Divorce is never easy. When going through such a painful process, it is extremely important to have a professional lawyer to provide guidance and assistance in what to do and when. A lawyer can be a trusted guide who is available to talk and willing to fight the right battles when necessary. A lawyer can be exactly when a man needs during an extremely painful time in his life.
A Listening Ear
People love to give advice when an individual is going through a difficult ordeal. This is true of when a man is going through a divorce. When looking for a lawyer, be sure to find an individual or a firm that puts listening as one of the top priorities. Lawyers who listen can be worth retaining since they put a priority on hearing what a client or a potential client has to say. In a world where so many people make conclusions on a limited amount of information, it certainly helps to have a lawyer who listens and wants to know more about a situation before giving advice. Although questions will be asked about difficult circumstances, the reason for probing questions is to provide more information that can help a lawyer give better recommendations.
When the listening time is over, a lawyer who has taken the time to listen can provide solid answers that can bring peace of mind. After all, a man who is going through a divorce is going through a lot of stress. He needs guidance and assistance in how to proceed. A lawyer who listens carefully to the situation of a man and understands it can give thoughtful feedback that can help him greatly. A lawyer can talk about what specific paperwork needs to be filled out. Numerous individuals and firms can be helpful to men who are experiencing a divorce. Reading information about a firm or an individual can be insightful. Cordell & Cordell Reviews is an example of real people who have provided feedback on their services.
Although it may be difficult to describe the pain that is experienced when one goes through a divorce, men can get dependable answers and assistance when they choose to retain a lawyer or a law firm. Lawyers can get lasting results and are dependable with the commitments they make. When in need, contact a lawyer who specializes in divorce.
In two years from now, the worst President in my lifetime — and my lifetime includes Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon and Jimmy Carter — will leave office forever.
I don’t know how good President Obama is at golf, but I would like to see him practice it more and more and more. I want him out on the golf course, every day, for the next two years, because the less that he’s in the office, supposedly doing his job, the less harm he can do to us.
I haven’t been to Colorado since the summer of 1972 — and that was just passing through — but if I ever return, this looks like a great place to stop and eat. From CNN:
I bet they don’t get robbed!
The CNN interviewer was doing her damnedest to try to rattle Shooters Grill owner Lauren Boebert, but couldn’t. More openly liberal MSNBC tries the same thing:
Open carry is perfectly legal in Colorado, no permit required, and, quite frankly, the Second Amendment says, in effect, that open carry is perfectly legal, anywhere in the United States, by anyone legally allowed to own a firearm. The Fourteenth Amendment states that “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws,” which ought to mean that only persons actually convicted of crimes for which the penalties include the loss of civil rights should be legally barred from owning firearms. The courts, which are supposed to protect our rights, haven’t always done a very good job of that.
The tasks of running for President and actually being a good President are two very different things, and Barack Obama has shown us, very clearly, that being very good at the former doesn’t mean that a person will be any good at the latter. From The Wall Street Journal:
WASHINGTON—President Barack Obamawill call on the new Republican-led Congress to raise taxes on investments and inherited property and to create or expand a range of tax breaks for middle-income families, laying out an opening position in a debate over taxation that both parties see as a potential area of compromise.
Mr. Obama will outline the measures in his State of the Union address Tuesday night. He will propose using revenue generated from the tax increases—which would fall mainly on high-income households—to pay for a raft of new breaks aimed at boosting stagnant incomes for low- and middle-income households.
Those initiatives include tripling the child-care tax credit and creating a new credit for families in which both spouses work, senior administration officials said on Saturday.
The administration plans to consolidate and expand education tax breaks. It would also make retirement savings programs available to many more people, for example by requiring many employers that don’t currently offer workers a retirement plan to enroll them automatically in an individual retirement account. The administration says its proposals would make retirement saving programs available to 30 million additional people at the workplace.
More at the link.
This is nothing more than a campaign document, because the chances of the Congress passing a tax increase on the most productive Americans are vanishingly small. William Teach asked why the President didn’t propose these things while the Democrats still controlled the Senate, and part of the answer is that all revenue bills must originate in the House of Representatives, but the other part is that he didn’t want o make things any rougher on Democratic candidates in conservative states than necessary; even as election day approached in 2014, the Democrats had some hopes of retaining the Senate, and never anticipate the real butt kicking that they received.
