Okay, whether you think this is a neat idea (I do) or it is an abomination, you do have to admit that the Mormon Church asked for this big time.
Causing a stir online today is a new websitethat invites users to posthumously convert Mormons to homosexuality.
The single-serving site is a rather candid knock at the common Mormon practice known as “vicarious baptism” or “proxy baptism,” which involves the baptizing of a living person on behalf of someone who has passed on.
LDS Church members have received significant criticism in the past for attempting to baptize deceased individuals who belonged to a different faith in life. Of particular contention are conversion ceremonies conducted on behalf of Holocaust victims.
Earlier this month the church was forced to apologize to the family of noted Holocaust survivor Simon Wiesenthal, whose parents, it was revealed, had been baptized by proxy in January. Yesterday, a similar story involving iconic Holocaust victim Anne Frank appeared in the media.
The Church has since released a statement vowing to discipline “individual abusers” of the the controversial practice.
Chris Matthews Concedes: ‘Liberals Don’t Want to Pay More Taxes’; ‘It’s All a Game’
(he is still working at msnbc? when lesser people there have been fired for even suggesting democrats and liberals could be wrong)
Now isn’t this the truth?
Just plain dumb! White house being worked on? Hey, we are creating jobs everywhere! Sure the millions out of work will be inspired by this.
Democrats into denial!
(The Hill) — Oil speculators, not a lack of domestic drilling, are to blame for the nation’s rising gas prices, the top House Democrat argued Wednesday.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said unscrupulous Wall Street investors have artificially inflated prices at the pump, which are climbing toward $4 per gallon.
The California Democrat called on Congress to take “strong action” to rein in the allegedly excessive speculation, and accused Republicans of protecting Wall Street profits at the expense of consumers.
“Wall Street profiteering, not oil shortages, is the cause of the price spike,” Pelosi said in a statement. “Unfortunately, Republicans have chosen to protect the interests of Wall Street speculators and oil companies instead of the interests of working Americans by obstructing the agencies with the responsibility of enforcing consumer protection laws.”
The comments – arriving a day before President Obama is scheduled to address the issue of rising gas prices in Miami – represent just the latest shot in the perennial and largely partisan debate over the cause of price fluctuations in the oil and gasoline markets.
David Harsanyi: Shouldn’t Obama be taking credit for high gas prices?
This is the must-read op-ed of the day, in my opinion.
As we all know gas prices have shot up again in recent weeks, and the White House and its media sycophants are attributing the trend to everything from rising global demand, an allegedly recovering U.S. economy, turmoil in the Middle East, and of course “speculators” – among many other factors.
But as David Harsanyi writes, rising energy costs have been Obama’s explicitly stated agenda since before he was elected President. So with gas now pushing $4/gallon and beyond you’d think he and the Democrats might want to take some credit for their wonderful achievement.
Read it all HERE.
This morning’s newspapers report an ominous development in the ObamaCare litigation, now pending in the U.S. Supreme Court:
The Court posted a seemingly minor but potentially portentous administrative change, which suggests it might postpone delivering a final ruling on the constitutionality of ObamaCare until the middle of 2016!
Specifically, the high Court increased the time it will devote to hearing oral arguments on whether the health care mandate is a tax for purposes of something called the Tax Anti-Injunction Act (26 U.S.C. § 7421(a)).
The historically lengthy oral arguments in the case, HHS v. Florida — now expanded by 30 minutes to an unprecedented six hours – are slated to take place late next month. A formal ruling in the case is expected by early July.
But will it be the final ruling? That’s now less clear.
First enacted in 1867, the Tax Anti-Injunction Act sweepingly forbids any court from hearing any case in which any person attempts to prevent the assessment or collection of a tax. Once the tax has been assessed and collected, however, a court may hear a case on it.
The ObamaCare mandate is enforced by means of a penalty fine, collected by the IRS. With a few exceptions, this fine will be imposed on every citizen who doesn’t check a box on his tax return affirming that he has purchased government-controlled health insurance.
Is the IRS penalty a tax, or not? So far, lower federal courts have come down on both sides of this issue. And for complicated legal reasons, the Obama Administration has actually been taking both sides on it: in Congress, the President’s men say it’s not a tax; in court, they say it is.
Sheldon Adelson plays as stubbornly in politics as he does in business. So the criticisms that he’s trying to personally buy the presidential election for Newt Gingrich are met with a roll of the eyes.
“They like to trash other people. It’s unfair that I’ve been treated unfair—but it doesn’t stop me. I might give $10 million or $100 million to Gingrich.”
Adelson, the 78-year-old CEO of casino giant Las Vegas Sands, certainly can afford to: With a net worth of roughly $25 billion, that $11 million, which jolted Gingrich’s flatlining presidential bid back to life, equates to 0.044% of his fortune. For someone with a $1 million net worth, the equivalent would be $440, or a two-night stay at Adelson’s Venetian casino. Adelson could personally fund an entire presidential campaign—say, $1 billion or so—and not even notice.
(damn, why can’t he send me a few million? my math right here: $10 billion would seed 10,000 people $10,000?)
Jackson Lee to face challenge from rapper Cornbreadd in November Read this and all the comments. I would love to see this old, miserable, black woman shown the door.
White House Press Secretary Jay Carney defended Warren Buffett from the criticism against the Buffett Rule levelled by Gov. Chris Christie, R-N.J., praising Buffett’s philanthropy and defending his “right” to engage in political advocacy.
“I think Mr. Buffett, who is widely regarded for his success in business as well as in philanthropy, has been quite outspoken, as is his right, on what he believes is an issue of tax fairness,” Carney said during today’s press briefing. “He simply believes, as one of the wealthiest men in the world, that he should not be paying an effective tax rate lower than his secretary.”
Christie said Wednesday that Buffett should “cut a check and shut up” rather than advocate a tax increase for all the wealthy.
Carney dismissed Christie’s comment as a joke. “[T]hat’s a quip that tries to draw attention away from what is a very serious issue, which is the need to have a tax code that’s fair and that helps the American people as they recover from this recession,” he responded when asked if he agrees with Christie’s suggestion. “So, quips aside, we think the Buffett Rule is absolutely an important principle to apply to individual tax reform.”
(seems like Gov. Christie pissed off obama and his cronies?)
And going back quite some years to my younger days, here is Bridgette Bardot back in those days.