- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- January 2013
DARYL HALL AND JOHN OATES: “PRIVATE EYES”
First it was gold in a WW II tank.
British officials say they’ve been unable to trace the rightful heirs to a trove of gold coins found stashed inside a piano and worth a “life-changing” amount of money.
The Shropshire school that owns the piano and the tuner who found the gold are now in line for a windfall after a coroner investigating the find declared it treasure. The couple who owned the piano for three decades before donating it to the school will likely miss out.
Coroner John Ellery said Thursday that, despite a thorough investigation and a public appeal for information, “we simply do not know” who concealed the coins.
The hoard was discovered last year when the piano was sent for tuning. Under the keyboard — neatly stacked in hand-stitched packages and pouches — were 913 gold sovereigns and half-sovereigns minted in the 19th and early 20th centuries.
Piano tuner Martin Backhouse said when he found the pouches and slit open the stitching, he thought: “Ooh, it looks like there’s rather a lot of gold in this.”
The hoard, which weighs 13 pounds, has not been formally valued. But Peter Reavill of the British Museum has said it is worth a “potentially life-changing” amount.
Revenue from items declared “treasure” is generally split between the owner — in this case, Bishops Castle Community College — and the finder.
The piano was owned for 33 years by Graham and Meg Hemmings, who donated it last year to the school close to their home, near the Welsh border about 45 miles west of Birmingham. Meg Hemmings said she’s not bitter at missing out on treasure that was right under her nose.
“The sadness is, it’s not a complete story,” she said. “They’ve looked and searched for the people and they unfortunately haven’t come forward.
“It’s an incomplete story — but it’s still an exciting story.”
These stupid fucking liberals wouldn’t know an illegal if they beat them over the heads with dildos until they see sense and can discern the difference between LEGAL and ILLEGAL.
Joy Behar slammed first lady Melania Trump as an illegal immigrant Wednesday when she said without sanctuary cities, “where’s Melania going to go.”
“The View” co-host made the disparaging comment about the first lady during a panel discussion about part of President Donald Trump’s executive order that would withhold federal funding from sanctuary cities that was blocked by a federal judge. (RELATED: Joy Behar Compares Trump To A ‘Dictator’)
Whoopi Goldberg argued that there was already laws on the books that allows law enforcement to round up illegal immigrants who commit crimes.
“I do believe that people…when the laws are in place, if there’s a criminal there’s nothing saying that New York can’t take care of that,” Goldberg explained. “As I said the other day [Barack] Obama deported more illegal immigrants than any president.” (RELATED: Joy Behar: Trump ‘Needs To Be Taken Out Of Office’)
“It’s sort of like the underground railroad, in a way it reminds me of,” Behar responded. “Or the people in Germany who took in the Jews. There are people who are really in trouble who are going to be separated from their children.”
“And, anyways,” she added. “Where’s Melania going to go if we don’t have any sanctuary cities?”
Asshole comes to the US, is a homosexual, has AIDS, overstays visa and is now whining about being caught.
And we’re supposed to believe that because he’s a faggot with AIDS we’re now responsible for his health care?
Send him back to Putin who has a cure waiting. 100% effective against AIDS and guaranteed to never allow re-infection.
A Russian man who is gay and HIV-positive has been detained at a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility for over a month.
Denis Davydov, 30, has lived in the San Jose area since September 2014, when he entered the country legally.
But he was taken into custody by ICE agents after they found out he had overstayed his visa.
Davydov argued that he has applied for political asylum, insisting he would be at risk of imprisonment or even death if he returned to his native Russia.
In early March, he took a trip to the U.S. Virgin Islands. When he came back into the country, he encountered ICE agents.
‘They checked his documents, and he said they were trying really hard to find something wrong,’ Sergey Piskunov with RUSA LGBT, a group for Russian-speaking members of the LGBT community, told KRON-4.
‘They put him on a plane to Miami and transported him to Florida.’
‘He’s a gay man and HIV-positive,’ Piskunov said. ‘Russia is not the best place for either of those and he’s a combination of both.’
An ICE official confirmed to KRON that Davydov was arrested and is in custody at the Krome Detention Center in Miami.
The TV station was not able to find out any more information about what is happening to Davydov or when he might be released.
According to Piskunov, Davydov is receiving his daily HIV medication, but has been unable to see a doctor.
‘This is one of the reasons we really want to get him out of there,’ he said.
Piskunov said a return to Russia will mean almost certain death.
‘I believe he’s not going to live too long,’ he said. ‘They have money for war in Ukraine, Crimea, Syria – they have money for all these military expenses but they don’t have money for the medical system. And they don’t care.’
For what, you ask?
Special fucking snowflake still got its operation but felt offended and his safe space violated so he sued.
