2010 Jeep Liberty Roseville, Fridley, St. Paul, Minneapolis 7853A – Video

Posted on by


2010 Jeep Liberty Roseville, Fridley, St. Paul, Minneapolis 7853A
Your Hometown Chevy Dealer!! 2010 Jeep Liberty Limited http://www.RosedaleChev.com For more information on this vehicle and our full inventory, call us at 612-260-4887 Rosedale Chevrolet...

By: Rosedale Chevrolet

Read more from the original source:

2010 Jeep Liberty Roseville, Fridley, St. Paul, Minneapolis 7853A - Video

Unitarian Universalism: Religious Liberalism, Not Religious Libertarianism – Video

Posted on by


Unitarian Universalism: Religious Liberalism, Not Religious Libertarianism
Rev. Andy Burnette - January 4, 2015 As we begin the new year, we will talk about the important distinction between a faith in which you can #39;believe whatever you want, #39; and the liberal faith...

By: Valley Unitarian Universalist Congregation

Go here to see the original:

Unitarian Universalism: Religious Liberalism, Not Religious Libertarianism - Video

Why Parks and Recreations Ron Swanson and Leslie Knope could agree on Indianas religious freedom law

Posted on by

By Russell Moore March 31 at 7:29 PM

In all the furor over Indianas controversial Religious Freedom Restoration Act, perhaps the answer to the culture war impasse wont be found in Indianapolis but in Pawnee. Pawnee, of course, is the fictional town inhabited by long-running NBC sitcom Parks and Recreation, which orbited around the often clashing visions of Parks director Ron Swanson and his crusading deputy Leslie Knope. The two could agree on little, but I think they could agree on Indianas RFRA as it originally passed, and so should we.

Ron Swanson and Leslie Knope are relevant to this discussion not despite the fact that they are fictional Hoosiers but precisely because they are. They stand in for two powerful impulses in American cultural and political life: leave me alone libertarianism and common good progressivism. Both of these strains are part of the rich heritage of religious freedom, and neither strain should go wobbly on that heritage now.

Swanson, of course, was the grumpy, just-this-side-of-cynical libertarian who feels guilty for working for the government. What he wanted to see done, more than anything, within his tiny towns parks department is for it to do just this side of nothing. He kept his money in gold, buried somewhere in the yard. His hatred of government regulations and government expenditures, of almost any kind, were second only to his hatred for skim milk (which he famously called water, lying about being milk).

Swanson, like most libertarians, probably would support same-sex marriage, if he supported any sort of government-recognized marriage at all. But his libertarianism wouldnt want the government dictating either the prohibitionor the celebrationof such unions.

The libertarian vision is one that recognizes that pluralism in the public square is not an evil to be stamped out by government fiat. And that vision is especially true when it comes to the most personal arena of a persons life: his or her conscience. We may disagree on how much government is necessary, but libertarians have consistently warned us that a government that takes upon itself the burden of paving over consciences is a government that can do anything.

The libertarian vision is true in the area of religious liberty both on the Right (when some have wanted state-written school prayers or mosques zoned out of existence) or on the Left (where now many want to force celibate nuns to pay for birth control insurance or force evangelical adoption agencies out of existence).

The federal RFRA and its counterparts in the states were designed to protect individual consciences from a Leviathan government. The point of RFRA, from the beginning, was to assert that unpopular religious views (whether of peyote-smoking native Americans, hijab-wearing Muslims or something similar) ought to be protected by more than just the whim of the majority.

Leslie Knope, on the other hand, was the office progressive, fueled by idealism about what government can do, if only given the chance. With her office filled with pictures of her women heroes from Madeleine Albright to Hillary Clinton, Knope wanted to break glass ceilings, to fill in sand pits and build parks for the sake of the flourishing of her community.

Now, as a liberal Democrat, Knope, too, probably would support same-sex marriage. But its hard to imagine that Knope would feel comfortable with the hysteria weve seen over the Indiana RFRA. The primary pressure to abandon this act, along with the (flat-out misrepresented) line that it is a freedom to discriminate bill has come from big corporate interests threatening to boycott the state.

See the rest here:

Why Parks and Recreations Ron Swanson and Leslie Knope could agree on Indianas religious freedom law

Carmody asked to explain judge's claims

Posted on by

Queensland civil libertarian Terry O'Gorman has asked the state's chief justice to clarify allegations he insulted colleagues and inappropriately interfered with judicial appointments.

In an open letter to Chief Justice Tim Carmody, the Queensland Council for Civil Liberties vice-president called for a fuller explanation of recent allegations levelled at Justice Carmody by a retiring judge.

Last week outgoing Supreme Court Justice Alan Wilson used his valedictory speech to declare the chief justice was not performing, and accused him of inappropriately interfering with the Court of Disputed Returns following the state election, among other claims.

Justice Carmody responded in a letter to barristers on Monday that said the allegations were a slur on his integrity and an inappropriate use of the forum of the court.

Mr O'Gorman's open letter, sent on Wednesday, demanded a better explanation of Justice Wilson's claims, including whether Justice Carmody had called other judges "snakes" and "scum".

The civil liberties lawyer, who has previously said the chief justice should consider resigning, also called for more detail of the circumstances surrounding Justice Carmody's intervention in the appointment of judges to the Court of Disputed Returns.

