[Guest post by DRJ]

A Tennessee woman’s decision to return her 7-year-old adopted son to Russia and the unorthodox way she did it could halt all American adoptions of Russian children:

“Russia threatened to suspend all child adoptions by U.S. families Friday after a 7-year-old boy adopted by a woman from Tennessee was sent alone on a one-way flight back to Moscow with a note saying he was violent and had severe psychological problems.

The boy, Artyom Savelyev, was put on a plane by his adopted grandmother, Nancy Hansen of Shelbyville.

“He drew a picture of our house burning down and he’ll tell anybody that he’s going to burn our house down with us in it,” she told The Associated Press in a telephone interview. “It got to be where you feared for your safety. It was terrible.”

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov called the actions by the grandmother “the last straw” in a string of U.S. adoptions gone wrong, including three in which Russian children had died in the U.S.”

The adoptive family claims they were misled about the boy:

“The Kremlin children’s rights office said the boy was carrying a letter from his adoptive mother saying she was returning him due to severe psychological problems.

“This child is mentally unstable. He is violent and has severe psychopathic issues,” the letter said. “I was lied to and misled by the Russian Orphanage workers and director regarding his mental stability and other issues. …

“After giving my best to this child, I am sorry to say that for the safety of my family, friends, and myself, I no longer wish to parent this child.”

The boy was adopted in September from the town of Partizansk in Russia’s Far East.

Nancy Hansen, the grandmother, told The Associated Press that she and the boy flew to Washington and she put the child on the plane with the note from her daughter. She vehemently rejected assertions of child abandonment by Russian authorities, saying he was watched over by a United Airlines stewardess and the family paid a man $200 to pick the boy up at the Moscow airport and take him to the Russian Education and Science Ministry.”

The U.S. State Department expressed concern, not only for the boy but also because it could impact pending and future adoptions. The Russian government indicated it may require a U.S.-Russia treaty governing adoption issues before further adoptions are approved.

— DRJ

[Guest post by DRJ]

President Obama attended his daughter’s soccer game Saturday morning but he forgot something — the press:

“President Barack Obama quietly breached years of protocol on Saturday morning by leaving the White House without the press with him.

About two hours before reporters were supposed to be in position to leave with the president, Obama left the grounds of the White House. Members of the press were told he was attending one of his daughter’s soccer games in northwest Washington, D.C.

The White House press corps traditionally travels with the president anywhere he goes, inside and outside the country, to report on the president’s activities for the benefit of informing the public and for historical record.

After Obama left, a press aide hastily gathered members of the media who happened to be at the White House early or working on other matters. They rushed to a van and left the White House to catch up with the president.

Too late. By the time, the press van appeared to arrive at the president’s location, the press was told he was already departing. Time to go back to the White House.

Reporters and photographers didn’t have a chance to see him or his vehicle to verify his presence at any location.

Although nobody outside the White House or the press may have noticed, Obama broke years of tradition.”

Obama’s job approval polls don’t look that good. Can he really afford to antagonize his best supporters?

— DRJ

It’s all part of a larger “right to sexual pleasure” — no doubt tucked away in one of those penumbras that keep popping up when leftist judges scrutinize the Constitution.

In a guide for young people published by the International Planned Parenthood Federation, the organization says it opposes laws that make it a crime for people not to tell sexual partners they have HIV. The IPPF’s “Healthy, Happy and Hot” guide also tells young people who have the virus that they have a right to “fun, happy and sexually fulfilling lives.”

HIV is the virus that causes AIDS.

“Some countries have laws that say people living with HIV must tell their sexual partner(s) about their status before having sex, even if they use condoms or only engage in sexual activity with a low risk of giving HIV to someone else,” the guide states. “These laws violate the rights of people living with HIV by forcing them to disclose or face the possibility of criminal charges.”

Under the heading “Sexual Pleasure and Well-Being,” the guide declares that it is a human right and not a criminal issue as to whether a person decides if or when to disclose their HIV status, even if they engage in sexual activities.

“You know best when it is safe for you to disclose your status,” the guide states. “There are many reasons that people do not share their HIV status. They may not want people to know they are living with HIV because of the stigma and discrimination within their community.”

. . . .

“Young people living with HIV have the right to sexual pleasure,” the guide states under the heading “Sexual Pleasure; Have Fun Explore and Be Yourself.”

