference on Democracy and Human Rights.
He denied that the Nazis killed 6 million Jews during World War II.
“The Holocaust is a lie” Mr. Ezz El-Arab said. “The Jews under German occupation were 2.4 million. So if they were all exterminated, where does the remaining 3.6 million come from?”
Mr. Ezz El-Arab said he accepted that the Nazis killed “hundreds of thousands” of Jews. “But gas chambers and skinning them alive and all this? Fanciful stories,” he added. (AUDIO: on the Holocaust)
Mr. Ezz El-Arab also attacked the authenticity of “The Diary of Anne Frank,” which he said he studied as a doctoral student in Stockholm. “I could swear to God it’s a fake,” the Wafd leader said. “The girl was there, but the memoirs are a fake.”
Established in 1919 and disbanded in 1952, the Wafd Party was refounded in 1983 under reforms instituted by then-President Hosni Mubarak to allow token opposition to his dominant National Democratic Party.
After Mr. Mubarak’s ouster in February, Wafd emerged as arguably the second-most powerful political party to the Muslim Brotherhood, a formerly banned Islamist group.
Last month, Wafd announced it would run jointly with the Brotherhood and 16 other blocs in September’s parliamentary elections to present a united front as Egypt forges a new government.
“For four years, in alliance, we can build a constitution based on certain principles that guarantee human rights, citizenship, no religious trend whatsoever,” Mr. Ezz El-Arab said. “Once this is established, everybody can go to the ballot box and try his luck.”
Many in Israel have expressed concern that a democratic Egypt might cancel its 1979 peace treaty with Israel.
But Mr. Ezz El-Arab, who chairs Wafd’s foreign-relations committee, said there is “no chance at all” that would happen. “Egypt will not go to war unless it’s attacked,” he said.
As for Iran, with whom Egypt is normalizing relations, Mr. Ezz El-Arab assailed President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who also has denied the Holocaust.
“He’s a hateful character, so whatever he says can be criticized,” the Wafd leader said. “What he says about the Holocaust is true, but he doesn’t say it because it’s true. He says it out of hatred to the Israeli state.”
Mr. Ahmadinejad hosted a Holocaust-denial conference in 2006 to protest the ban in many European countries on questioning the Nazi genocide — laws that Mr. Ezz El-Arab criticized.
“It’s a shame that the West — the cradle of liberalism — should have a criminal law incriminating any discussion of any historical fact,” Mr. Ezz El-Arab said. “It’s a sacred cow. The ‘6 million’ is a sacred cow.”
Amr Bargisi, a former Wafd youth leader, said that while Mr. Ezz El-Arab himself does not have a major constituency in Egypt or within the party itself, his views on the Holocaust do.
“The vast majority of Egyptians think the Holocaust never happened,” Mr. Bargisi told The Times. “The fact that his presence in the party hierarchy hasn’t caused any objections tells you something about the farcical nature of Egyptian politics.”
In the interview, Mr. Ezz El-Arab also said that Osama bin Laden was not behind the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
“He could not have the know-how or the ability to do it,” he said, even though he called the dead al Qaeda leader “an American agent.”
“If he had the ability, one plane only landing on the Knesset would give more effect,” Mr. Ezz El-Arab said.
Asked who was responsible for the attacks, Mr. Ezz El-Arab identified the CIA, Israel’s Mossad intelligence service, and the “military-industrial complex.” (AUDIO: on 9/11)
Mr. Ezz El-Arab spoke of “the intelligent American elite that is ruling” and said it had responded to the “disaster” of President George W. Bush by electing Barack Obama president: “Obama is a nice face that has been brought up, the black rabbit taken out of the American hat when it was needed.” (AUDIO: on President Obama)
Mr. Ezz El-Arab also claimed that, during the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, “American soldiers with double Israeli nationality and Jewish religion” stole Jewish antiquities from the Babylonian exile period and had them reburied in Jerusalem to cement the Jewish historical claim on the city.
“It’s not a kind of monument robbery for selling in the black market,” he said. “The things they took from Babel, they took with the intention — to my judgment — of digging it under the Aqsa mosque [site of Jerusalem’s Temple Mount] so that when it’s discovered, they say, ‘Here was the temple.’ ” (AUDIO: on ‘double Israeli nationality’)
Despite the claim, Mr. Ezz El-Arab said he thinks that there once was a Jewish temple in Jerusalem and that Israeli Jews deserve to stay put.
“The Jews are there,” he said. “Good or bad, they are there. You cannot as a human being think of exterminating 6 million or 5 million or whatever. That’s crazy.”