Does California’s non-discrimination law on sexual orientation override a Catholic hospital’s freedom of religious expression? A new lawsuit from the ACLU claims yes, filed on behalf of a patient denied an elective hysterectomy as part of a surgical transition from female to male. Despite having arranged an emergency referral to another hospital which did conduct the operation, the transgender patient and the ACLU want Catholic hospitals forced to perform these surgeries in the future:
More than seven months after a Dignity Health hospital refused a hysterectomy to a Sacramento-area transgender patient, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit Wednesday on his behalf.
The lawsuit, filed in San Francisco Superior Court, alleges that Dignity discriminated against Evan Michael Minton, 35, a former state Capitol legislative aide, when he sought a hysterectomy as part of his transition from female to male.
Last summer, Mercy San Juan Medical Center in Carmichael, part of the Dignity Health chain, abruptly canceled Minton’s surgery the day before it was scheduled to take place. His doctor eventually performed the procedure at another Sacramento-area hospital, but the initial denial still causes frustration and disappointment, Minton said. After months of reflection, he decided to take legal action against the San Francisco-based hospital chain.
“It devastated me, and I don’t want it to affect my transgender brothers and sisters the way it affected me,” Minton said Tuesday. “No one should have to go through that.”
The plaintiffs allege that the hospital and its network violated the state’s Unruh Civil Rights Act, which bars discrimination based on several criteria, including “their sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, or sexual orientation.” Later in the code, the law further states that all of these include “a perception” by the person of having any of the “characteristics” of certain protected classes within these criteria. Literally, that could be taken to enforce the Unruh Act on behalf of Rachel Dolezal, but was more clearly intended to give the widest possible coverage for transgendered people.
Note too that this means the lawsuit is based specifically on the transgender motives for the surgery, not a need for prophylactic removal for health reasons, ie, to avoid a genetic predisposition to cancer. The ACLU can’t even argue it was simply for sterilization either, because Catholic hospitals won’t do vasectomies either.
The state law contains no conscience-protection clauses for religious belief, which might make for a strong case — if the lawsuit stays entirely within the California state court system. The prospects for this ending up in federal court are high, however, especially given the stakes involved. The Catholic Church operates over six hundred hospitals in the US, accounting for 15% of all hospital beds in the US as of 2013. If this ruling stands in California, the ACLU would push it in every state, so the Catholic Church has lots of incentive to take this to federal court.
Once there, the church can use the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) as well as an explicit appeal to the First Amendment’s protection of religious expression as its defense. The Catholic Church operates its hospitals and clinics as a direct expression of faith, a long tradition that literally extends much further back than the founding of the US. The RFRA law forces stricter scrutiny of laws that infringe on legitimate religious expression (and not just worship) by requiring courts to use a balancing test. Do the plaintiffs raise a question of compelling state interest, and does it require the intervention demanded as the minimum method of serving it?
Even if there were a compelling state interest in transgender surgeries — itself a dubious notion — the court would have to determine that it’s so compelling that it overrides sincere Catholic religious belief on sterilization and gender identity. The Catholic Church has long-standing and often-expressed positions on these issues, and it would be almost impossible for the plaintiffs to argue that it’s not a fundamental doctrine of Catholic faith. Furthermore, the court would have to find that forcing Catholic hospitals to conduct these surgeries would be the least intrusive method of serving that compelling state interest. The circumstances of this case amply demonstrate that’s not the case; not only are there other options in the marketplace, but the respondents helped make arrangements for the surgery to take place using another option. Catholic hospitals are a significant share of the market, but they’re not a monopoly, or anywhere close to it.
Granted, this relies on a rational federal judge hearing the case, and we’ve seen some demonstrations of poor judicial temperament lately, particularly in California. There is little chance that a RFRA defense would not result in an appeal if denied, though, and even if the 9th Circuit might not be terribly sympathetic to that argument, the Supreme Court would almost certainly be. This isn’t a lawsuit that intends to correct an injustice — it’s yet another example of lawfare designed to drive Catholic health services into closure.
But they’re liberals.
So go figger.
Maxine Waters, the quarter-century member of Congress who has new-found stardom as an attack dog for the left, suffered a brain freeze during an interview today when she was ranting about Donald Trump’s handling of the North Korea threat.
Speaking with Yahoo News, Waters was talking about China’s role in containing North Korea, and momentarily appeared confused about what she was discussing.
“Those in China have a great trading relationship, they sell an awful lot of stuff to North Korea,” she said.
“And so (the Chinese) president is warning Trump, ‘okay, don’t start talking about preemptive strikes. We want a diplomatic solution,’” Waters said, speculating about China’s conversations with Trump.
The 78-year-old continued, “‘We do not want war in, uh, uh, uh, North Korea — North, uh, um, um, Korea at all,’” struggling to complete her thought.
It’s not the first time Waters has been stymied by Korea.
Speaking to reporters with other House Democrats in February, Waters attempted to build the case for why Democrats “may” push for impeachment.
“And the fact that he is wrapping his arms around Putin while Putin is continuing to advance into Korea.”
She meant Crimea.