So, why, if the President is seeking any compromise at all, as he supposedly is, would he push a plan which won’t make it out of the House Ways and Means Committee? The answer is that he isn’t really seeking compromise, nor is he going to make any serious attempts at leading by any means other than executive orders and judicial nominations. Rather, he wants to give Democratic candidates in 2016 some talking points, trying to somehow revive the silly Occupy movement and class warfare.
But even a cursory look at what the President is supposedly going to propose tells us that it’s not even being advertised truthfully. It is, supposedly, supposed to benefit the middle class, but extending the earned income tax credits to families without children doesn’t benefit the middle class in the slightest; it is a benefit solely to lower-income people. Increasing the child care tax credit could help some middle-income families, but there is no reason at all to provide welfare for the middle-class. Two years of “free” community college tuition? What we need are stronger training programs in high school, and a greater push for them; Michael Bloomberg noted that becoming a plumber1 is probably a wiser career choice for most people coming out of high school.2 But nothing is free; education costs money, and has to be paid for somehow.3
The President does not expect any of these proposals to ever be passed, and I would certainly hope that they are not; the last hing we need is to add to the complexity of the tax code or to take more money from people who have earned it to give to those who have not.
_____________________________________ Related Articles:
Mr Bloomberg used plumbing as an example, but his reasoning would hold just as true for electricians and carpenters and other skilled tradesmen. ↩
The Editor’s wife is a registered nurse, who earned her Associates in Science in Nursing at a community college. ↩
Thanks to the complete ineptness of the Carbon County tax collector, who told my mortgage company that my property taxes were up to date, leading my mortgage company not to pay them on time, I had to pay, personally, $2,008.63 in school district taxes on December 22nd, giving your Editor a very good lesson in just how free free public education really is. ↩
It’s the weekend and time, once again, for THE FIRST STREET JOURNAL’S version of Rule 5 Blogging. Robert Stacey Stacy McCain described Rule 5 as posting photos of pretty women somewhat déshabillé, but, on this site, our Rule 5 Blogging doesn’t put up pictures of Kaley Cuoco in her summer clothes, but women, in full military gear, serving their countries in the armed forces. The terribly sexist authors on this site celebrate strong women, women who can take care of themselves and take care of others, women who have been willing to put their lives on the line in some not-so-friendly places, women who truly do have the “We can do it!” attitude. Today: Soldiers from neutral Switzerland.
Kentucky Wildcats center Dakari Johnson (44) went in for a dunk as #1 Kentucky played Alabama on Saturday January 17, 2015 in Tuscaloosa, AL. Photo by Mark Cornelison | Staff
TUSCALOOSA, Ala. — For those who believe needing extra time to subdue Ole Miss and Texas A&M served more to entertain than alarm, Kentucky strengthened that argument Saturday.Kentucky overwhelmed Alabama 70-48 to cement its status as the best team in the Southeastern Conference.
Alabama, which had won 14 straight home games dating to last season, suffered the most lopsided loss in Coach Anthony Grant’s six seasons as coach (previous worst was a 21-point loss at Missouri last season).
Grant became the eighth opposing coach to take a record beating as Kentucky improved to 17-0. As the only unbeaten team in SEC play, UK improved to 4-0.
Continuing his hot shooting, Devin Booker led UK with 13 points. He made four of seven shots (three of six from three-point range) to make him 30 of 50 (20 of 28) in the last seven games.
Tyler Ulis and Dakari Johnson chipped in 11 points each.
Alabama (12-5 overall, 2-2 SEC) got 13 points from Levi Randolph and 10 from Rodney Cooper.
Kentucky dominated the first half with size and skill. The Cats led 35-17 at halftime.
Kim Quade on The Victory Girls: Does Pope Francis Stand for Freedom of Speech? We have to remember: freedom of speech as it is practiced in the United States is almost unique to our county; the rest of the world, including the other democracies, all have more restrictions placed on speech.
John Hitchcock on Truth Before Dishonor: “I’m An Israeli Soldier, Proud To Be” No, Mr Hitchcock, a United States Marine Corps veteran, is not claiming that he is an Israeli soldier, but is presenting a video from one.
Perry on Bridging the Gap: nothing new in over a month now!
Donald Douglas on American Power: 2014 Wasn’t the Warmest Year Ever I’ve heard so much on global warming, much of it contradictory, and I’m not about to say that it either is or is not happening. But I will say that if it is occurring, it is better to adapt as the climate changes than to impoverish ourselves trying to prevent it.
