what eye thynk: I can't help but wonder if this is the first library W. has ever entered.
I've sent my personal pigeon army to let W. know what I think of his presidency, his legacy and his value to the world.
No need to thank me.
In 2009, in a unanimous decision, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled in favor of same sex marriage. Since then Republicans have tried to remove these justices from the court by retention elections, (some of which were successful), then by calling for the remaining justices to resign, (which they didn't), then by impeaching them, (which failed).
Now the Iowa G.O.P. is trying a new tactic...they want to reduce the salary of those justices who voted in favor of marriage equality.
Spite is never pretty; but when it's this obvious and at this level, it's particularly ugly...and childish.
Speaking at the American Enterprise Institute in February, Eric Cantor (R-Virginia), described a bill he planned to introduce to the House: The Helping Sick Americans Now Act. At the time, his fellow conservatives greeted his ideas with enthusiasm. Now it is April and things aren't going as well."Representative Eric Cantor of Virginia, the House majority leader, has been trying for months to remake the image of the Republican Party, from one of uncompromising conservatism to something kinder and gentler.
"But these days, those who linger in the middle of the road end up flattened...The Club for Growth, a conservative political action committee, warned that Republicans who voted in favor of the act would have their scorecards marked down for supporting part of the health care law."To be fair here, it should be noted that President Obama was not in favor of Mr. Cantor's bill and encouraged Democrats to oppose it. The President does not want his planned ACA funding distributions tinkered with. And, also to be fair, the ACA already has a provision that prohibits health care providers from denying coverage because of a pre-existing condition.Despite a lack of Democratic support, the Republican majority in the House could have passed this bill on their own.
When it became clear that Mr. Cantor did not have enough votes to pass his bill, the vote was called off. Afterward, Mr. Cantor said:"We in the House remain committed to putting our conservative principles first to help people first."
Unless some corporate sponsored lobbyist threatens them with a bad report card.
"What could possibly be missing from those factual tales of successful retreat in VT, Germany, and the bowels of Amsterdam? Why children and vagina's (sic) of course. While the tales relate the actions of a solitary male the outcome cannot relate to similar situations where children and women and mothers are the potential victims."When his use of the term "vagina" in this context was questioned by Representative Rick Watrous (D), Mr. Hansen's initial response was:
"Having a fairly well educated mind I do not need self appointed wardens to A: try to put words in my mouth for political gain and B: Turn a well founded strategy in communication into an insulting accusation, and finally if you find the noun vagina insulting or in some way offensive then perhaps a better exercise might be for you to re-examine your psyche."Later, when his e-mail became public, he attempted to explain it this way:
"Can there be any doubt my comment is being misinterpreted and taken completely out of context?"Mr. Hansen, I don't think anyone can be accused of taking your words "out of context" since we have the text of your entire e-mail; but if it makes you feel better to blame everyone but yourself for your crude and degrading slang, or as you put it, your "well founded strategy in communication", then you go right ahead.
'The federal government is classifying the bombs as a terrorists attack but say it's unclear if it's of a domestic or foreign nature. Here's a hint --GOD SENT THE BOMBS! How many more terrifying ways will you have the LORD injure and kill your fellow countrymen because you insist on nation-dooming filthy fag marriage?!'"Their full press release can be read here: https://twitter.com/WBCFliers/status/323992820232880128/photo/1
Oregon's Secretary of State Kate Brown (D) wants to make voting as easy as possible for Oregonians. She has proposed that the state automatically register a citizen to vote when a state agency has their name, age, address and a digital signature. Initially, this would mean anyone who gets a drivers license would be simultaneously registered to vote in Oregon, but the service could be expanded to other state agencies."The effort would work in tandem with the unique system of voting in Oregon, launched in 1998, in which residents receive ballots by mail and either send them back or drop them off at designated sites. That system has led to Oregon having some of the highest turnout rates in the nation."
No one should be shocked to hear that the Oregon Republican Party hates the idea saying it shouldn't be "so easy for people to participate" because they will not be "an informed voter." Greg Leo, head of the GOP in Oregon tried to explain that his party feels that the act of registering to vote is part of the responsibility of citizenship.
I'm not sure Oregon has the answer to voter registration--I've always liked Wisconsin's method of allowing people to register at their election location on the day of the election, (a system under attack by Gov. Scott Walker)--but it sure sounds more democratic than the restrictive voter I.D. laws preferred by the Republican Party.
It is interesting that they state that life begins at fertilization, but do not prohibit all abortions at that point thus avoiding any showdown on constitutionality based on the Supreme Court's interpretation of Roe v. Wade.The bill also requires that doctors lie to their patients. Any doctor meeting with a woman who is considering an abortion will be required, by law, to tell that woman about a link between abortion and breast cancer. In 2003, the National Cancer Institute completed a study that concluded there is no such link, but Kansas doctors will now be required to tell women there is "potential risk".
How can these Republicans, who claim they are all about small government and who continue to complain that the ACA should be repealed because it puts government between patients and their doctors, justify placing their legislative foot firmly between Kansas women and their doctors by requiring those doctors to lie? This would seem to fly in the face of all common sense...though common sense is not necessarily a major part of the Republican Party's DNA these days.Finally, the bill prohibits Planned Parenthood from providing any sex education material in Kansas schools.
Because, God forbid, we wouldn't want to prevent any unwanted pregnancies among Kansas teens.Republican Governor Sam Brownback has indicated that he will sign the bill into law.
You have to admire Kansas legislature's chutzpah in calling this the Women's Right to Know Act considering that part of the bill requires the withholding of information and another part requires the dissemination of lies.
And Republicans wonder why they lose the female vote.