Tuesday, July 05, 2011
CASEY ANTHONY IS NOT GUILTY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
No Homophobia
From: National Review Online
As an example of those who resolve this dissonance by holding fast to their homophobic prejudices, Kennicott cited Archbishop Timothy Dolan of New York, who had remarked on the similarities between the Empire State’s recent re-definition of marriage and the kind of human engineering attempted by totalitarian states; NRO’s Kathryn Jean Lopez and I came into Mr. Kennicott’s line of fire for displaying similarly “virulent homophobic rhetoric” in articles defending Archbishop Dolan’s suggestion that, in the marriage debate, the totalitarian temptation was very much in play.
Philip Kennicott’s line of attack nicely demonstrates the truth of Oscar Wilde’s famous observation that the only way to rid oneself of temptation is to yield to it. For crying “homophobia” is a cheap calumny, a crypto-totalitarian bully’s smear that impresses no serious person.
But for charity’s sake, let’s assume here that Mr. Kennicott simply had a bad day and might actually be interested in the arguments of those he and others have dismissed as bigots. Perhaps I can illustrate the point Kennicott’s targets were making by reminding all parties to this dispute of what marriage under totalitarianism was like — a subject I happened to be discussing with a Polish couple who were preparing to mark their 47th wedding anniversary when the Kennicott article appeared.
Under Polish Communism, Catholic couples — which is to say, just about everyone — got “married” twice.
Because marriages in the Catholic Church were not recognized by the Communist state, believers had two “weddings.” The first was a civil procedure, carried out in a dingy bureaucratic office with a state (i.e., Communist-party) apparatchik presiding. The friends with whom I was discussing this inanity are, today, distinguished academics, a physicist and a musicologist. They remembered with some glee that, a half century before, they had treated the state “wedding” with such unrestrained if blithe contempt that the presiding apparatchik had had to admonish them to take the business at hand seriously — a warning from the über-nanny-state my friends declined to, well, take seriously.
The entire business was a farce, regarded as such by virtually all concerned. Some time later, my friends were married, in every meaningful sense of that term, in Wawel Cathedral by a Polish priest whom the world would later know as Pope John Paul II.
Americans will say, “It can’t happen here.” But it can, and it may. Before the ink was dry on Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s signature on New York’s new marriage law, the New York Times published an editorial decrying the “religious exemptions” that had been written into the marriage law at the last moment. Those exemptions do, in fact, undercut the logic of the entire redefinition of marriage in the New York law — can you imagine any other “exemption for bigotry” being granted, in any other case of what the law declares to be a fundamental right?
The Washington Post’s culture critic, Philip Kennicott, recently took to the pages of his paper to note the “cognitive dissonance” between ingrained “habits of homophobia” in American culture, on the one hand, and a recognition that “overt bigotry is no longer acceptable in the public square,” on the other.
Philip Kennicott’s line of attack nicely demonstrates the truth of Oscar Wilde’s famous observation that the only way to rid oneself of temptation is to yield to it. For crying “homophobia” is a cheap calumny, a crypto-totalitarian bully’s smear that impresses no serious person.
But for charity’s sake, let’s assume here that Mr. Kennicott simply had a bad day and might actually be interested in the arguments of those he and others have dismissed as bigots. Perhaps I can illustrate the point Kennicott’s targets were making by reminding all parties to this dispute of what marriage under totalitarianism was like — a subject I happened to be discussing with a Polish couple who were preparing to mark their 47th wedding anniversary when the Kennicott article appeared.
Under Polish Communism, Catholic couples — which is to say, just about everyone — got “married” twice.
Because marriages in the Catholic Church were not recognized by the Communist state, believers had two “weddings.” The first was a civil procedure, carried out in a dingy bureaucratic office with a state (i.e., Communist-party) apparatchik presiding. The friends with whom I was discussing this inanity are, today, distinguished academics, a physicist and a musicologist. They remembered with some glee that, a half century before, they had treated the state “wedding” with such unrestrained if blithe contempt that the presiding apparatchik had had to admonish them to take the business at hand seriously — a warning from the über-nanny-state my friends declined to, well, take seriously.
The entire business was a farce, regarded as such by virtually all concerned. Some time later, my friends were married, in every meaningful sense of that term, in Wawel Cathedral by a Polish priest whom the world would later know as Pope John Paul II.
Americans will say, “It can’t happen here.” But it can, and it may. Before the ink was dry on Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s signature on New York’s new marriage law, the New York Times published an editorial decrying the “religious exemptions” that had been written into the marriage law at the last moment. Those exemptions do, in fact, undercut the logic of the entire redefinition of marriage in the New York law — can you imagine any other “exemption for bigotry” being granted, in any other case of what the law declares to be a fundamental right?
