Washington Redskins’ quarterback Robert Griffin III, who dislocated his ankle in Sunday’s game against the Jacksonville Jaguars, entered the room for a post-game press conference wearing a T-shirt that said “[K]No[w] Jesus, [K]No[w] Peace” but turned it inside-out before speaking to reporters.
Michael Phillips, a sportswriter for the Richmond Times Dispatch, who was in the room tweeted:
J.P. Finlay of Comcast Sportsnet posted photographs of Redskins star defensive end Ryan Kerrigan–at the same press conference–wearing a T-shirt not made by Nike, but sporting writing on the front.
Read the full article at CNSNews.com.
For a team under attack by idiots claiming their mascot is racist, they really need to take a better look at how they are treating other message that whiny, thin-skinned morons complain about.
Despite the administration’s pledges to the contrary, a number of Obamacare exchanges appear to be sending taxpayer dollars to cover insurance plans that provide elective abortions, according to a new Government Accountability Office report.
Taxpayer funding from the Department of Health and Human Services has long been barred for being used directly to fund abortions or to fund insurance plans that cover elective abortions — with the exceptions of rape, incest and danger to the mother’s life. Even though this provision, the Hyde Amendment, applies to the Affordable Care Act, many state exchanges may not be living up to its promise.
In five states, each and every plan offered on the Obamacare exchange provides elective abortions. Consumers in Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Jersey, Vermont and Hawaii have no options on the Obamacare exchange that excludes elective abortion.
Another 15 state Obamacare exchanges support some insurance plans that offer elective abortion; but it may be difficult, if not impossible, for customers to tell which plans do.
“The President himself, when he spoke in joint session to Congress on September 9, 2009, said ‘And one more misunderstanding I want to clear up — under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions,’” charged Republican Rep. Joe Pitts, chairman of the Energy and Commerce subcommittee on health. “This is a violation of the commitment they gave us, gave the public.”
Read the full article at The Daily Caller.
The New York Times is going after the Koch Brothers once again. No news there, of course. But it’s worth noting that the Times has found a new angle to pursue—or should we say, a new club with which to cudgel the Kochs—namely, the legal curlicues of campaign finance. Liberals, no doubt, will be cheering for the Times, but they ought to be careful, because two can play at this game.
Democrats have reversed the partisan imbalance on the federal appeals courts that long favored conservatives, a little-noticed shift with far-reaching consequences for the law and President Obama’s legacy.
Conservatives have long decried the left’s drive to “criminalize” politics as a means to achieve ideological ends. Last month’s politically-motivated grand jury indictment of Texas Republican Governor Rick Perry even drew the ire of some on the left, such as President Barack Obama’s chief political strategist David Axelrod, who dismissed the charges as being “pretty sketchy.”
For the first time in more than a decade, judges appointed by Democratic presidents considerably outnumber judges appointed by Republican presidents. The Democrats’ advantage has only grown since late last year when they stripped Republicans of their ability to filibuster the president’s nominees.
Still, some progressives seem intent on pushing the criminalization of political differences to score short-term political advantage without considering long-term consequences. Indeed, the left’s rush to deem corporate money in political thought as legally actionable is one progressives would do well to quash.
Democratic appointees who hear cases full time now hold a majority of seats on nine of the 13 United States Courts of Appeals. When Mr. Obama took office, only one of those courts had more full-time judges nominated by a Democrat.
Case in point: progressive New York Times op-ed writer Thomas B. Edsall’s banal and one-sided screed against Karl Rove and the Koch Brothers, those reliable boogeymen of liberal nightmares. In a breathless Wednesday piece titled “Karl Rove, the Koch Brothers and the End of Political Transparency,” Edsall served up heaping doses of phony outrage over the perfectly legal practice of conservative 501 (c)(4) social welfare organizations receiving anonymous donations.
The shift, one of the most significant but unheralded accomplishments of the Obama era, is likely to have ramifications for how the courts decide the legality of some of the president’s most controversial actions on health care, immigration and clean air. Since today’s Congress has been a graveyard for legislative accomplishment, these judicial confirmations are likely to be among its most enduring acts.
Right-leaning individuals expressing their political views in today’s post-IRS conservative targeting scandal have just cause to use anonymity as “a shield from the tyranny” of the Obama administration and as a means to protect themselves from “retaliation… at the hand of an intolerant” Internal Revenue Service.
But one day, under a different administration, so, too, might liberal activists.
From the New York Times…
OVER the past two decades, the majority of Americans in a country deeply divided over gun control have coalesced behind a single proposition: The sale of assault weapons should be banned.
That idea was one of the pillars of the Obama administration’s plan to curb gun violence, and it remains popular with the public. In a poll last December, 59 percent of likely voters said they favor a ban.
But in the 10 years since the previous ban lapsed, even gun control advocates acknowledge a larger truth: The law that barred the sale of assault weapons from 1994 to 2004 made little difference.
It turns out that big, scary military rifles don’t kill the vast majority of the 11,000 Americans murdered with guns each year.
In all honesty it looks as if the author was trying to build up to a “ban handguns” argument, rather than a “don’t ban scary guns” argument. That’s fine, let them turn their focus to handguns. There’s a good reason Handgun Control Inc. changed it’s name to the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence–arguing for banning handguns is almost a deadly a political stance as privatizing Social Security, without the benefit of actually being a good idea.