The much better-looking Dana on Patterico’s Pontifications: Execution in Oklahoma If we are going to have capital punishment, then damn it, we should have capital punishment: murderers should be hanged, with the executions open to the public. If people think that capital punishment is some sort of deterrent to crime — and I do not, or Texas would have the lowest murder rate of any state — then whatever deterrent effect there is is weakened by the way in which we do it. If we are going to have capital punishment, then we damned sure shouldn’t be squeamish about it; we ought to proclaim it proudly, and do it publicly, so that every citizen has the opportunity to see what is being done in his name.
PARIS—Every Friday, Johanna Bettach, a pregnant mother of two, stocks up on weekend supplies at the Hyper Cacher supermarket. Last week, just before she was getting ready to shop, an Islamist militant gunned down four Jewish customers at the kosher store and took many others hostage.
The Hyper Cacher attack, one of the deadliest against France’s Jewish community since World War II, spurred outrage across the country. It was by no means isolated, coming against a backdrop of acts of violence and intimidation.
Just three months earlier, Ms. Bettach said, she found her mezuzah—a box containing a parchment of Torah verses that religious Jews attach to their doors—torn off and thrown out.
“It is going from bad to worse in France, and we know that it is not going to stop,” said Ms. Bettach, 33 years old. “I can’t sleep at night anymore. All day when my kids are at school, I worry. I just don’t see any future for my children in this country.”
More at the original.
The good European socialism that the American left sees as so very, very good — after all, they’ve got free1 health care! — is something that the left wouldn’t really recognize. It seems as though der Führer didn’t have to work all that hard to get the French to turn over their Jews; anti-Semitism has along and strong history amongst the supposedly Christian Europeans.
From The Washington Post:
The biggest threat to French free speech isn’t terrorism. It’s the government. The murders at Charlie Hebdo, while tragic, aren’t the problem. By Jonathan Turley2 | January 8, 2015 Within an hour of the massacre at the headquarters of the Charlie Hebdo newspaper, thousands of Parisians spontaneously gathered at the Place de la Republique. Rallying beneath the monumental statues representing Liberty, Equality and Fraternity, they chanted “Je suis Charlie” (“I am Charlie”) and “Charlie! Liberty!” It was a rare moment of French unity that was touching and genuine.
Yet one could fairly ask what they were rallying around. The greatest threat to liberty in France has come not from the terrorists who committed such horrific acts this past week but from the French themselves, who have been leading the Western world in a crackdown on free speech.
Indeed, if the French want to memorialize those killed at Charlie Hebdo, they could start by rescinding their laws criminalizing speech that insults, defames or incites hatred, discrimination or violence on the basis of religion, race, ethnicity, nationality, disability, sex or sexual orientation. These laws have been used to harass the satirical newspaper and threaten its staff for years. Speech has been conditioned on being used “responsibly” in France, suggesting that it is more of a privilege than a right for those who hold controversial views.
In 2006, after Charlie Hebdo reprinted controversial cartoons of the prophet Muhammad that first appeared in a Danish newspaper, French President Jacques Chirac condemned the publication and warned against such “obvious provocations.”
“Anything that can hurt the convictions of someone else, in particular religious convictions, should be avoided,” he said. “Freedom of expression should be exercised in a spirit of responsibility.” The Paris Grand Mosque and the Union of French Islamic Organizations sued the newspaper for insulting Muslims — a crime that carries a fine of up to 22,500 euros or six months’ imprisonment. French courts ultimately ruled in Charlie Hebdo’s favor. But France’s appetite for speech control has only grown since then.
France might be one of the worst offenders among the democracies, but it’s hardly the only one; in Canada, and all across Europe, the government can, and will, take action for speech considered offensive by some Accredited Victim Group. It looks like our Framers, those old 18th Century men, were pretty darned smart in giving us absolute protection from those who would take away liberty for what they believe to be the common good.
Free at point of service, maybe, but they pay for it anyway with hideously high taxes; nothing in life is free! ↩
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University. ↩
I chose to link to a leftist site, to make the point that it was the left who supported this. ↩
It wouldn’t have passed anyway; a constitutional amendment originating in Congress requires a 2/3 majority in both Houses of Congress to advance to the states for ratification, and it would not have come close to the 67 votes needed in the Senate to send the proposed amendment to the House. ↩
January 13, 2015 Republicans have surged to their largest majority in the House of Representatives since before the Great Depression by blunting the Democratic advantage in districts being reshaped by growing racial diversity and consolidating a decisive hold over the seats that are not.