Muslim Brotherhood's first demand for US: Drop Israel
From: Israel Today
US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton at the weekend publicly announced the Obama Administration's desire to reestablish ties with Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood.
The Brotherhood responded this week by thanking Clinton, and issuing its first demand of its new American friends: drop support for the "Zionist regime."
In an email response quoted by Bloomberg, Muslim Brotherhood spokesman Mahmoud Ghozlan stated that if America wants solid relations with the group, it should "stop supporting the corrupt and tyrannical regimes, backing the Zionist occupation and using double standards."
It is important to remember that when the Muslim Brotherhood speaks of the "Zionist occupation" it does not mean only the Israeli presence in Judea and Samaria, the so-called "West Bank."
The Muslim Brotherhood sees all of Israel as a cancerous growth that must be eradicated. The group supports returning Egypt to a state of war with Israel, and wants to see the entirety of the region become an Islamic Caliphate.
Former Egyptian President Anwar Sadat was assassinated by the Muslim Brotherhood for making peace with Israel.
The Muslim Brotherhood is today the most organized political force in Egypt, raising expectations that it will win control of the government when Egyptians go to the polls in September.
Monday, July 04, 2011
Sunday, July 03, 2011
Iran Arrests Christians As More Muslims Leave Islam
From: CBN
Hundreds of Christians in Iran have been arrested and imprisoned since the beginning of this year.
The crackdown has led to 285 believers in 35 cities being arrested in Iran in the past six months, according to Elam Ministries, an organization that serves Christians in that country.
Many of those Christians have spent weeks and even months in prison, often serving long stretches in solitary confinement. They also have endured interrogations and psychological abuse.
Iranian Pastor Hormoz Shariat is with International Antioch Ministries. He hosts a satellite television show that is broadcast into Iran.
"Most often the Revolutionary Guards arrest and don't even tell their family. They can't have a lawyer, not even a formal charge. Sometimes they get killed without even a formal charge," he explained.
When he became president in 2005, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad pledged to halt the spread of Christianity in Iran and launched a crackdown at that time.
But David Yeghnazar, the U.S. director of Elam Ministries, says the government's efforts are now intensifying.
"In particular in this last year, this persecution has gained momentum and I really think that is because the church is growing with increasing momentum," he explained.
Yeghnazar and Shariat say the government, for the first time, has admitted that Iranians are leaving the Islamic faith and becoming Christians.
"They are writing about it in the newspapers. They are warning people. They have stated publicly that they will arrest people who are becoming Christians, that they will close down networks of house churches," Yeghnazar said.
"The government is intentionally going after the house churches. The supreme leader last October came and said the house churches in Iran are a threat to our national security," Shariat told CBN News.
Saturday, July 02, 2011
Gay Marriage: The Coming Clash of Civil and Religious Liberties
From: TIME Magazine
What does the historic vote on same-sex marriage in New York mean for the rest of the country? Will it play a role if and when the U.S. Supreme Court rules on the California case? Will it propel or impede efforts in other states to legalize gay marriage?
Vows will be said in New York long before those questions find answers, but what can be said for sure is that the New York legislation will nationalize the gay marriage debate in a way that no other step in the long campaign has. "A significantly larger percentage of the country now lives in states with marriage equality for gays and lesbians," constitutional law scholar Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the University of California, Irvine law school, told TIME. "That is important on so many levels. It shows that the trend continues in this direction and that it is just a matter of time before it is throughout the country. It will help fuel the on-going shift in public opinion."
"The New York vote marks a particular and important shift in the political landscape around same-sex marriage," adds Professor Marc Spindelman of the Ohio State University law school, who has followed gay marriage's serpentine legal path for years. "Who, a few years ago, could have imagined a high-profile Democratic governor leading the political charge for this still-controversial right in a state with a Republican-controlled senate, and with the help of major Republican party donors, to boot?"
And Al Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky., told TIME that New York's impact on the rest of the country can't be overstated. "The New York vote is massively important — perhaps even pivotal," he said. "This is due, not only to the size of the state's population, but to the political process by which the Governor and leading Republicans pushed this through the New York Senate. We should expect these same tactics to appear elsewhere."
In one sense, the most immediate impact of the New York legislation, beyond the obvious fact that more gays will now marry, is the way the 10 days of political wrangling in Albany came to a head over nearly intractable issues of religious liberty. While Chemerinsky told TIME that the furor was in some ways overblown — "No religion has to marry anyone it does not want to marry. I think that this was a misleading argument," he says — other scholars who have followed the debate for years say there's no denying that expanding gay rights so quickly has created real tensions between laws protecting the freedom of conscience and the newer protections for gays and lesbians.
