ROCHESTER, N.Y., Dec. 22 /PRNewswire/ — Howard Dean has established a
strong national lead over all other candidates for the Democratic candidates.
While the selection of the Democratic candidate will depend on the Iowa
caucuses and primary elections in New Hampshire and many other states, the
former Vermont governor has pulled ahead of all other candidates among
Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents nationwide.
The Harris Poll(R) finds that Dean is now the preferred candidate of 21%
of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents, with a strong lead over
Senator Joe Lieberman (10%), who is in second place, and all the other
candidates.
A new poll out of New Hampshire shows a commanding lead for Donald Trump and two candidates making big surges.
The Public Policy Polling survey shows Trump at 35 percent in the first-in-the-nation primary state, while Ohio Gov. John Kasich is second with 11 percent and Carly Fiorina has 10 percent.
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Rand Paul (R-Ky.) have seen big slips since their post-announcement peaks: from 14 percent to 4 percent for Cruz, and 12 percent to 4 percent for Paul. Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee has dropped from 7 percent to less than 1 percent.
Holding the middle at 7 percent in the new polls are former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, and Ben Carson has 6 percent.
190 Generals and Admirals Sign Letter to Congress: Reject the Defective Iran Deal By Carol Greenwald
Yesterday, Aug. 25, a letter (text and signatories belowas delivered to the Republican and Democratic Senate and House leadership, signed by 190 retired United States Generals and Admirals which called upon the Congress to reject the “defective” Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (the Iran deal) because it “would threaten the national security and vital interests of the United States..”
President Obama last week trumpeted that he was able to find 36 retired flag officers who supported his agreement to “give diplomacy a chance.” The media explained away this paltry number of signers by saying that ” retired brass avoid firm positions on Iranian nuke deal.”
We proved the lie to that excuse. Four to five volunteers from around the country in less than a week got 190 generals and admirals to sign a letter which urges Congress to reject the JCPOA because ” this agreement will enable Iran to become far more dangerous, render the Mideast still more unstable and introduce new threats to American interests as well as our allies.”
It is ridiculous to believe that the 14th Amendment was intended to allow those who commit a criminal act to give birth to a “citizen.”
“Bin Laden 2016” raises the question: Does “birthright citizenship,” regardless of parentage, qualify one to become president of the United States?
Now that I have your attention, let’s consider a logical consequence of the current policy of the U.S. government, granting “birthright citizenship” to a child born in the United States of illegal immigrants, otherwise known as an “anchor baby.”
Section I of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states:
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
At the heart of the contentious debate over “birthright citizenship” is the phrase, “and subject to the jurisdiction of.” The author of the phrase, Sen. Jacob Howard of Michigan, made it abundantly clear during Senate debates that it does not apply to alien children:
On August 14, 1945, it was announced that Japan had surrendered unconditionally to the Allies, effectively ending World War II. Since then, both August 14 and August 15 have been known as “Victory over Japan Day,” or simply “V-J Day.” The term has also been used for September 2, 1945, when Japan’s formal surrender took place aboard the U.S.S. Missouri, anchored in Tokyo Bay. Coming several months after the surrender of Nazi Germany, Japan’s capitulation in the Pacific brought six years of hostilities to a final and highly anticipated close.
The reality of shared sacrifice is striking, seen even in the ads for Life Savers and Ray-O-Vac.
‘Tell me it’s really happening. I can’t look away from your eyes, John. If I did, you might disappear, the way you do in dreams. Let me just sit here and remember how your hand feels on my arm . . . I can touch the stripes on your sleeve. I can hear the clock tick. I can see my reflection in your eyes.”
Those words, from an advertisement for International Sterling tableware in Life magazine soon after World War II ended 70 summers ago, were accompanied by a photo of a wife greeting her returning serviceman husband.
The ad was hardly an anomaly. To leaf through wartime, and then immediate postwar, volumes of Life—which, in those years, was as close to a weekly American scrapbook as this country had—is to be struck by how thoroughly the fact of war permeated the nation’s thinking. And by how much the reality of shared sacrifice and participation—of every family being affected—seems to have faded during more recent conflicts.
Watching the Jackson Hole meeting for signs of an interest-rate increase—and pressing for other changes.
Step right up, folks. A three-ring circus on monetary policy is getting under way on Thursday at Jackson Hole, Wyo. Three conferences will be convening at the same time in the resort town, through Saturday, as the world waits for signs of whether the Federal Reserve will finally hike interest rates.
In the center ring, Federal Reserve brass will be gathering for the closed-door conference that is hosted annually by the Kansas City Fed. Janet Yellen is skipping the event, as chairs of the board of governors occasionally do. The town, though, will be full of her critics.
On the right, the American Principles Project will host a separate parley on the need to reform the monetary system by restoring the gold standard as the best route to full employment.
In the left ring, a third group, called Fed Up, will argue for placing a priority on job creation. The Washington Post reports that the organization’s “teach in” will cover “income inequality, efforts to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour and whether the Fed should invest in municipal bonds.”
Hillary gets to the left of Obama on Arctic oil exploration.With the media transfixed by Donald Trump and Joe Biden’s will-he-won’t-he candidacy, some revealing policy news in the presidential campaign is being overlooked. Take Hillary Clinton’s decision to get to the left of President Obama on oil drilling in the Arctic.
The Obama Administration late last week gave final approval to Shell’s project to drill in the Arctic Ocean’s Chukchi Sea—seven years and billions of investment dollars since it won the lease in 2008. Mrs. Clinton wasted no time using Twitter to express her opposition. “The Arctic is a unique treasure. Given what we know, it’s not worth the risk of drilling,” she explained in fewer than 140 characters, which sounds like the amount of thought she put into the decision.
The College Board’s about-face on U.S. history is a significant political event.
In this summer of agitated discontent for American conservatives, we can report a victory for them, assuming that is still permitted.
Last year, the College Board, the nonprofit corporation that controls all the high-school Advanced Placement courses and exams, published new guidelines for the AP U.S. history test. They read like a left-wing dream. Obsession with identity, gender, class, crimes against the American Indian and the sins of capitalism suffused the proposed guidelines for teachers of AP American history.
As of a few weeks ago, that tilt in the guidelines has vanished. The College Board’s rewritten 2015 teaching guidelines are almost a model of political fair-mindedness. This isn’t just an about-face. It is an important political event.
The earlier guidelines characterized the discovery of America as mostly the story of Europeans bringing pestilence, destructive plants and cultural obliteration to American Indians. The new guidelines put it this way: “Mutual misunderstandings between Europeans and Native Americans often defined the early years of interaction and trade as each group sought to make sense of the other. Over time, Europeans and Native Americans adopted some useful aspects of each other’s culture.”
Readers of the higher education press and literature may be forgiven for supposing that there is more research on why there are not more women in STEM fields than there is actual research in the STEM fields themselves. The latest addition to this growing pile of studies appeared a few months ago in Science, and now Science has just published a new study refuting the earlier one.
In the earlier study, “Expectations of Brilliance Underlie Gender Distributions Across Academic Disciplines,” Sarah-Jane Leslie, a philosophy professor at Princeton, and several co-authors surveyed more than 1800 academics across 30 disciplines — graduate students, postdocs, junior and senior faculty — to determine the extent of their agreement with such statements as, “Being a top scholar of [your field] requires a special aptitude that just can’t be taught” and whether “men are more often suited than women to do high-level work in [your field.]”
Fields that believe innate brilliance is essential to high success, such as physics and philosophy, have a significantly smaller proportion of women than fields that don’t, such as Psychology and Molecular Biology.
