Repeal of the 16th Amendment would only prevent taxes on rents, dividends and interests. These are taxes on capital and thus direct taxes. Taxes on wages and salaries are considered excise taxes and would be allowed even if the 16th Amendment were repealed.

The pressure put on General Carter Ham, then in command of U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) and therefore responsible for Libya, not to act to protect jeopardized U.S. personnel.

This could be the killer.

The House of Commons has 650 seats or constituencies. The member is elected to each constituency who has a plurality, not majority, of the votes. If the Conservatives and Labour alternate in winning 1st and 3rd place in all the constituencies while UKIP comes in with a strong 2nd in them all then the Conservatives and Labour would split the seats according to who had the 1st place in each constituency while UKIP would get none. But if UKIP could gain a few more votes to pass the Conservatives or Labour in some of the constituencies then the outcome would be drastically different.

Unfortunately this would not help. There is a major confusion about the 16th Amendment. Taxes on wages and salaries are considered excise taxes and were constitutional even before the 16th Amendment. The amendment was a response to the Supreme Court ruling of Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co. in 1895. This ruled that income taxes on rents, dividends and interest were direct taxes and thus unconstitutional without apportionment among the states. If the 16th Amendment were repealed then all your income based on wages and salaries could be taxed while those on Wall Street would find there income on rents, dividends and interest tax free. Sorry for the bad news.

cross-community harmony

Here is a major problem. If you come to England then join the English community and live as an Englishman. If the Muslims cannot do this then go home!

While it is unlikely that Democrats will support this measure, Republicans have more than enough votes to filibuster any future appointments by the White House.

Which is perhaps why Harry Reid is suggesting using the "nuclear option" to get rid of filibusters for confirmation votes.

If the White House has to put out a statement denying a comparison between Obama and Nixon then they are already in deep trouble.

Unfortunately repealing the 16th Amendment would only stop non-wage income taxes. Taxes on wages are considered an excise tax and did not need the 16th Amendment.

Crimes, not mistakes! And drop the passive voice; name the culprits.

Get rid of the ethanol mandate altogether.

That should read: “Latin has not definite article “the”.

Both the Greek "τοῦ πονηροῦ" and the Latin "a malo" can be rendered into English as either "from evil" or "from the evil one." This is particularly ambiguous in Latin since Latin has no definite "the". From Wikipedia:

Translations and scholars are divided over whether the evil mentioned in the final petition refers to evil in general or the devil in particular. The original Greek, as well as the Latin version, could be either of neuter (evil in general) or masculine (the evil one) gender. In earlier parts of the Sermon on the Mount, in which Matthew's version of the prayer appears, the term is used to refer to general evil. Later parts of Matthew refer to the devil when discussing similar issues. However, the devil is never referred to as the evil one in any Aramaic sources. While John Calvin accepted the vagueness of the term's meaning, he considered that there is little real difference between the two interpretations, and that therefore the question is of no real consequence. Similar phrases are found in John 17:15 and 2 Thessalonians 3:3.

It is in the translation into English that a distinction between "from evil" and "from the evil one" must be introduced because of our grammar. I do notice that in Italian, French and Spanish it is translated with the definite article (It. dal male; Fr. du mal; Sp. del mal.) I will leave it up to someone more learned in these languages if this signifies only "from the evil one" or could also be "from evil."

Actually Italy should do one better and leave the Euro altogether and issue a new Lira backed by its gold.

It is important our laws recognize that married lesbian couples who have children…

Lesbian "couples" do not have children; one of the women does with the help of a man. The other woman is just a spectator.

The first followers of Jesus were of course Jews so it was from them that the Apostles were chosen. But our Lord had many women followers. He made a deliberate decision to exclude them from ministry. Was he a misogynist? Are the advocates of female ordination more just than Jesus? These are the implications of those who would promote female ordination and they cannot be glossed over by flippant responses.