Gay marriage isn't the first issue to do so, but it's likely to be the most fought over. No one is arguing that the Catholic Church, or any church, must marry a gay couple — and the protections written into law in New York saying so were probably redundant. But the New York law went further than merely restating the constitutionally obvious. It also wrote into law the right for all religious institutions — hospitals, adoption services — and so-called benevolent organizations to refuse to not just marry gay couples but the right to refuse accommodating their weddings, too.
What does the historic vote on same-sex marriage in New York mean for the rest of the country? Will it play a role if and when the U.S. Supreme Court rules on the California case? Will it propel or impede efforts in other states to legalize gay marriage?
Vows will be said in New York long before those questions find answers, but what can be said for sure is that the New York legislation will nationalize the gay marriage debate in a way that no other step in the long campaign has. "A significantly larger percentage of the country now lives in states with marriage equality for gays and lesbians," constitutional law scholar Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the University of California, Irvine law school, told TIME. "That is important on so many levels. It shows that the trend continues in this direction and that it is just a matter of time before it is throughout the country. It will help fuel the on-going shift in public opinion."
"The New York vote marks a particular and important shift in the political landscape around same-sex marriage," adds Professor Marc Spindelman of the Ohio State University law school, who has followed gay marriage's serpentine legal path for years. "Who, a few years ago, could have imagined a high-profile Democratic governor leading the political charge for this still-controversial right in a state with a Republican-controlled senate, and with the help of major Republican party donors, to boot?"
And Al Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky., told TIME that New York's impact on the rest of the country can't be overstated. "The New York vote is massively important — perhaps even pivotal," he said. "This is due, not only to the size of the state's population, but to the political process by which the Governor and leading Republicans pushed this through the New York Senate. We should expect these same tactics to appear elsewhere."
In one sense, the most immediate impact of the New York legislation, beyond the obvious fact that more gays will now marry, is the way the 10 days of political wrangling in Albany came to a head over nearly intractable issues of religious liberty. While Chemerinsky told TIME that the furor was in some ways overblown — "No religion has to marry anyone it does not want to marry. I think that this was a misleading argument," he says — other scholars who have followed the debate for years say there's no denying that expanding gay rights so quickly has created real tensions between laws protecting the freedom of conscience and the newer protections for gays and lesbians.
Gay marriage isn't the first issue to do so, but it's likely to be the most fought over. No one is arguing that the Catholic Church, or any church, must marry a gay couple — and the protections written into law in New York saying so were probably redundant. But the New York law went further than merely restating the constitutionally obvious. It also wrote into law the right for all religious institutions — hospitals, adoption services — and so-called benevolent organizations to refuse to not just marry gay couples but the right to refuse accommodating their weddings, too.
Friday, July 01, 2011
Reagan to McCain — You’re Wrong About Libya
From: Roll Call Opinion
Despite the best efforts of the few remaining loyalists of the Bushioisie, former President George W. Bush’s “freedom agenda” — and, more specifically, its willingness to put our armed forces in harm’s way absent a clear threat to U.S. vital interests — is going the way of the dodo.
This became clear at the recent GOP presidential debate in New Hampshire, during which none of the candidates on stage spoke in universal terms about the felicity of American efforts at nation building.
Instead, the assembled candidates took turns challenging the propriety of President Barack Obama’s undeclared war in Libya and raising larger questions about Obama’s support for nation building abroad.
Sadly, some members of the GOP establishment still haven’t gotten the message.
Appearing on ABC’s “This Week,” Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) revealed how shockingly little he knows about the man who reshaped his party — and the world — Ronald Reagan.
“I wonder what Ronald Reagan would be saying today?” asked McCain, challenging what he termed the “isolationism” of leading members of the GOP for daring to question Obama’s Libya engagement.
McCain then went on to answer his own question:
“He would be saying that’s not the Republican Party of the 20th century and now the 21st century. That is not the Republican Party that has been willing to stand up for freedom for people all over the world, whether it be in Grenada, that Ronald Reagan had a quick operation about, or whether it be in our enduring commitment to countering the Soviet Union.”
About which, horsefeathers.
Reagan didn’t send U.S. armed forces to Grenada to “stand up for freedom” for the people of Grenada; he sent U.S. armed forces to Grenada to prevent 800 American medical students on the island from being taken hostage by communist thugs and to remove the strategic threat posed by the military alliance previously formed by Grenada, the Soviet Union and Cuba.
The liberation of the 110,000 citizens of Grenada was only a welcome ancillary benefit.
Perhaps, rather than offering his own thoughts on the subject, McCain could answer his question better by reading Reagan’s own words explaining his decision to send U.S. armed forces to Grenada. On the evening of Oct. 27, 1983, just days after U.S. forces landed on the island, the president addressed the nation.
