Tag Archives: supreme

IT’S OFFICIAL!!! Hosni Mubarak Steps Down And Concedes All Presidential Power!

Bout damn time! Don’t let the doorknob hit ya where the good Lord split ya! Cairo, Egypt (CNN) — Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak stepped down Friday and handed over power to the military, his nearly three decades of iron rule ended by a groundswell of popular protests that began January 25. In a somber, one-minute announcement on state television, Vice President Omar Suleiman announced Mubarak’s resignation and said the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces will “run the affairs of the country.” As Suleiman spoke, deafening cheers erupted among tens of thousands of Egyptians who thronged the streets of Cairo. It was a moment they had sought throughout long, often tense days of demonstrations — some of them violent — that demanded Mubarak’s departure. It was also a moment that many in the Arab world’s powerhouse nation had not dared contemplate. Chants of “Egypt is free!” and “God is great!” rose from the crowds, dizzy in the honeymoon of their success. Some waved Egyptian flags; others honked horns; still others set off fireworks as they savored the scene. Two major bridges over the Nile River resembled congested parking lots, and partiers packed streets throughout Cairo. The state-run Middle East News Agency said some people had passed out from joy and others had suffered heart attacks. “It was a sense of liberation for me, for every Egyptian,” said opposition leader Mohamed ElBaradei. “For the first time, Egypt has a chance to be democratic, to be free, to have a sense of dignity, of freedom. So it’s amazing. It’s just like something we never experienced in our lifetime.” Hopefully the Egyptian people get an opportunity to choose the kind of government they want to rule the country now. Source

See original here:
IT’S OFFICIAL!!! Hosni Mubarak Steps Down And Concedes All Presidential Power!

Biutiful

See original here:
Biutiful

Erin Gibson’s Year in Modern Lady

Erin Gibson hops in the Modern Lady Lookback Machine to fondly remember the contributions of the Supreme Court, Julia Roberts, and Giselle Bündchen.

See the original post:
Erin Gibson’s Year in Modern Lady

The United States imprisons it’s own

With nearly 25% of the world's inmate population, who says the United States doesn't have political prisoners? Excerpt: “Indeed, the United States leads the world in producing prisoners, a reflection of a relatively recent and now entirely distinctive American approach to crime and punishment. Americans are locked up for crimes — from writing bad checks to using drugs — that would rarely produce prison sentences in other countries. And in particular they are kept incarcerated far longer than prisoners in other nations.” How is this helpful to society? Why doesn't Americans and politicians take a good hard look at this issue? Coupled with an extremely dysfunctional judicial system populated largely by opportunistic prosecutors who believe they are empowered to wield the hand of God play the role of Judge, jury and executioner over people's lives, it's little wonder we incarcerate so many. In my own experiences with the judicial system I can tell you with NO uncertainty the legal system has no interest in “truth”, “right” or “wrong”. The judicial system executes sloppily prosecuted people, knowing full well the inadequacies of the process. Prosecutions and executions sought and pushed forward by prosecutors who decided for themselves who was guilty, ignorant of their own weaknesses, failings, projections and externalization. Our nation shoots itself in not just the foot, but the leg and the abdomen. Our judicial system's conduct is terminal and fatal to our society. Need we look at the actions of the Supreme Court allowing corporations the buying of judges, politicians and political favorable agendas and legislation AT the expense of the electorate? That you believe you haven't been touched by the dysfunction of the judicial system is no excuse for ignorance or worse yet, indifference to the violations and victimization's of the judicial system on the American people. Not convinced? Just think about it. Why does the US's 5% of the world's population house nearly 25% of the worlds prisoner population and at what expense to you financially in the form of taxes? At what expense to society to loose so many of it's primarily male population? What is a country more interested in prosecuting and jailing it's people than helping them? More interesting facts: “Children of incarcerated parents have increased risk of anxiety, depression, aggression, truancy, attention disorders and poor scholastic performance.” I met a homeless young man who had been incarcerated for 3 days not paying a bus fee of less than $5.00. And still more interesting facts: “Children of incarcerated parents have increased risk of anxiety, depression, aggression, truancy, attention disorders and poor scholastic performance.” Would you rather the state and Federal Government paid for the bus fare and not incarcerated the young man or waste some $250.00 a day for his incarceration plus court costs? Who makes decisions like this? Is it crazy or has the legal and judicial system itself become the monster? Again, is an unpaid bus fare of less than $5.00 worth blowing more than $600.00 of American tax payer money? Is this what “being tough on crime is”? That's a resounding: YES! Did the people who conduct our legal and judicial system in this way go to college? Are they idiots? Are they intentionally trying to destroy America or are they just really really stupid? Fact 1: Not everyone in prison is guilty. Fact 2: Not everyone accused is guilty. Personally, I can't believe a civilized society would conduct itself so self-destructive and so oblivious to the Obvious! http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/23/us/23prison.html added by: VoyagerFilms

