Jane Dyer, a candidate in the Third Congressional District race, introduced a plan Wednesday to help identify military veterans and make sure they receive benefits and support they have earned.
"As I have been traveling throughout the district, I have been listening to people's ideas and concerns," Dyer told groups of veterans and other voters in "One of the things I have heard is that there are a lot of veterans who are unidentified, so they're not getting the support they're eligible for."
Dyer proposed to allow the Department of Motor Vehicles to collect information from veterans. Driver's licenses of veterans could be marked with a "V" or some other symbol to note military service. As Dyer pointed out, some businesses give discounts to veterans -- if they can show proper identification.
Using driver's licenses "would be a simple way for veterans to have an ID," she said.
Meanwhile, the DMV could send veterans' information to the local Veterans Affairs officials so that they can help make veterans aware of benefits and other services.
Howard Metcalf, interim director of the South Carolina Office of Veterans Affairs, said it can be difficult for local VA offices to track veterans and keep them informed. He said the he and others involved in veterans affairs have discussed plans similar to the one Dyer is proposing. He's glad to have her on the VA's side.
"It's an excellent idea," Metcalf said.
Dyer, who served in the United States Air Force and is an airline captain, noted that veterans' issues are high on her list of priorities. "These people have done so much for our country, and they deserve all the support we can give them," she said.
Dyer's campaign is focused on what she calls "common-sense solutions" to help working families in the Third Congressional District. In addition to veterans issues, her campaign is emphasizing jobs and education.
Dyer has submitted a formal proposal of her veterans initiative to numerous lawmakers, including Rep. James Clyburn and Sen. Lindsey Graham.
Read The Full Article:
Tea party primary wins are driving the Republican Party further to the right, away from the mainstream of America, and elevating candidates who are unelectable. Do Dems have the GOP right where they want it? Or is this, as The Daily Show suggests, the[...]
Read The Full Article:
Fox News and host Chris Wallace have filed suit against Robin Carnahan's Missouri Senate campaign, alleging that the use of Fox footage in a Carnahan ad targeting her Republican opponent, Rep. Roy Blunt, violated the network's copyright and[...]
Read The Full Article:
Three hurricanes in the Atlantic today. Follow this link to see the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s cool weather map. Your tax dollars at work.
Born out of the GOP's politics of resentment and self-victimization, surly and ignorant teabaggers managed to cut off their collective noses to spite their face Tuesday. And their fuehrer, South Carolina secessionist and C Street cult member, Jim DeMint, says it's worth losing a sure GOP pick-up in Delaware-- with mainstream conservative Mike Castle-- to send a message to the Republican Establishment that it has to move even further right, via the increasingly controversial Miss No Turning Japanese Allowed (above). As Fred Barnes reminded Weekly Standard readers yesterday, Castle "voted against ObamaCare and is a co-sponsor of repeal legislation. He voted against the stimulus. He?s for extending all the Bush tax cuts."
And he's exactly like John Boehner, leader of the House Republicans, in many other ways as well. Both are more corporatist than ideological and both are grateful to the corporate interests that have financed their long, long political careers. (Remember, Boehner, a freeloader who hasn't really worked since he was a teenager, lives in the only gated community in Ohio's 8th congressional district, more than symbolically separated from his own constituents.) Both of them were leaders in the passage of George Bush's no-strings-attached Wall Street TARP bailout and both have been relentless backers of deregulating banks and relentless backers of the job-killing trade policies-- from NAFTA and CAFTA, to the WTO/GATT that have wrecked America's manufacturing base and shipped millions of middle class jobs overseas to low wage countries (killing, in the process, business' consumer base as well, of course). Castle, in a deeply blue, more politically competitive environment, has had to handle the p.r. a little differently than Boehner. Basically, though, both have just wanted their constituents to go away and stop bothering them while they profited mightily in Boehnerland, a proverbial land of milk and honey for well-connected legislators with a loose set of ethical standards.
Today's Dayton Daily News highlights Boehner's fear and arrogance in an article about Justin Coussoule. Like the other media outlets in the district, the Daily News in not happy Boehner is ducking debates and behaving imperiously towards them and towards Ohio voters.
[S]o far, Justin Coussoule, a Liberty Twp. Democrat, said Boehner, R-West Chester Twp., hasn?t accepted-- and doubts he will.
?Boehner as the incumbent seeking re-election has an obligation to stand before the voters to make a case to be rehired,? Coussoule said.
The first-time public office seeker said he also must make his case if he hopes to oust the incumbent. Coussoule said Boehner is either ?afraid? or ?too arrogant? to debate.
?We ought to have an opportunity for the voters to hear us both in the same room on the same topics and be able to answer questions and be able to compare and contrast,? Coussoule said... In a Sept. 8 Butler County News and Issues blog posting at journal-news.com titled ?The ?debate? debate,? some respondents said they wanted to see a debate, and one poster said Boehner is ?ignoring his own constituents.?