What about your right to life — and your right not to catch HIV?

“Evrviglnt” at Political Vindication comments of Planned Parenthood’s position:

It’s worse than a lethal absurdity, it makes a mockery of the dignity rights are recognized to protect.

Follow the proscription to its logical end. If one has a right to sexual pleasure, who has the right to refuse it? If that pleasure involves children, so what? Sex with children has been common throughout human history. How about sex with animals? If pleasure is paramount, should not any living thing prepare to be violated? No, you say – it would be wrong to injure somebody or something just to get our rocks off. But there are few worse injuries one can inflict than infecting another with an incurable disease, so it seems that anything short of murdering someone or something in pursuit of an orgasm is now acceptable.

Talk of “rights” often sounds wonderful, until you realize that your “right” generally becomes someone else’s burden. I can think of no better illustration.

[Guest post by DRJ]

A 22-year-old New Hampshire man claims he was beaten and robbed by a gang of young women:

“Bruce Sanderson of 136 Blaine St. told police he was immediately jumped from behind after he walked past the young women on Clinton Street. The ruffians had just left the South Main Street 7-Eleven, he told police.

They knocked Sanderson to the ground, and he curled into a fetal position to protect himself. He told police the women beat him up, and he did not hit them back. They stole a house key and his wallet, which contained a small amount of cash, police said.

Police are trying to investigate Sanderson’s report, said Lt. Jim Soucy. Complicating the matter is that Sanderson acknowledges he was “highly intoxicated” when the mugging took place. He couldn’t give police a description of the women, and he went home and didn’t report the mugging for about eight hours.”

Sanderson did not have any bruises but police hope a nearby surveillance camera can shed light on what happened.

— DRJ

[Guest post by DRJ]

Patterico already posted on Michigan Rep. Bart Stupak’s announcement that he plans to resign at the end of his current term. The reaction to Stupak’s announcement ranged from delight to disappointment, including speculation about “the real reason” he quit:

“He was pilloried by both sides of the aisle: the left for originally blocking the bill and the right for his “yes “ vote, which they view as a betrayal of their principles. Being Stupaked—stabbed in the back—is now part of the conservative lexicon.

In announcing his decision, he admitted he had considered retiring several times. At one point, there had even been chatter about his running for governor, but he always thought there was one more job to be done. Now, he says, his “main legislative goal [health care] was accomplished.”

A close friend says he suffered over this conclusion, talking it over with his wife Laurie and son Ken for the better part of last week before deciding he was ready to go. “It’s time for him to make money,” she says. “He’ll back and forth between Washington and Michigan and probably become a lobbyist or something like that.”

Stupak’s letter to his constituents focused on the satisfaction he felt from passing health care and on his desire to spend time with his family and friends. Others attribute his resignation, in part, to the abuse and death threats Stupak, his wife and family faced.

This reminds me of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin’s resignation (speech reprinted here and here). It’s not exactly the same — Stupak is at the end of his term, while Palin’s term wasn’t over — but it’s unlikely Palin’s resignation jeopardized her Party’s ability to hold the governorship. The same may or may not be true for Stupak’s Congressional seat.

Overall, though, there are several similarities: Both Palin and Stupak acknowledged the importance of taking care of and being with their families. Both stressed the satisfaction they felt from what they had already accomplished for their constituents, as well as their belief that it was time to move on to other goals. Palin was also concerned about the cost to Alaska (in time and money) of repeated ethics complaints. Stupak essentially made the same point when he complained to the media that protesters made it impossible for his staff to get their work done and for constituents to call his office.

It’s easy to say Stupak’s and Palin’s resignation speeches were spin but I hope both were more truth than spin. That’s why I’m watching to see what Sarah Palin does with her career and why I’m also watching Bart Stupak. I expect both to seek out ways to support their families, hopefully in ways that support the values they claim to hold dear.

— DRJ

Via Hot Air, the crash also killed several other top Polish officials:

Polish President Lech Kaczynski was killed early Saturday along with his wife, several top military officials, and the head of the national bank when their plane crashed at a western Russian airport, officials said.

“There are no survivors,” said Sergey Antufyev, the governor of Smolensk, where the plane was trying to land when it crashed. Russian emergency officials said 97 people died. Kaczynski was 60.

It’s a significant loss. As Ed Morrissey says: “The West has lost a good friend this morning.”