Hattip to Ed Morrissey at Hot Air. Secretary of State Clinton has been at war with Prime Minister Harper of Canada in regard to abortion and the G8 summit meeting, which just concluded yesterday, for months, as the above video from March indicates.
These efforts continued up to the G8 summit, as Clinton wanted to hold any aid hostage until woman’s health was defined as including a right to slay the unborn, as this post by Anna Halpine and Greg Pfundstein at National Review Online indicates:
On the agenda at the G8 summit in Canada is promoting maternal and infant health in the poorest parts of the globe. The high rates of maternal and infant mortality in many countries are an impediment to democracy and social development, to say nothing of a human tragedy for these communities. Commitments of resources from the G8 countries to address these problems should be welcomed and commended. Why, then, is the Obama delegation threatening to derail these agreements?
The antics of our unofficial national clown continues. Thank you for always being willing to create comedic situations to lighten our mood Mr. Vice President in these dire economic times. Additionally, rest assured that no one will ever call you a smart “donkey”.
June 25, 1950, the North Koreans, at the instigation of Stalin, invaded South Korea. The US, under UN auspices, intervened under General Douglas MacArthur. In a brilliant campaign, MacArthur led the American and allied forces to victory, largely destroying the North Korean Army and conquering most of North Korea. Massive Chinese intervention led to a see-saw war up and down the Korean peninsula, with a stalemate ensuing from July 1951-July 1953. Eisenhower got the North Koreans and their Chinese and Soviet backers to finally agree to a truce by threatening to use nuclear weapons in Korea.
One reason that the war dragged on is because many North Korean and Chinese prisoners of war did not want to be repatriated. Harry Truman, to his everlasting credit, refused to send them back against their will: “We will not buy an armistice by turning over human beings for slaughter or slavery“. Eventually, in a stunning rebuke to Communism, some 46,000 North Korean and Chinese soldiers refused repatriation. Conversely, only 22 Americans and 1 Brit refused repatriation, with almost all of them eventually returning after the war.
Something for the weekend. Cool Considerate Men from the musical 1776. I have always loved the musical 1776, although I recognize that the actual history and what is depicted in the musical often part company. Perhaps the greatest divergence is in the case of John Dickinson, a member of Congress from Pennsylvania, who is represented in the play as an arch reactionary and Tory. Dickinson, as the play rightly indicates at the end, enlisted to fight in the Revolution, and had the odd military career of serving first as a militia Brigadier General and then as a militia Private. During the War he also served as President (Governor) of Delaware and as President (Governor) of Pennsylvania. After the War he served as a delegate from Pennsylvania at the Constitutional Convention, and supported the ratification with a series of articles written under the pen name Fabius.
Dickinson mainly opposed an immediate declaration of independence in 1776 because he wished the Articles of Confederation, which he had largely drafted, to be first sent to the 13 colonies and ratified by them, and for the colonies to obtain a powerful foreign ally before such a declaration was made to the World. Dickinson was a firm patriot willing to risk his own skin in the War, so his opposition to the Declaration of Independence did no long term damage to his reputation during his life.
On July 1, he made a speech against immediate independence. The debate was apparently fierce while he spoke, and thus the speech has a fragmentary quality:
[Update I: I have streamlined the following post to be easily readable to the average layman, but informative enough for a lawyer or law professor to learn a bit more on the similarities and differences between Sharia and U.S. Law]
Is Sharia compatible with the U.S. Constitution?
The simple answer is of course “no”.
But lets take a look at some aspects of Sharia Law and where it may or may not conflict with the U.S. Constitution. (For disclosure I am not a lawyer nor a legal expert in Sharia or U.S. Law.)
First, what is Sharia?
Wikipedia states Sharia refers to the sacred law of Islam. All Muslims believe Sharia is God’s law, but they have differences between themselves as to exactly what it entails. Which will be difficult to discern what to apply when, but we’ll labor along for the sake of discussion.
In Western countries, where Muslim immigration is more recent, Muslim minorities have introduced Sharia family law, for use in their own disputes. Attempts to impose Sharia have been accompanied by controversy,violence, and even warfare (Second Sudanese Civil War).
Weigel was hired this spring by the Post to cover the conservative movement. Almost from the beginning there have been complaints that his coverage betrays a personal animus toward conservatives. Emails obtained by the Daily Caller suggest those complaints have merit.
From the only reliable source of news on the net, the Onion. Lonely old folks aren’t really that funny. I’ve occasionally had elderly clients who have begun seeing me more than is necessary for what I can do for them as an attorney, and I’ve suspected loneliness. Imagine the amount of loneliness necessary for going to see an attorney to be regarded as a pleasant activity! In those cases I’ve tried to get them involved with local groups. There are quite a few in my town always looking for volunteers.
It is hard on older people when their spouse has died and their kids live hundreds or thousands of miles away. I tend to be fairly busy but whenever one of my older friends and clients drop by simply to talk I do make an effort to find time for them, realizing how easily I could be in their shoes decades from now.
Cardinal Danneels is well known as creative in his interpretations on Church teachings. Cardinal Danneels participated in writing Sacrosanctum Concilium, a document which influenced the complete rewriting of the liturgy of the Second Vatican Council. Which in turned fueled the liturgical abuse that most Catholic in the West are still being exposed to.
Under his watch as prelate of Belgium, a once devout and vibrant Catholic country, Belgium’s Catholic faith has been all but eliminated. Abortion, euthanasia, and homosexual unions have been legalized under his watch. In addition church attendance and religious/secular vocations are at their lowest not seen since that part of Europe was pagan.
Police estimated 15,000 peaceful marchers came out in defense of the family and marriage against militant gay activists in Argentina on June 19, 2010 rallying Argentinians to vote “in favor of matrimony between one man and one woman.”
Archbishop José Maria Arancibi marched along these peaceful protesters in defense of children.