In its battle against historical accuracy, the right-wing Texas State Board of Education (SBOE) decided to revamp the state’s social studies curriculum earlier this year, exchanging emphasis on the historical roles of Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln with the roles of confederate leader Jefferson Davis and paranoid right-wing pundit Phyllis Schlafly. But “just when it appeared the State Board of Education was done with the culture wars,” SBOE is now deciding to dictate what students should learn about Islam.
SBOE’s “seven-member social conservative bloc” will bring up a resolution next week that “would warn publishers not to push a pro-Islamic, anti-Christian viewpoint in world history textbooks.” The resolution demands textbook publishers no longer “taint” Texas textbooks with “gross pro-Islamic, anti-Christian distortions” and “false editorial stereotypes” that “still roil” certain textbooks used across the U.S.:
A preliminary draft of the resolution states that “diverse reviewers have repeatedly documented gross pro-Islamic, anti-Christian distortions in social studies texts” across the U.S. and that past social studies textbooks in Texas also have been “tainted” with pro-Islamic, anti-Christian views.
The resolution cites examples in past world history books ? no longer used in Texas schools ? that devoted far more lines of text to Islamic beliefs and practices than to Christian beliefs and practices.[...]
The resolution states that pro-Islamic, anti-Christian half-truths, selective disinformation and false editorial stereotypes “still roil” some social studies textbooks nationwide, including “sanitized definitions of ‘jihad’ that exclude religious intolerance or military aggression against non-Muslims … which undergirds worldwide Muslim terrorism.” [...]
The resolution concludes with the warning to publishers that the “State Board of Education will look to reject future prejudicial social studies submissions that continue to offend Texas law with respect to treatment of the world’s major religious groups by significant inequalities of coverage space-wise and by demonizing or lionizing one or more of them over others.”
SBOE member Ken Mercer, who leads the conservative bloc, pushed to consider the resolution because he found that the textbooks’ “Islamic references are very positive to the point that it is whitewashed, while the references to Christianity are very negative.” Other board members charge that the resolution combats a sinister plot by “Middle Easterners” who “are investing in U.S. textbook companies to push their views.”
Some parents worry that the resolution will “prevent their kids from learning the facts.” Board member Pat Hardy, however, suggests that “the issue may be moot because none of the world history books cited by [the resolution] are still in use in Texas, having been replaced in 2003.”
And even if the resolution is adopted, “it would not bind future boards, which will choose the next generation of social studies textbooks within a few years.” SBOE’s conservative bloc also lost two of their own, including the resolution’s author, in March’s Republican primary and thus will be diminished when new members are seated next year. Still, the anti-Islam resolution may sway publishers as “Texas is one of the largest markets for school textbooks in the country,” and so “many publishers write the books using Texas standards, and then sell the same books to public schools in dozens of other states.”
Source: Brian Sylvester of The Gold Report International Forecaster Editor Bob Chapman believes the world is headed for a single governing structure where gold and silver are commonly traded currencies. In this exclusive interview with The Gold Report, Bob tells you why he thinks gold could still hit $1,600 this year despite the government’s efforts to smother the gold price. He also offers a handful of equities he believes are worthwhile investments in such a price environment. The Gold Report: Bob, you are the editor of The International Forecaster now, but you have about 50 years of investment experience behind you. Tell us about yourself. Bob Chapman: The International Forecaster has been in production for over 20 years. It came about… . . . → Full Story: Bob Chapman: Preserve Your Capital with Gold, Silver
Read The Full Article:
Believe it or not, there's a lot of opportunity for the Dems to turn this election to their advantage -- because as much as voters don't like Democrats, most of them like Republicans even less:
Republicans are heading into the general election phase of the midterm campaign backed by two powerful currents: the highest proportion of voters in two decades say it is time for their own member of Congress to be replaced, and Americans are expressing widespread dissatisfaction with President Obama?s leadership.
But the latest New York Times/CBS News poll also finds that while voters rate the performance of Democrats negatively, they view Republicans as even worse, providing a potential opening for Democrats to make a last-ditch case for keeping their hold on power.
[...] The findings suggest that there are opportunities and vulnerabilities for both parties as they proceed into the final seven weeks of the campaign.
A case for Republicans: Voters are remarkably open to change, even if they are not sure where Republicans will lead them. Most Americans, including one-third of those in the coalition that elected Mr. Obama, now say he does not have a clear plan to solve the nation?s problems or create jobs. Democrats remain highly vulnerable on the economy.
A case for Democrats: They are seen as having better ideas for solving the country?s problems. The public steadfastly supports the president?s proposal to let tax cuts expire for the wealthiest Americans. And far more people still blame Wall Street and the Bush administration than blame Mr. Obama for the country?s economic problems.
