The Thursday wrap
By The Tribune-Review
Published: Wednesday, July 24, 2013, 9:00 p.m.
Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says Congress must uphold its “oath to ‘protect and defend' the Constitution and all Americans by expanding background checks and keeping dangerous firearms out of the wrong hands.” Never mind the Second Amendment implications, CNSNews.com reminds that the California Democrat can't even get the oath right: The proper phrase is “to support and defend.” ... The Examiner of Washington reports that critics say the Obama administration's new “data hub” needed to create ObamaCare's health exchanges “will be a ripe target for computer hackers and identity thieves” because it hasn't been tested for security flaws. Much like ObamaCare itself never was vetted for operational flaws. ... Police in Charlottesville, Va., are under fire for stopping 262 people and forcing them to show identification to enter and exit a subdivision on July 11. The Rutherford Institute reports that one resident who objected was threatened with arrest. Police called it a “license checkpoint.” Let's call it what it is — a violation of the Fourth Amendment's protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. ... NASA has released a photograph of Earth taken Friday last by the Cassini spacecraft from nearly 900 million miles away. It is but a speck of a star in the cosmos. And if that doesn't humble you, nothing will.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- The secret ballot: Protect it
- Junk nutrition
- Lever A-1: Pot-infused brownies
- The big sting: To what end?