GOP Politician: Girl Scouts Are Lesbian Atheists

A candidate for the Washington State house of representatives said the Girl Scouts of America is a hotbed of lesbianism and atheism. Hans Zeiger, the 25-year-old Republican nominee for Washington's 25th district seat, once wrote on a conservative website that the Girl Scouts organization has been spared the same scrutiny of the Boy Scouts of America has faced regarding its rules against gay inclusion because the group allows lesbians and atheists, Change.org reports. He also charged the Girl Scouts with being a “pro-abortion, feminist training corps.” The blog where Zeiger has made many similar statements is being swept of some of his more offensive posts, according to the report. Zeiger, who was an Eagle Scout, is the author of two books, Reagan's Children: Taking Back the City on the Hill and Get Off My Honor! The Assault on the Boy Scouts of America. added by: TimALoftis

Hand Dancing

I don't even know where to begin… added by: Almibry

Montana GOP Policy: Make Homosexuality Illegal

(AP) At a time when gays have been gaining victories across the country, the Republican Party in Montana still wants to make homosexuality illegal. The party adopted an official platform in June that keeps a long-held position in support of making homosexual acts illegal, a policy adopted after the Montana Supreme Court struck down such laws in 1997. The fact that it's still the official party policy more than 12 years later, despite a tidal shift in public attitudes since then and the party's own pledge of support for individual freedoms, has exasperated some GOP members. “I looked at that and said, 'You've got to be kidding me,'” state Sen. John Brueggeman, R-Polson, said last week. “Should it get taken out? Absolutely. Does anybody think we should be arresting homosexual people? If you take that stand, you really probably shouldn't be in the Republican Party.” Gay rights have been rapidly advancing nationwide since the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Texas' sodomy law in 2003's Lawrence v. Texas decision. Gay marriage is now allowed in five states and Washington, D.C., a federal court recently ruled the military's “don't ask, don't tell” policy unconstitutional, and even a conservative tea party group in Montana ousted its president over an anti-gay exchange in Facebook. But going against the grain is the Montana GOP statement, which falls under the “Crime” section of the GOP platform. It states: “We support the clear will of the people of Montana expressed by legislation to keep homosexual acts illegal.” Montana GOP executive director Bowen Greenwood said that has been the position of the party since the state Supreme Court struck down state laws criminalizing homosexuality in 1997 in the case of Gryczan v. Montana. Nobody has ever taken the initiative to change it and so it's remained in the party platform, Greenwood said. The matter has never even come up for discussion, he said. “There had been at the time, and still is, a substantial portion of Republican legislators that believe it is more important for the Legislature to make the law instead of the Supreme Court,” Greenwood said. Critics say the policy is a toothless statement, the effect of which is simply to make gays feel excluded. A University of Montana law professor says Montana's 1997 case and the U.S. Supreme Court's Lawrence decision means there's no real chance for the state GOP to act on its position. “To me, that statement legally is hollow,” said constitutional specialist Jack Tuholske. “The principle under Gryczan and under Lawrence, that's the fundamental law of the land and the Legislature can't override the Constitution. It might express their view, but as far as a legal reality, it's a hollow view and can't come to pass.” Montana Human Rights Network organizer Kim Abbott said the GOP platform statement does not represent the attitudes of most Montanans, and it shows that the party is out of touch with the prevalent view of the people they are supposed to represent. “It speaks volumes to the lesbian and gay community how they are perceived by the Republican Party,” Abbott said. “It would be nice if Republicans that understand that gay people are human beings would stand up and say they don't agree with that. But I don't know how likely that is.” Brueggeman suspects that the vast majority of the party believes, as he does, that the Republican party should remove statement. It's against every conservative principle for limited government and issues like this exemplify how a political party can interfere with the relationship between lawmakers and their constituents. “I just hope it's something that's so sensitive that people don't want to touch it,” he said. “Even if there wasn't a Supreme Court decision, does anyone really believe that it should be illegal?” added by: TimALoftis