“I believe our government has a responsibility to go to the aid of its citizens if their right to life and liberty is threatened. The nightmare of our hostages in Iran must never be repeated,” Reagan said.
These words shouldn’t have been surprising to McCain — Reagan had tipped his hand years earlier. Accepting the Republican nomination in 1980, Reagan had this to say about the responsibility of the president and America’s role in the world:
“It is the responsibility of the president of the United States, in working for peace, to ensure that the safety of our people cannot successfully be threatened by a hostile foreign power. As president, fulfilling that responsibility will be my No. 1 priority.”
So we know what Reagan had to say before he became president, and we know what he said in explaining his decision to intervene in Grenada. Could it be possible that he changed his mind after eight years in office — that wisdom gleaned from experience led him to think differently?
Not so. Consider Reagan’s thoughts as expressed in his autobiography, “An American Life.”
“Our experience in Lebanon led to the adoption by the administration of a set of principles to guide America in the application of military force abroad, and I would recommend it to future Presidents,” Reagan wrote. “The policy we adopted included these principles:
“1. The United States should not commit its forces to military action overseas unless the cause is vital to our national interest.
“2. If the decision is made to commit our forces to combat abroad, it must be done with the clear intent and support needed to win. It should not be a halfway or tentative commitment, and there must be clearly defined and realistic objectives.
“3. Before we commit our troops to combat, there must be reasonable assurance that the cause we are fighting for and the actions we take will have the support of the American people and Congress.
“4. Even after all these other tests are met, our troops should be committed to combat abroad only as a last resort, when no other choice is available.”
Reagan knew it wasn’t his job to send U.S. armed forces to overthrow autocratic regimes willy-nilly just because the people who lived under the boot yearned for freedom; it was his job to safeguard the lives of American citizens and protect U.S. strategic interests.
Capturing the strategic high ground, not the moral, was his aim, and his aim was true.
I wish we could say the same for McCain and his ilk.
Fed's Massive Stimulus Had Little Impact: Greenspan
From: CNBC
The Federal Reserve's massive stimulus program had little impact on the U.S. economy besides weakening the dollar and helping U.S. exports, Federal Reserve Governor Alan Greenspan told CNBC Thursday.
“We’re going to get up to Aug 2 and I think on that night, we are not going to have the issue solved,” he said.
If that happens, he said, the U.S. would have to continue paying debt holders or risk major damage in global financial markets. As a result, “we will default on everything else.”
He added: “At that point, I think we’ll all come to our senses.”
The Federal Reserve's massive stimulus program had little impact on the U.S. economy besides weakening the dollar and helping U.S. exports, Federal Reserve Governor Alan Greenspan told CNBC Thursday.
In a blunt critique of his successor, Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke, Greenspan said the $2 trillion in quantative easing ![[cnbc explains]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_unnGVH_yDPLZKtJKwaSihdYHeJflXox5eqGygOKU3Mi84KYG9q5noInOBk1kKo3HtJraeh8S7kNYZSvUpxmpjgxxrQAfEBQ9HBr9-eKmqnee-FVXNNGtivYCz_VG6TmlCr2DrI-gY8h1fU3PDpxJ699JGPaltYRSN2sp5PlzQViFAPsmrIac_sh23VGtZK5g=s0-d)
"There is no evidence that huge inflow of money into the system basically worked," Greenspan said in a live interview.
"It obviously had some effect on the exchange rate and the exchange rate was a critical issue in export expansion," he said. "Aside from that, I am ill-aware of anything that really worked. Not only QE2 but QE1."
Greenspan’s comments came as the Fed ended the second installment of its bond-buying program, known as QE2, after spending $600 billion. There were no hints of any more monetary easing—or QE3—to come.
Greenspan said he "would be surprised if there was a QE3" because it would "continue erosion of the dollar."
The former Fed chairman himself has been widely criticized for the low-interest rate policy in the early and mid 2000s that many believe led to the 2008 credit crisis.
Bernanke, who took over for Greenspan in 2006, began implementing the quantitative easing program in 2009 in an attempt to unfreeze credit and prevent a collapse of the US financial system. The strategy has gotten mixed reviews so far.
On Greece, Greenspan said a default is likely and will "affect the whole structure of profitability in the U.S." because of this country's large economic commitments to Europe, which holds Greek debt. Europe is also where "half the foreign [U.S.] affiliate earnings" are generated, he added.
"We can’t afford a significant drop in foreign affiliate earnings," Greenspan said.
Greenspan was also pessimistic about the U.S. deficit talks, saying he didn’t think Congress would reach an agreement on raising the debt ceiling by the Aug 2 deadline.“We’re going to get up to Aug 2 and I think on that night, we are not going to have the issue solved,” he said.