Cannot (not will not) happen. There is only a single sacrament of Holy Orders which was established by Jesus Christ and which he conferred only on men. The division of the sacrament into three orders of bishop, priest and deacon were a latter development by the Apostles. The impossibility conferring the sacrament on women applies to the deaconate as much as the priesthood.

That was a strange weapon.

She is a regular homilist for the New York City chapter of DignityUSA.

Of course she is.

Marriage and childbirth are God’s way to teach us how to come out of our shells of selfishness and learn how to love another in an act of total self-sacrifice. Feminists and liberals want to crawl back into the shell.

Love your tagline!

Although the magisterium insists women have a "special role," the sad truth is that they still have no decision-making authority in the institutional church and no power to lead the community in sacramental celebrations. …

Like his predecessors, Francis doesn't seem to understand how the strict limits the hierarchy has placed on women's power inside the church has helped reinforce the powerlessness that women suffer in society.

We see here that the feminists concern is only about power, not the Gospel. Thus they must reject God's order of creation of man as male and female and create a misanthropic androgyny.

Reflecting the true Catholic understanding of the dignity of women as created by God, Pope Francis reflects the beauty of God's order of creation. Feminism is a revolt against God and the source of so much evil in the world today.

“The sacrament of Penance, worthily received, always takes away all eternal punishment; but it does not always take away all temporal punishment.”

Never happens. Only entrusting ourselves to Christ’s complete payment for our sins eliminates eternal punishment.

Unfortunately our blessed Lord disagrees with you:

[Jesus] said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you.” And when he had said this, he breathed on them [the Apostles] and said to them, “Receive the holy Spirit. Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained.”
--Jn 20:21-23

Calm down. ‘Palestine’ was first used by the ancient Greek Herodotus in the 5th century BC. It has been a recognized term for the geographical area for 2500 years. Its use does need not imply anything concerning the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. (note: even the Israelis call them Palestinians)

The distinction has always been between warm-blooded and cold-blooded. Fish and reptiles being cold-blooded are not considered true flesh. The rational is that abstaining from meat is in memorial of the flesh and blood shed by our Lord. I guess it is some form of bloodism discrimination.

he marked ‘female’ despite the fact that he is biologically really male and only dresses as a woman

“We're not banning anything. It's called portion control,”

Which is none of your business. Have some kids of your own and tell them how much to drink. Leave the rest of us alone.

This story is being reported inaccurately in many places. It is being presented as if Cardinal O’Brien resigned because of the charges made against him. The truth is that he tendered his resignation four months ago because of his age as all bishops are required by canon law. Pope Benedict decided last week that it would take effect today, that is before the allegations against him came out.

Given that he is known as a hardline defender against homosexual marriage and the because of age it was known that he would be stepping down, it seems convenient that these charges were timed as payback and a way to claim victory when his resignation would eventually take effect.

Be prepared for more attacks and misreporting by the media in the days to come as a way to force the Church to bend to the demands of the world.

Perhaps you missed the point that this is a clandestine network that was discovered only after an internal investigation. They are subject to blackmail precisely because their exposure would ruin them. The Catholic Church is the one organization that is actually opposed to the homosexuals.

The reason Catholic adoption agencies are closing. The fed gov didn't tell them, they must adopt to homosexual "couples" Gov told them to adopt to homosexual "couples" or lose federal funding.

Not true. The states of Massachusetts and Illinois both told the Church that their agencies must include adoptions by homosexual couples. They were told that this was required by state anti-discrimination laws, not by their acceptance of government money.

The uncovered instruction ordering the protection of pedophile sex criminal priests and nuns at the expense of not protecting the little children they were molesting and threatening the little victims with hell if they did not keep their being raped secret…

What an outright lie. Obviously you have not read the document. The secrecy called for was only about the testimony given during the internal church investigation. If the priest were found guilty they were subject to the harshest penalties of the church, including excommunication. Such penalties would by their nature be public. This is the exact same standard used for the testimony given to a criminal grand jury. Outside this testimony anyone would be free to go to the civil authorities and report the crime independently. The attempt to characterize this in any other way is the most base calumny.