Brian Williams Relitigates Bush v Gore, Pushes Breyer to Elaborate on Irreparable Harm

Giving Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer an unusual evening newscast platform to plug a book, on Monday’s NBC Nightly News anchor Brian Williams brought viewers back to the Left’s ten-year-old grudge, cuing up Breyer to agree: “Do you think Bush v Gore hurt the credibility of the modern court?” Breyer replied with a simple “yes” and Williams suggested: “Irreparably?” “No,” Breyer said in rejecting Williams’ overwrought premise, so Williams pressed: “For how long?” Williams introduced the September 13 segment by marveling: We can’t remember a sitting justice on the U.S. Supreme Court ever stopping by our studios here, but it happened today. We spent some time with Justice Stephen Breyer, appointed by President Clinton and residing on the liberal side of the court. Justice Breyer is out with a new book today. It’s about how the court works, including mistakes the court has made over the years. I started out by asking Justice Breyer, given his love of the Supreme Court, if he’s concerned that just one percent of those Americans polled, in a recent survey, knew his name? That book: Making Our Democracy Work: A Judge’s View . The second topic raised by Williams: WILLIAMS: Do you think Bush v Gore hurt the credibility of the modern court? BREYER: Yes. WILLIAMS: Irreparably? BREYER: No. WILLIAMS: For how long? BREYER: I don’t know. That’s up to historians. I thought that the decision — I was in dissent. I obviously thought the majority was wrong. But I’ve heard Harry Reid, I heard him say this, and I agree with it completely, he said the most remarkable thing about that case, Bush versus Gore, is something hardly anyone remarks. And that remarkable thing is even though more than half the public strongly disagreed with it, thought it was really wrong, they followed it. And the alternative, using guns, having revolutions in the street, is a worse alternative. WILLIAMS: To a new area, academic social elitism on the court. What would be your view of bringing in — Presidents appointing justices who went to a couple of state law schools?

Continued here:
Brian Williams Relitigates Bush v Gore, Pushes Breyer to Elaborate on Irreparable Harm

Michael Moore Touts Ground Zero Mosque, Suggests McDonald’s Worse Than Terrorists

