As the House of Representatives rushes to pass the version of a healthcare bill passed in December by the Senate, particular emphasis is being paid by Americans to key provisions in the measure. One of the most controversial elements, and one of most importance to many voters, is whether the bill under consideration will permit federal dollars to fund abortions.
The Center for Strategic International Studies (CSIS) recently published a report entitled “A Growing Terrorist Threat? Assessing ‘Homegrown’ Extremism in the United States.” The report was co-authored by Rick Nelson and Ben Bodurian. The title effectively summarizes the thesis addressed in the study’s 14 pages. Nelson and Bodurian examine the cases of five incidences of acts of violence perpetrated by Americans since the autumn of 2009. By spotlighting these particular cases, the authors hope to extricate from the fabric of these tales a common thread and then use that thread in the identification of potential targets of extremist evangelism and prevent any future attacks.
The Massachusetts Judicial Council ruled on March 10 that the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution does not apply to state governments and, consequently, the State of Massachusetts can regulate firearms in that state. The language of the Second Amendment states: "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Published in the New England Journal of Medicine, the Medicus Firm recently conducted a survey showing that one third of all practicing physicians will stop practicing medicine if President Obama signs the current "healthcare reform" legislation into law. The inclusion of the public option in the legislation will raise that number to approximately 45 percent.
Nothing gives this writer purer pleasure than to report on the multitude of states’ rights initiatives being passed by state legislatures across our great Republic. As happy as such news makes me, it must in equal measure drive the journalists at the establishment’s “newspaper of record” — the New York Times — crazy.
Our country is in trouble. Ongoing military commitments, enormous indebtedness, high unemployment, failing schools, citizen restlessness, and a President and Congress trying to lead the nation into socialism. So what should be done to correct all of this?
A recent New York Times op-ed is proving to be simply the latest in a long string of such pieces proving that the editors at the supposed “paper of record” simply do not “get it.” Opining under the headline “Preserving Reasonable Gun Limits,” the editors of the New York Times demonstrate a breathtaking disregard or misunderstanding for the nature of constitutionally guaranteed liberties in the United States.
A San Francisco federal appeals court ruled that the words “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance and “In God We Trust” on American money are constitutional. In the explanation for the majority ruling, Judge Carlos Bea wrote, “The Pledge of Allegiance serves to unite our vast nation through the proud recitation of some of the ideals upon which our Republic was founded.”
"Wolf Wars," the cover story for the March 2010 issue of National Geographic, may seem, at first read, to be a "balanced" report on the ongoing battle pitting ranchers, hunters, recreationists, and conservationists of the Rocky Mountain states against Big Green environmentalists and Big Government (federal and state) bureaucrats. Author Douglas Chadwick does, after all, seem to report sympathetically on the plight of ranchers like John and Rae Herman of Montana's Hot Springs area, whose 800-head Angus cattle operation has been hard-hit by wolf predation. However, like most media reporting on wolves, his article hymns the supposed overall benefits of the reintroduction of Canis lupus to the ecosystem.