How many of our parents and grandparents would have been in jail back in the...
How many of our parents and grandparents would have been in jail back in the good ol’ days?
(DailyCaller) A Florida mother says she is bewildered after she was arrested and charged with child neglect for letting her son walk to a nearby park alone.
“I’m totally dumbfounded by this whole situation…”
Just a few days ago, another similar story:
Plenty of working parents can relate to the dilemma Debra Harrell faced when her 9-year-old daughter asked to play unsupervised in a park this summer. How do you find the time and money for child care when school is out?
Harrell’s answer to that question got her arrested. She spent 17 days in jail, temporarily lost custody of her girl, thought she lost her job, and still faces 10 years in prison if convicted of felony child neglect…
I can’t wait to hear what America’s Worst Mom thinks about this latest story! UPDATE: Lenore Skenazy posted at Reason just a few hours ago:
…Never mind that research has shown living on the same block as a registered sex offender does not make kids less safe. It seems the cops bought into the idea that predators are everywhere, always waiting to pounce, and simply because the worst could happen—no matter how extremely unlikely—children can never be left unsupervised in well-lit, popular public parks.
Let me reiterate here that these arrests are uncommon—that’s why they make the news—and should not dissuade parents from sending their kids to play. On the contrary, the more kids running around outside again, the more normal it will seem, and perhaps these excessive fears will subside.
Or else we’ll be living under a de facto policy of No Child Left Outside. (Read her full post here.)
Watch Reason’s interview with Lenore Skenazy:
No doubt, the situation is tense and complicated–to put it mildly–in Gaza. However, think carefully about the rationale being put forward by the MSM and establishment political leaders.
— Julia Wong (@juliacarriew) July 22, 2014
author, apparently an NYU prof, suggests that Gazan CHILDREN are not innocent if their parents have certain views pic.twitter.com/B9xxoSMWu4
— Julia Wong (@juliacarriew) July 22, 2014
Leave a comment
FOX News reporter Shepard Smith to Glenn Greenwald, “This is it?” To Shep’s credit, it turns out to be a decent interview. UPDATE: Below you can see several of the latest interviews about the targeting of Americans.
MSNBC/Chris Hayes Continue Reading →Leave a comment
A new Zogby Analytics poll of likely Republican primary voters in 2016 shows Rand Paul starting to build a lead over better known – and more establishment – GOP figures….In the poll, the junior Senator from Kentucky polls 20%, followed by “Establishment” candidates New Jersey Governor Chris Christie and former Florida Governor Jeb Bush with 13% each. In fourth place is Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker with 8%, then Florida Senator Marco Rubio 7%, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindahl 4%, and New Mexico Governor Suzanna Martinez, Ohio Governor John Kasich, and South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley all with 1% each.
This is the first time a GOP candidate has reached 20% in a crowded field and the first time a Zogby poll has shown someone emerging a bit from the pack. Obviously it is too early to predict outcomes or draw lasting conclusion but here are some points to consider:
- Rand Paul appears to do well among all sub-groups, notably men (29%), voters 30-64 years olds (where he leads), self-identified Republicans, independents, and conservatives (among whom he leads with 19%, 17%, and 20% respectively), and moderates (23%). He also leads among Protestants and Born Again/Evangelical GOP voters (21% and 20% respectively).
- Unlike typical polls at this early stage, Paul’s lead is not attributable to simple name recognition. He is decidedly less known than Bush, Christie, and Rubio. He may be drawing on his famous father’s support from previous runs – perhaps in the same way early polls in the late 1990s showed George W. Bush leading the field – but Rand Paul is emerging as the frontrunner in this race.
UPDATE July 9th, 2014: Greenwald’s big story was finally released last night. Tonight, Glenn Greenwald will be interviewed on CNN and other media together with actual targets of NSA surveillance. The following is an interview with Faisal Gill, a longtime Republican Party operative and target of the NSA.
— Matt Ford (@fordm) July 9, 2014
Greenwald seems to confirm (retweeting) that his upcoming report will include content:
In NSA-intercepted data, those not targeted far outnumber the foreigners who are: Files provided by Snowden show extent to which ordinary Web users are caught in the net. LINK. (Now several days ago) We are less than 10 minutes away from what is suppose to be the release of Glenn Greenwald’s latest expose on the NSA. He has promised to name names of actual individual human targets of the NSA. The implication has been clear that these ‘targets’ are clearly not your run-of-the-mill ‘terrorists.’ It is expected that these individuals will include critics of the NSA and non-establishment friendly activists. Minutes ago, Glenn tweeted the following:
After 3 months working on our story, USG today suddenly began making new last-minute claims which we intend to investigate before publishing — Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) July 1, 2014
Glenn Greenwald has certainly raised expectations about tonight’s bombshell, saying,
As with a fireworks show, you want to save your best for last. The last one is the one where the sky is all covered in spectacular multicolored hues…One of the big questions when it comes to domestic spying is, “Who have been the NSA’s specific targets?” Are they political critics and dissidents and activists? Are they genuinely people we’d regard as terrorists? What are the metrics and calculations that go into choosing those targets and what is done with the surveillance that is conducted? Those are the kinds of questions that I want to still answer.