"The court is, on any view, now clearly deeply divided," Mr O'Gorman wrote.

"I was very disturbed by the remarks made by Wilson J at his valedictory late last week."

The letter comes amid revelations another senior judge was grateful for outgoing Justice Alan Wilson's comments.

Supreme Court Justice Roslyn Atkinson reportedly said in open court immediately after the retiring judge's valedictory ceremony that everything Justice Wilson said was true and she was "extremely grateful" to him for making the comments.

Read the original post:

Carmody asked to explain judge's claims

Mandryk: Premier Wall battling libertarian views

Posted on by

Given that it's hardly been a controversy in nine other provinces, one might wonder why banning children from using tanning beds would be controversial here.

But the Saskatchewan Party seemed to struggle with imposing regulations prohibiting the use of indoor tanning beds for those under 18 years of age. In fact, just six days ago Health Minister Dustin Duncan told reporters his government wasn't about to follow Alberta's lead and pass such a law.

In fairness, Duncan did talk about "ongoing discussions" and maybe looking at Alberta's decision.

But protecting children's health should be an automatic no-brainer and tanning regulations should have been in place in Saskatchewan long before now. Or so the Sask. Party seemed to conclude as it announced Monday Saskatchewan youth would be prohibited from using tanning salons by this summer.

"Our government's goal is to protect the health of Saskatchewan residents," Duncan said in a news release.

"Our young people are particularly vulnerable to the effects of indoor tanning, and this is one way we can help them lower their risk of melanoma."

That said, maybe the Sask. Party government's news release still wasn't quite as assertive as it could have been.

It stressed the need to carefully monitor "developments on the issue" and make "every effort to be thoughtful about this issue, to gather as much information as possible, and to be aware of different perspectives before proceeding."

Regulations will be developed through consultations with interested stakeholders and government will "continue to support public education efforts aimed at raising awareness of the risks of indoor tanning, and encouraging people to make healthy lifestyle choices."

Really? Why would you need to throw a conciliatory bone to anyone? You just acknowledged: "Young people are particularly vulnerable to the effects of indoor tanning and this is one way we can help them lower their risk of melanoma." What is there still to consider?

Continued here:

Mandryk: Premier Wall battling libertarian views

Paris 2012 Presentation – Capacity building and tools – Video

Posted on by


Paris 2012 Presentation - Capacity building and tools
http:/internationalforum.bmj.com Speakers: a) David Galler, Director of Clinical Leadership, Ko Awatea, Centre for Health System Innovation and Improvement, Counties Manukau District Health...

By: International Forum on Quality and Safety in Healthcare

Read this article:

Paris 2012 Presentation - Capacity building and tools - Video

StartUp Health NOW #25: Can Entrepreneurs and the FDA Finally Get Along? – Jonathan Javitt – Video

Posted on by


StartUp Health NOW #25: Can Entrepreneurs and the FDA Finally Get Along? - Jonathan Javitt
Telcare Vice Chairman Founder, Jonathan Javitt explores why the FDA is changing its ways and shares his vast experience pushing healthcare innovation forward with three different Presidential...

By: StartUp Health

See the original post here:

StartUp Health NOW #25: Can Entrepreneurs and the FDA Finally Get Along? - Jonathan Javitt - Video

Health care tax rules trip up some immigrants

Posted on by

The deadlines coming to file tax returns, and aside from the usual headache, this year its proving particularly thorny for undocumented immigrants. Thats because, for the first time, there are penalties under the Affordable Care Act for those lacking health insurance.

But the law is complex, and when it comes to people living in the U.S. illegally, many are getting slapped with fines they shouldnt have to pay.

Adalberto Martinez, a mechanic at an auto body shop in Chicago, is one of them. Like many undocumented immigrants, Martinez pays income taxes, using an IRS-issued taxpayer identification number, called an ITIN. But this year, he noticed something different when he sat down with his tax preparer.

They told me that theres a box where you have to answer whether you have insurance or not, he explained in Spanish. So she put down that I didnt have insurance. She didnt explain to me exactly why, just that there was a box there and I didnt have insurance.

Afterwards, Martinez found he was hit with a $200 fine for not having health coverage in 2014. The official name for the penalty was the shared responsibility payment.

Most lawful U.S. residents are required to have health coverage under Obamacare, and those who dont will have to pay the penalty. But under the law, undocumented U.S. residents, like Martinez, are exempt from all that. But Martinezs story is not unique.

Weve heard from at least 10 to 15 organizations that have been hearing this issue in the community, said Luvia Quinones, health policy director at the Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights.

Quinones said its not clear how many undocumented immigrants may have improperly paid the fine, but she said thousands in Illinois could be at risk.

We know that in the state of Illinois, theres about 310,000 undocumented, uninsured individuals in addition to about 70-80 thousand DACA youth that are eligible also to get their work permit, she said.

DACA youth, also known as DREAMers, are immigrants that arrived in the U.S. as children and obtained temporary relief from deportation under President Obamas Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. They have valid Social Security numbers, which could be used to file tax returns. This puts them at particular risk for mistaken penalties, because while their Social Security numbers may suggest that they are lawful U.S. residents, and therefore subject to the health care penalty, Obamacare explicitly excludes them from the health coverage requirement.

Originally posted here:

Health care tax rules trip up some immigrants