Some think of September 11 as a date for solemn remembrance. Others see it as another occasion for idiocy. Take Michael Moore’s 9/11 message : I am opposed to the building of the “mosque” two blocks from Ground Zero. I want it built on Ground Zero. He says it’s because Islam was “stolen” from the real Muslims at the Twin Towers, and it should be given back on the same spot. But he’s not finished: There is a McDonald’s two blocks from Ground Zero. Trust me, McDonald’s has killed far more people than the terrorists. And the terrorists remind Moore of the Catholics on the Supreme Court: Let’s face it, all religions have their whackos. Catholics have O’Reilly, Gingrich, Hannity and Clarence Thomas (in fact all five conservatives who dominate the Supreme Court are Catholic). Protestants have Pat Robertson and too many to list here. The Mormons have Glenn Beck. Jews have Crazy Eddie. But we don’t judge whole religions on just the actions of their whackos. Unless they’re Methodists. Moore actually finished by suggesting the wisest thing to do on 9/11 is donate to the Ground Zero Mosque. He’s offering to match the first $10,000: Friends, we all have a responsibility NOW to make sure that Muslim community center gets built. Once again, 70% of the country (the same number that initially supported the Iraq War) is on the wrong side and want the “mosque” moved. Enormous pressure has been put on the Imam to stop his project. We have to turn this thing around. Are we going to let the bullies and thugs win another one? Aren’t you fed up by now? When would be a good time to take our country back from the haters? I say right now. Let’s each of us make a statement by donating to the building of this community center! It’s a nonprofit, tax-exempt organization and you can donate a dollar or ten dollars (or more) right now through a secure pay pal account by clicking here . I will personally match the first $10,000 raised (forward your PayPal receipt to webguy@michaelmoore.com ). If each one of you reading this blog/email donated just a couple of dollars, that would give the center over $6 million, more than what Donald Trump has offered to buy the Imam out. C’mon everyone, let’s pitch in and help those who are being debased for simply wanting to do something good. We could all make a huge statement of love on this solemn day. Sometimes, Moore sounds way too close to the satirical Moore character in An American Carol.

See the rest here:
Michael Moore Touts Ground Zero Mosque, Suggests McDonald’s Worse Than Terrorists

WaPo, Editorially a Proponent of Church/State Separation, Worries About Too Few Muslim Chaplains in Va. Prisons

Those familiar with the Washington Post know that the paper is a staunch defender of a very liberal vision of the separation of church and state. For example, the paper’s editorial board was heavily critical of the Supreme Court’s Mojave cross ruling. But when it comes to the supposed dearth of Muslim chaplains at Virginia prisons, Sunday’s Metro section went into full hand-wringing mode. “Inadequate Funds for Chaplains,” complained a subheader for the page B1 story by staffer Kevin Sieff. “In Va., most money goes to Protestant clergy,” another subheadline for the story “Support limited for Muslims in prison”* lamented. Of course, it wasn’t until paragraph 27 that Sieff noted that “[n]either Catholic nor Jewish chaplains have sought funding from corrections officials.” As Sieff explained early in his article, “a 200-year-old interpretation of the state constitution… bars Virginia from doing any faith-based hiring” and “is the only state where prison chaplains are contractors, not state employees.” Sure, “Muslim chaplains could visit correctional facilities to minister to Virginia’s 32,000 inmates,” Sieff explained, “but they received no funds from the state” until a $25,000 grant was given to Muslim Chaplain Services of Virginia last July. “The department [of corrections] has been living in the past. No other state in the country is so far behind the curve,” Sieff quoted the lament of one Larry Coleman of the American Correctional Chaplains Association. Yet nowhere in his 43-paragraph article did Sieff quote a defender of the Old Dominion’s approach to prison chaplaincies. What’s more, Sieff presented Virginia policy as an unwitting accomplice in homegrown terrorism. “In the absence of qualified Muslim religious service providers, inmates can become attracted to radical views and the politico-religious messages coming from other inmates,” Sieff quoted from a study by terrorism experts at George Washington University and the University of Virginia.  Of course, volunteer Muslim chaplains who are not on the state payroll may have more credibility as a moderating influence on Muslim inmates than those who may be seen as government stooges by virtue of their affiliation with the state, but Sieff failed to find anyone who would argue that point.  *The online version’s headline is slightly different, “Limited  spiritual support in Virginia prisons as number of Muslim inmates grows”

See original here:
WaPo, Editorially a Proponent of Church/State Separation, Worries About Too Few Muslim Chaplains in Va. Prisons