If that happens, he said, the U.S. would have to continue paying debt holders or risk major damage in global financial markets. As a result, “we will default on everything else.”
He added: “At that point, I think we’ll all come to our senses.”
5 Myths Atheists Believe about Religion « SpeakEasy
From: Real Clear REligion
Despite their emphasis on reason, evidence and a desire to see through false truth claims, many atheists hold surprisingly ill-informed beliefs about religion. Many of these myths go unquestioned simply because they serve the purpose of discrediting religion at large. They allow for the construction of a straw man i.e. a distorted and simplistic representation of religion which can be easily attacked, summarily dismissed and ridiculed. Others who genuinely believe these false claims merely have a limited understanding of the ideas involved and have never thoroughly examined them. But, myths are myths and they should be acknowledged for what they are.
I’m not saying that atheists aren’t knowledgeable when it comes to religion. To the contrary, atheists in general know more about the particularities of religion than most religious people do. A recent study confirmed it. I have no doubt that they can rattle off all of the myths, falsities, fanciful claims, dangerous ideas and barbarous actions committed by the religious. It makes sense as a targeted group will generally know more about the dominant group than the other way around. But of course simply knowing more than other religious people about their traditions doesn’t preclude holding to false beliefs of their own.
There are certainly more than five myths about religion that are perpetuated by some atheists (and in some cases the religious). However, I’ve chosen what I feel to be the most significant false claims made by atheists to help provide a more accurate understanding of religion and to pave the groundwork for dialogue between these seemingly two opposing groups.
Now, let’s examine these myths.
5. Liberal and Moderate Religion Justifies Religious Extremism
While this often repeated claim seems logical at first glance, upon examination it is nothing more than another simplistic idea that provides a feel good rallying cry for those who want to denounce religion in its entirety.
Sam Harris states that moderates are “in large part responsible for the religious conflict in our world” and “religious tolerance–born of the notion that every human being should be free to believe whatever he wants about God–is one of the principal forces driving us toward the abyss.” And Richard Dawkins states, “The teachings of ‘moderate’ religion, though not extremist in themselves, are an open invitation to extremism.”
Christopher Hitchens has called liberation theology “sinister nonsense” and compared the liberal Unitarian tradition to rats and vermin.
Despite their emphasis on reason, evidence and a desire to see through false truth claims, many atheists hold surprisingly ill-informed beliefs about religion. Many of these myths go unquestioned simply because they serve the purpose of discrediting religion at large. They allow for the construction of a straw man i.e. a distorted and simplistic representation of religion which can be easily attacked, summarily dismissed and ridiculed. Others who genuinely believe these false claims merely have a limited understanding of the ideas involved and have never thoroughly examined them. But, myths are myths and they should be acknowledged for what they are.
I’m not saying that atheists aren’t knowledgeable when it comes to religion. To the contrary, atheists in general know more about the particularities of religion than most religious people do. A recent study confirmed it. I have no doubt that they can rattle off all of the myths, falsities, fanciful claims, dangerous ideas and barbarous actions committed by the religious. It makes sense as a targeted group will generally know more about the dominant group than the other way around. But of course simply knowing more than other religious people about their traditions doesn’t preclude holding to false beliefs of their own.
There are certainly more than five myths about religion that are perpetuated by some atheists (and in some cases the religious). However, I’ve chosen what I feel to be the most significant false claims made by atheists to help provide a more accurate understanding of religion and to pave the groundwork for dialogue between these seemingly two opposing groups.
Now, let’s examine these myths.
5. Liberal and Moderate Religion Justifies Religious Extremism
While this often repeated claim seems logical at first glance, upon examination it is nothing more than another simplistic idea that provides a feel good rallying cry for those who want to denounce religion in its entirety.
Sam Harris states that moderates are “in large part responsible for the religious conflict in our world” and “religious tolerance–born of the notion that every human being should be free to believe whatever he wants about God–is one of the principal forces driving us toward the abyss.” And Richard Dawkins states, “The teachings of ‘moderate’ religion, though not extremist in themselves, are an open invitation to extremism.”
Christopher Hitchens has called liberation theology “sinister nonsense” and compared the liberal Unitarian tradition to rats and vermin.
Obama's Priority Is "Equality", Not Jobs
From: Real Clear Politics
Ronald Reagan did nothing. Barack Obama saved the nation from total collapse.
Ronald Reagan did nothing. Barack Obama saved the nation from total collapse.
How else to explain the absence of jobless pitchfork-wielding Americans storming the White House? How else to explain the contrast between the explosive Reagan Recovery and the dud on our hands right now?
Fortunately, the left is up to the task.