If Obama furloughs the meat inspectors it is because he CHOOSES to do so. With a budget of over a trillion dollars the cuts can easily come from elsewhere.

I'm curious to see how the froth at the mouth catholics can do no wrong FR crowd reacts to this.

No one says that Catholics can do no wrong. Indeed, if you were familiar with orthodox Catholics you would know that they have been complaining about these men for years. But I would point out that the problem with Mahony and his allies is that they worked against Catholic teaching rather than promoting it.

I previously stated that the church hierarchy squandered its moral authority by jumping on every liberal bandwagon …

Correct if by the church hierarchy you mean the individual bishops who over the years have betrayed the Catholic faith. False if you mean the entire order of bishops as the proper successors of the Apostles to whom our blessed Lord gave the governance of the Church. Thankfully the Mahony generation of bishops is being replaced by a new generation. By God's grace may they restore the church that our Lord has given to their charge.

Poll wording matters…

See: Yes Prime Minister

Of course anyone who questions Israel must be an anti-Semite! No, I do not hate Jews but I also do not automatically hold to the notion that Israel can do no wrong. As for Hammond, I do not know much about him but what he has written here can be found in other sources. If you wish to take issue with what he has written then do so but do not assume that everyone who questions the actions of Israel is automatically a Jew-hater. As for the issue of who fired first this is just a question of historical accuracy.

I was trying to neutral in the statement and address solely who actually started the 1967 "Six Day War". The plain fact is, any justifications aside, Israel started the war. But since you raise the issue, no nation is above criticism, not even Israel.

For a different analysis of what happened I direct you to "Israel’s attack on Egypt in June ’67 was not ‘preemptive’", Foreign Policy Journal.

And where did I state that “Israel was the aggressor”? I twice acknowledged that there was a conflict and threat from Egypt before the war. The 1967 war was a part of a wider conflict but the war itself was a specific set of actions that started with the pre-emptive strike by the Israelis against the Egyptians and ended with the armistice. Even the Israelis acknowledge that they struck first. This has nothing to do with the question of wether or not they were justified in so acting. It is just historically inaccurate to state that in 1967 it was the Egyptians who actually attacked first.

I am not disputing you. There was clearly an ongoing conflict and threat from the Egyptians before the 1967 war. Indeed, as I pointed out, this was the rationale given by the Israelis for their attack. But the credibility for one’s argument is lost if the fact that in 1967 it was the Israelis who attacked the Egyptians is denied and the 1967 war is presented as an attack by the Egyptians. Rather, acknowledge that this time it was the Israelis who attacked but argue that their attack was a justifiable pre-emptive strike as they claimed.

The 1967 war was started by the Israelis but they claimed that it was a pre-emptive strike against an anticipated Egyptian attack.

The feminists should protest by boycotting all activities of the SICA.

Too late. Simon Gruber already took it.

From what I see participation at Mass is absolutely plummeting since they re-translated the Missal into incomprehensible arcane language.

If you want to see a true plummeting in Mass attendance look at the drop from 80-90% Mass attendance with the old Mass before Vatican II to the 20% Mass attendance with the new Mass after Vatican II. Catholic worship has gone off the rails and we need to get it back.

Go Oklahoma!

Interest on the debt is only 7% of the budget. With no increase in the debt limit just pay the debt first then prioritize the rest of the budget to match the funds available. This is what everyone else must do and this is the responsibility of the Congress in passing a budget.

Stop the lie that not raising the debt limit threatens default of the debt!

A four year extension does not bind Congress but rather authorizes the president so that no additional authorization is needed over the next four years. A future Congress, or indeed the present Congress, could later modify or repeal that authorization but such an action would have to pass a possible presidential veto threat.

Nevertheless, it is still a bad idea.