You can watch for the new release here in this Twitter feed: Tweets from https://twitter.com/irootsorg/lists/greenwaldLeave a comment
A good day for Hobby Lobby and the protection of conscience, but it was a close one. The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that companies can seek an exemption from birth control mandates previously required by President Obama’s healthcare law. The court also ruled (5-4) that employees can’t be required to contribute to unions. Down below the following tweets, you’ll find the ruling in full.
Click on the symbol you see on the bottom right to enlarge the text.
“birth control is not my boss’s business” chant the people trying to require bosses to cover birth control.
— Timothy P Carney (@TPCarney) June 30, 2014
— YALiberty (@YALiberty) June 30, 2014
Here is the Supreme Court’s 5-4 ruling on union fees: Continue Reading →Leave a comment
So, this happened today as House and Senate leaders posthumously awarded the Congressional Gold Medal to Martin Luther King, Jr. and Coretta Scott King at a ceremony marking the 50th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. If you can’t get enough, I’ve posted the entire 3 min down below…
I don’t know about you, but I feel all warm and fuzzy inside right now…
FULL CLIP, WOW!
In the midst of attacking Sen. Rand Paul’s foreign policy, Dick Cheney also made a curious and conveniently false statement about the home countries of the 9/11 hijackers. Did you catch it?
(In regards to Sen. Paul’s ‘isolationism.’) “That didn’t work in the 1930s, it sure as heck won’t work in the aftermath of 9/11 when 19 guys armed with airline tickets and box cutters came all the way from Afghanistan and killed 3,000 of our citizens.”
With all the hype about Afghanistan and Bin Laden, Dick Cheney probably thinks that Americans won’t remember that not a single one of the 15 9/11 hijackers hailed from Afghanistan. 15 of the 19 were citizens of Saudi Arabia. The others were from the United Arab Emirates, Egypt and Lebanon. I guess it’s more convenient to forget to say “Saudi Arabia” when you’re kissing and embracing that country’s leader year after year…
UPDATE: SCROLL DOWN FOR MORE VIDEO CLIPS. If you thought things were already prickly between
Darth Dick Cheney and Senator Rand Paul, prepare yourself. Senator Paul isn’t backing down and he’s rubbing some Iranian salt in his and all the other neocons wounds. Asked if former vice president, Dick Cheney is a credible critic of President Obama on Iraq, Sen. Paul responded to Meet the (Neocon) Press,
“I think the same questions could be asked of those who supported the Iraq War. You know, were they right in their predictions? Were there weapons of mass destruction there? Was the war won in 2005, when many of those people said it was won? But I do blame those who are for the Iraq War for emboldening Iran…”
CLIP 2: “Where’s the ‘Clear-cut American Interest’ in Fighting ISIS?”
That was just a sample of the full interview which will air in full on Sunday.
Here’s Politico’s take: Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) wants to turn the tables on those who are questioning President Barack Obama’s handling of the draw down of troops in Iraq.
Instead of placing blame on the president, Paul suggested that blame for the unrest in the Middle East can be placed elsewhere.
“I don’t blame President Obama,” Paul said. “Has he really got the solution? Maybe there is no solution. But I do blame those who are for the Iraq War for emboldening Iran…” (Ouch, that’s gotta hurt!)
Sen. Paul has faced these dark forces before back in his primary fight against Dick Cheney endorsed Trey Grayson in 2010. Contains actual audio from attack ads.
“I don’t want American troops fighting alongside Iranians.” Well played, sir. Well played.
I doubt Hannity is too happy about Senator Paul’s recent oped in the Washington Post, “America Shouldn’t Choose Sides in Iraq’s Civil War.”
“…Much of the rationale for going to war in 2003 did not measure up to the Weinberger Doctrine, and I opposed the Iraq war. I thought we needed to be more prudent about the weightiest decision a country can make. Like Reagan, I thought we should never be eager to go to war. And now, 11 years later, we are still dealing with the consequences…
While President Obama said Thursday he will not send “combat troops,” he said he is sending 300 military advisers and he has 275 servicemen to guard the U.S. Embassy. Few are advocating for boots on the ground but many are calling for airstrikes.
Let me address both of these. First, we should not put any U.S. troops on the ground in Iraq, unless it is to secure or evacuate U.S. personnel and diplomatic facilities. And while we may not completely rule out airstrikes, there are many questions that need to be addressed first.
What would airstrikes accomplish? We know that Iran is aiding the Iraqi government against ISIS. Do we want to, in effect, become Iran’s air force?Leave a comment