Compared with 2009 and 2010, when Democrats last controlled the House, the Republican majority that takes office this week has essentially held its ground in districts where minorities exceed their share of the national population, a Next America analysis has found. Aided by their control of redistricting after the 2010 census, Republicans over the past three elections have simultaneously established an overwhelming 3-1 advantage in districts where whites exceed their national presence, the analysis shows. Those white-leaning districts split between the parties almost equally during the 111th Congress, in 2009-10.
A majority of the GOP gains since then have come from the Democrats’ near-total collapse in one set of districts: the largely blue-collar places in which the white share of the population exceeds the national average, and the portion of whites with at least a four-year college degree is less that the national average. While Republicans held a 20-seat lead in the districts that fit that description in the 111th Congress, the party has swelled that advantage to a crushing 125 seats today. That 105-seat expansion of the GOP margin in these districts by itself accounts for about three-quarters of the 136-seat swing from the Democrats’ 77-seat majority in 2009 to the 59-seat majority Republicans enjoy in the Congress convening now.
The GOP dominance in these predominantly white working-class districts underscores the structural challenge facing Democrats: While the party has repeatedly captured the White House despite big deficits among the working-class white voters who once anchored its electoral coalition, these results show how difficult it will be to recapture the House without improving on that performance. “The question is: Are we at rock bottom here?” says Tom Bonier, CEO of the Democratic voter targeting firm TargetSmart Communications.
These trends present Republicans with a mirror-image challenge. The vast majority of their House members can thrive without devising an agenda on issues—such as immigration reform—that attract the minority voters whose growing numbers nationally have helped Democrats win the popular vote in five of the past six presidential elections. “When you can go out screaming ‘amnesty’ and not get any pushback in your districts, you are more prone to scream ‘amnesty,'” says veteran GOP pollster Whit Ayres. “It leads to an attitude of: ‘problem, what problem?'”
There’s more at the original.
In one regard, the article is taking off from a very poor starting point, with the comparison of majority white working class districts held by the Democrats in the 111th Congress. The Democrats had recaptured the Congress in the 2006 elections, spurred in significant part with the Republicans’ disgust that a majority Republican Congress, with a Republican President, was spending so much money. Then, with the economic collapse in 2008 being blamed on the GOP, the Democrats soared to huge victories in the 2008 elections. Mr Brownstein, the author, is taking as his starting point a Democratic representation level that was abnormally high; his point is essentially correct, but by using the 111th Congress as his starting point, he is using inflated numbers to overstate the change.
Investopedia defines “working class” as “A socioeconomic term used to describe persons in a social class marked by jobs that provide low pay, require limited skill and/or physical labor, and have reduced education requirements.” It continues to state that “Unemployed persons or those supported by a social welfare program are often included in this group,” but The First Street Journal holds that there is a difference between working class and non-working class. Otherdefinitions can be found, but they are fairly unified on the concept that the working class are, primarily, those without higher education, who rely on manual labor to provide an income. Your Editor disagrees: he defines working class as those people who have to work for a living, and takes no distinction based upon the kind of work that they do, because he holds that all (legal) work is honorable and praiseworthy. ↩
World leaders and dignitaries attend a mass unity rally on Jan. 11, 2015, following the recent Paris terrorist attacks. (Photo by Dan Kitwood/Getty Images)
Leaders from across the world, including some countries with less-than-stellar freedom of expression records, linked arms and headed up a massive unity rally through the streets of Paris on Sunday to pay tribute to the 17 people killed in France by Islamist terrorists this past week. More than 1 million are expected to take part in what could very well be the largest march through the streets of Paris in modern times, notes Reuters.
“Paris is today the capital of the world. Our entire country will rise up and show its best side,” French President François Hollande said.
Families of the victims also joined the front of the march that included Hollande, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, British Prime Minister David Cameron, Spanish Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. Other leaders included Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu, and Jordan’s King Abdullah II and Queen Rania, details CNN.
More text and pictures at the original. But your Editor noted with some wry amusement that Mr Politi, the author, managed to name some of the important world leaders who made their way to Paris for this, but there isn’t a single word about the fact that President Obama chose not to go, and did not send Vice President Biden either. The absence of our President and Vice President was apparent only by omission, were Mr Politi’s article your only source for news. Given Slate’s leftist leanings, I am not too terribly surprised that the author didn’t want to note anything bad about our President. Outgoing Attorney General Eric Holder was the United States’ representative for this, something Mr Politi did not mention.
There will be some on the right who will note the absence of President Obama and conclude that it is because he secretly sympathizes with the Islamists, but your Editor disagrees: President Obama chose not to attend because he really just didn’t want to be bothered.