Voters have a darker view of Congressional Republicans than of Democrats, with 63 percent disapproving of Democrats and 73 percent disapproving of Republicans. But with less than two months remaining until Election Day, there are few signs that Democrats have made gains persuading Americans that they should keep control of Congress.
?I really think we need to get some new blood in there,? said Kathy Beckman, 44, an optometrist from Lodi, Calif., who spoke in an interview after participating in the poll. ?Get them all out.?
So yesterday, I noticed this item at CNN. "Democratic National Committee Chairman Tim Kaine plans to make what's being billed as a major announcement for the party Wednesday." And what was this big exciting something? A new logo and tagline.[...]
Read The Full Article:
Digging around Nexis/Lexis:
CNN, March 30, 1996:
MILES O'BRIEN: All right. But let me ask you this - There's a lot of people who would suggest that creationism and evolution are not mutually exclusive. That the big bang- after all, something had to create the big bangs, perhaps some higher being, and there's a tremendous amount of scientific evidence that there was a big bang which started this whole process underway. You can't go along with that?
CHRISTINE O'DONNELL: Well, creationism, in essence, is believing that the world began as the Bible in Genesis says, that God created the Earth in six days, six 24-hour periods. And there is just as much, if not more, evidence supporting that.
More evidence? Let's see. There's the Bible, which is scientifically rigorous. There's the animatronics at the Creation Museum. There's nothing more convincing than an exhibit featuring dinosaurs stalking a caveman. But wait, that has nothing to do with the Bible's creation theory. So scratch that. We're not even talking about evolution here.
We're talking about Christine O'Donnell saying that there's more evidence that the universe was created by god in six days, than the combined knowledge generated by the entire fields of physics and astronomy. Wow.
CNN, June 11, 1998
KING: Well, not strange to me, because I was a Baptist. I grew up in the Baptist Church, and I heard that before. But I like one statement he made when he said mutual, mutual submission. I think what throws us off is that the conditions under which this statement has been rendered tend to tell us that wives must still be under the domination of their husbands.
O'DONNELL: I must disagree there.
KING: Pardon? [...]
O'DONNELL: OK, this is not about merely a Baptist doctrine. This is a biblical doctrine. And the passage from the Bible the Baptist article is taken from talks about a submissive family. And yet, what the media seems to be reacting to is the word "submit" in the wives. But yet, even in, Mary, your introduction, you ignored or you left out where it says they graciously submit to a servant leader. And that is God's design for the family. It is not about dominating and it is not about being a slave to your husband.
So the difference between being a slave to her husband and not is the fact that the wife "graciously submits" to him? And if she doesn't, she's violating god's will and will go to hell?
Fox News, June 26, 2000:
(About a Gay Pride parade in NYC)
O'DONNELL: But let me tell you something! They -- homosexuals' special rights groups can get away with so much more than nobody else can!
COLMES: Well, what are they getting away with here, Christine? Tell me what you're seeing...
O'DONNELL: They're getting away with nudity!
FAY: Oh, right.
O'DONNELL: They're getting away with nudity! They're getting away with lasciviousness! They're getting away with perversion!
FAY: Oh, Christine...
O'DONNELL: They're getting away with blasphemy!
Naked people is blasphemy.
Throw in her disgust at masturbation and her attacks on co-ed college dormitories, and suddenly you have a picture of a joyless individual. That's fine, if she wants to carry on her depressingly prudish lifestyle, good for her. The problem is that, like all American Talibani, she is desperate to spread her freakish mores on the rest of us. So yeah, she's funny. But we can't lose sight of the fact that it's only funny as long as she and her ilk are out of power.
MSNBC, Scarborough's show, 11/13/2002:
NIES: I'm not concerned that they're having sex. And I don't think that anybody on this panel is condoning that it's OK.
The problem is, is they're not properly educated of the consequences of having sex at a young age. That's the issue. That's what we need to talk about. I mean, I'm out on the road at colleges and high schools all across the country. I'm on tour right now, "Reality Bar Crawl." I'm speaking to kids. I'm at high schools. I'm at colleges. And I know what they're talking about, because they're talking about it to me.
O'DONNELL: So, Eric, what do you tell them? Do you tell them safe sex?
NIES: Hold on. I'll tell you what I tell them.
O'DONNELL: Do you tell them use birth control?
NIES: Yes, I tell them to have safe sex. I tell them to be careful. You have to wear a condom. You have to protect yourself when you're going to have sex, because they're having it anyway.
NIES: There's nothing that you or me can do about it.
O'DONNELL: The sad reality is -- yes, there is something you can do about it. And the sad reality, to tell them slap on a condom is not
NIES: You're going to stop the whole country from having sex?