"The secret of the long climb after 1982 was the economic plunge that preceded it. By the end of 1982 the U.S. economy was deeply depressed, with the worst unemployment rate since the Great Depression. So there was plenty of room to grow before the economy returned to anything like full employment," said left-wing economist, Nobel laureate and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman in 2004. Oh.
An economy that is "deeply depressed," Krugman insists, or at least he did seven years ago, naturally comes back strong. To what principal factor did Krugman point to in calling the 1982 economy "deeply depressed"? Unemployment. It peaked in the early '80s at 10.8 percent, even higher than during "The Great Recession" (aka the economy "inherited" by President Barack Obama). In 2010, the unemployment rate hit 10.2 percent, which means the early '80s still holds the record for the "worst unemployment rate since the Great Depression."
What most people care about are jobs. By that standard, Reagan faced an even tougher economy. Throw in a higher rate of inflation -- 1980's 13.5 percent average vs. 2011's 2.6 percent -- and much higher prime interest rates -- 20 percent vs. 3.25 percent -- and the early '80s looked even grimmer than The Great Recession.
Krugman gives no credit to the Reagan policies of lower taxes, deregulation and a slowdown in the rate of government spending. He believes Reagan's policies harmed the economy. Krugman approvingly quotes Bill Clinton, who, as a presidential candidate, said: "The Reagan-Bush years have exalted private gain over public obligation, special interests over the common good, wealth and fame over work and family. The 1980s ushered in a Gilded Age of greed and selfishness, of irresponsibility and excess, and of neglect."
Enter President Barack "Hope and Change" Obama, with a Democratic majority in the House and a supermajority filibuster-proof Senate. Out went policies like reductions in income taxes, corporate taxes, capital gains and dividends. In came transfers of money from one pocket to another to "spread the wealth."
Under ObamaCare, the Democrats placed the entire health care system under the command and control of the federal government.
Fortunately, the left is up to the task.
"The secret of the long climb after 1982 was the economic plunge that preceded it. By the end of 1982 the U.S. economy was deeply depressed, with the worst unemployment rate since the Great Depression. So there was plenty of room to grow before the economy returned to anything like full employment," said left-wing economist, Nobel laureate and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman in 2004. Oh.
An economy that is "deeply depressed," Krugman insists, or at least he did seven years ago, naturally comes back strong. To what principal factor did Krugman point to in calling the 1982 economy "deeply depressed"? Unemployment. It peaked in the early '80s at 10.8 percent, even higher than during "The Great Recession" (aka the economy "inherited" by President Barack Obama). In 2010, the unemployment rate hit 10.2 percent, which means the early '80s still holds the record for the "worst unemployment rate since the Great Depression."
What most people care about are jobs. By that standard, Reagan faced an even tougher economy. Throw in a higher rate of inflation -- 1980's 13.5 percent average vs. 2011's 2.6 percent -- and much higher prime interest rates -- 20 percent vs. 3.25 percent -- and the early '80s looked even grimmer than The Great Recession.
Krugman gives no credit to the Reagan policies of lower taxes, deregulation and a slowdown in the rate of government spending. He believes Reagan's policies harmed the economy. Krugman approvingly quotes Bill Clinton, who, as a presidential candidate, said: "The Reagan-Bush years have exalted private gain over public obligation, special interests over the common good, wealth and fame over work and family. The 1980s ushered in a Gilded Age of greed and selfishness, of irresponsibility and excess, and of neglect."
Enter President Barack "Hope and Change" Obama, with a Democratic majority in the House and a supermajority filibuster-proof Senate. Out went policies like reductions in income taxes, corporate taxes, capital gains and dividends. In came transfers of money from one pocket to another to "spread the wealth."
Under ObamaCare, the Democrats placed the entire health care system under the command and control of the federal government.
The Oil Reserve Plunder Blunder
From: American Thinker
Until this past week, the International Energy Agency had released oil only twice from the emergency reserves of its member nations. The first time was during the 1991 Gulf War in response to the loss of Iraqi and Kuwaiti oil production, and the other was in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, when the Gulf of Mexico fields and regional refineries were shut down.
The recent decision to release oil, ostensibly to offset the significantly smaller loss of supply caused by the civil war in Libya, was therefore a major policy shift. This shift is not only misguided but fraught with potential problems for the future.
The IEA was founded in the early seventies to offset the influence and potential threats of oil cutoffs emanating from OPEC. Since then, the stockpiles have only been used in the most extreme of circumstances. However, the ramification of last week's action is that the IEA and its member states may intervene more quickly, and for domestic political considerations, in order to smooth over price movements after small disruptions in supply. While originally conceived as a hedge and strategic reserve in case of a massive cutoff in oil production due to unforeseen circumstances such as major war or political upheaval, the reserve seems to have mutated into a lever to manipulate the market.
The move of releasing 60 million barrels this past week seems to have had its short-term intended effect: the oil price did drop sharply. Nonetheless, it is not a reliable precedent and one that may only work for the short run. Now that a new standard has been set, there will always be political pressure brought to bear whenever there is a spike in the price of oil.
Today, because of an increase in demand, particularly in the emerging Asian economies and the refusal of the United States to develop its own reserves, the smallest disruption in supply can have a painful effect. This is particularly true in Western economies presently struggling with a poisonous mix of low growth, high unemployment, and rising inflation.
These countries, which are loath to raise interest rates to mitigate the effect of high commodity prices, as they are fearful of further strangling any nascent economic recovery as well as an over-sensitivity to the political implications of higher energy prices, have chosen instead to manipulate the market.
The IEA cannot regularly intervene in this manner without depleting its reserves, which then ultimately strips the agency of its ability to intervene. Prices will not fall if markets perceive that stockpiles will have to be rebuilt. Moreover the logic of the IEA argument is dubious at best. Market dynamics will of their own accord bear down on oil prices. More fuel efficiency is always in the offing and becomes financially feasible as the cost of oil rises. New investment in oil production, also accelerated by rising prices, will ultimately bring down prices in the long term. Suppressing the price mechanism through intervention will simply retard this correction.
As in the case of the financial crisis of 2008, in large part brought about by government policy, the decisions made to intervene by massively bailing out numerous banks, financial institutions, and governments were exacerbated by not allowing the markets to function in a normal pattern. A severe situation has been made potentially catastrophic by the unfettered printing of money and never-ending government and central bank intrusion. The leaders of the Western world, having so ineptly dealt with the financial crisis, are now bringing the same mindset to the oil markets.
The recent decision to release oil, ostensibly to offset the significantly smaller loss of supply caused by the civil war in Libya, was therefore a major policy shift. This shift is not only misguided but fraught with potential problems for the future.
The IEA was founded in the early seventies to offset the influence and potential threats of oil cutoffs emanating from OPEC. Since then, the stockpiles have only been used in the most extreme of circumstances. However, the ramification of last week's action is that the IEA and its member states may intervene more quickly, and for domestic political considerations, in order to smooth over price movements after small disruptions in supply. While originally conceived as a hedge and strategic reserve in case of a massive cutoff in oil production due to unforeseen circumstances such as major war or political upheaval, the reserve seems to have mutated into a lever to manipulate the market.
The move of releasing 60 million barrels this past week seems to have had its short-term intended effect: the oil price did drop sharply. Nonetheless, it is not a reliable precedent and one that may only work for the short run. Now that a new standard has been set, there will always be political pressure brought to bear whenever there is a spike in the price of oil.
Today, because of an increase in demand, particularly in the emerging Asian economies and the refusal of the United States to develop its own reserves, the smallest disruption in supply can have a painful effect. This is particularly true in Western economies presently struggling with a poisonous mix of low growth, high unemployment, and rising inflation.
These countries, which are loath to raise interest rates to mitigate the effect of high commodity prices, as they are fearful of further strangling any nascent economic recovery as well as an over-sensitivity to the political implications of higher energy prices, have chosen instead to manipulate the market.
The IEA cannot regularly intervene in this manner without depleting its reserves, which then ultimately strips the agency of its ability to intervene. Prices will not fall if markets perceive that stockpiles will have to be rebuilt. Moreover the logic of the IEA argument is dubious at best. Market dynamics will of their own accord bear down on oil prices. More fuel efficiency is always in the offing and becomes financially feasible as the cost of oil rises. New investment in oil production, also accelerated by rising prices, will ultimately bring down prices in the long term. Suppressing the price mechanism through intervention will simply retard this correction.
As in the case of the financial crisis of 2008, in large part brought about by government policy, the decisions made to intervene by massively bailing out numerous banks, financial institutions, and governments were exacerbated by not allowing the markets to function in a normal pattern. A severe situation has been made potentially catastrophic by the unfettered printing of money and never-ending government and central bank intrusion. The leaders of the Western world, having so ineptly dealt with the financial crisis, are now bringing the same mindset to the oil markets.
Obama Skips Deficit Talks for Philly Fundraisers
Obama Skips Deficit Talks for Philly Fundraisers: "pDespite complaining Congress isn’t trying hard enough to nail down a deficit deal yesterday, President Obama snubbed Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s invitation to discuss the issue with Senate Republicans today. Instead, the president is jetting off to Philadelphia, where he’ll be attending two DNC campaign fundraisers this evening. “They’re in one week, they’re out [...]/p"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
