strike down

phrasal verb

1 a strike (someone) down : to make (someone) unable to work, act, or function in the usual way usually used as (be) struck down She was struck down by an injury at the height of her athletic career. 1 b strike (someone) down : to cause (someone) to die suddenly usually used as (be) struck down He was struck down by a heart attack at age 55. 2 strike (something) down or strike down (something) chiefly US, law : to say officially that (something) is no longer legally valid The board struck down the appointment. The Supreme Court struck down the law.

Honoring Veterans Day

Today, we at The Heritage Foundation are proud to honor Veterans Day by pausing to remember the men and women in uniform who serve this country. They are some of the finest this nation has to offer. Among those who have served throughout the years, the recipients of the Medal of Honor (MOH) deserve our utmost respect and admiration. They wear this august award for those who did not come home. They never refer to themselves as "winners" but see themselves as caretakers of the Medal of Honor for all who also served in harm's way in defense of freedom. The Medal of Honor is the highest award given to an American military service member who has shown extreme courage and intrepidity during combat. We at The Heritage Foundation would like to take the opportunity on this special day to introduce you to a foundation devoted exclusively to perpetuating the legacy of these heroes and their notion of service above self. The Congressional Medal of Honor Foundation and its Educational Curriculum are an invaluable resource for Heritage and for our nation. Teaching lessons in character, the Foundation holds in its resources short video living biographies of over 100 recipients of the Medal of Honor. These testimonials provide the basis for a six-part curriculum that teaches students how to better understand and emulate the virtues of courage, integrity, sacrifice, commitment, citizenship and patriotism in their own lives. The interdisciplinary character development resource, "Medal of Honor: Lessons of Personal Bravery and Self-Sacrifice," uses the oral histories of Medal of Honor recipients to convey to students that not only in military circumstances, but in everyday life, everyone can demonstrate courage and sacrifice. The lessons are intended for use across grade levels using a wide variety of teaching methods. The content is appropriate for all students in any school setting and encourages the use of critical thinking and collaboration skills. This MOH Character Development Program is a research-based teaching strategy using vignettes that allow the participants to see and hear the events directly from the Medal of Honor recipient's perspective and in their own words. To see a sample of this resource, go to www.cmohedu.org. Above the log in, you can view one of the overview videos "In Their Own Words." You can also watch MOH recipient Clarence Sasser and hear how a medic on a mission saved so many lives in the jungles of Vietnam. Students connect the lessons to their own lives through small and whole group strategies and discover "what values can I apply to my life?" This resource curriculum does not glorify war. In contrast, it asks students to create their own definitions of courage, integrity, sacrifice, commitment, citizenship, and patriotism. The Program helps students acquire the knowledge and skills necessary to positively direct their social and civic interactions and to preserve our democratic society. The Congressional Medal of Honor Foundation's target goals and strategies include:

Increase students' understanding of the Medal of Honor and the 6 values associated with it: courage, commitment, integrity, sacrifice, citizenship and patriotism.

Increase academic engagement

Improve school culture and climate

Increase student achievement

To quote an educator using the program, "Just...press play; you will immediately know the importance of educating our youth about the values these men represent." And from a student: "Act like everyone is watching, even if no one is."

vanish

 YQ   verb [no object]

inflected forms: vanishes; vanished; vanishing

1 : to disappear entirely without a clear explanation My keys mysteriously vanished. The missing girl vanished without a tracea year ago. The papers seem to have vanished into thin air. 2 : to stop existing Dinosaurs vanished from the face of the earth millions of years ago. The practice has all but vanished. [=the practice is very rare now]

treatment
plural treatments

 WULWP QW noun

1 [noncount] : the way that you think of and act toward someone or something We dont deserve such rude treatment. [=we don't deserve to be treated so rudely] The principal's daughter received special/preferential treatment from teachers. [=teachers were kinder to and less strict with the principal's daughter than with other students] We want to ensure equal treatment for everyone. The law requires humane treatment of prisoners. 2 a [noncount] : the way that you deal with or discuss a subject It's a complicated issue that requires careful treatment. A five-minute news report on the subject does not allow for depth oftreatment. [=does not allow the subject to be dealt with in a way that is complete, thorough, etc.] The book's treatment of this important issue is unimpressive. 2 b [count] : something that deals with or discusses a subject Previous treatments of this topic have ignored some key issues. an interesting treatment 3 : something that deals with a disease, injury, etc., in order to make someone feel better or become healthy again : medical care [noncount] The patient required immediate medical treatment. She is receiving treatment for cancer. a treatment facility [=a place where you can get medical care] [count] The drug has been approved as a treatment for AIDS. cancer treatments 4 [count] : something that you use or do to feel and look healthy or attractive Mud is sometimes used as a skin treatment. She went to a spa for a beauty treatment. 5 : a process in which a chemical or other substance is put on or in something in order to protect it, preserve it, clean it, etc. [count] A special treatment is used to kill bacteria in water. Thistreatment will protect the wood from rotting. [noncount] The instruments are sterilized by treatment with alcohol. a waste/sewage treatment plant

hiatus
plural hiatuses

KD  H W V noun

Meaning: : a period of time when something (such as an activity or program) is stopped [count] The band is making an album again after a 5year hiatus. [noncount] (US) The television network put the showon hiatus [=it stopped broadcasting the show] for several months. = The show went on hiatus for several months.

How President Obama Killed Thousands of Jobs

If Americans needed any further proof that the Obama Administration is one of the most political on record, or that, for all the recent demagoguing, it really cares only about re-election, not about job creation, then you need look no further than its cynical Keystone XL oil pipeline decision last week.

Over the last several months, radical environmentalists along with Hollywood celebrity activists descended on the White House in protest, urging President Barack Obama to block the construction of the $7 billion pipeline that would bring in more than 700,000 barrels of oil per day from Alberta, Canada, to the Texas Gulf coast. Last week, they got their wish. The Obama Administration on Thursday announced that it would delay a decision on the pipeline until after the 2012 election. In siding with his leftist environmentalist, big Hollywood base, President Obama's ambition is nakedly apparent, as is his total disregard for the 14 million unemployed Americans sitting on the sidelines, waiting for Washington to get out of the way so they can get back to work. And it also shows that for him, politics is more important than achieving true energy independence for the United States. And here's why: The Keystone pipeline would have done what the President's hundreds of billions of dollars in stimulus spending failed to do. It would have created thousands of jobs (tens of thousands, by some predictions), while generating $5.2 billion in property tax revenue for Montana, South Dakota, Kansas, Oklahoma, Nebraska, and Texas. And it would have done it all with private dollars--not taxpayer dollars. The kicker is that despite all the hoopla from the enviro-celebrity protests, this pipeline should have been anything but controversial, even by the Obama Administration's own findings. Heritage's Nicolas Loris explains: Radical environmentalists act as if this is the first oil pipeline being built in the United States. We have 50,000 miles of oil pipeline in this country that have provided massive economic benefits with minimal environmental harm. In short, building the Keystone XL pipeline is nothing new, and its one of the most environmentally sensible ways to transport oil. Even the Obama Administration determined it to be safe when the State Departments recent Environmental Impact Statement found that thepipeline would pose few environmental risks. Another important point is that even if the Keystone pipeline isn't constructed in the United States, the resource will still be tapped, and it's going to head elsewhere. Heritage's David Kreutzer explains that the development of Canada's oil sands will be slowed (thereby increasing its cost), and it will be diverted to non-U.S. consumers, meaning that the Canadian oil will be shipped across thousands of miles of ocean to Chinese refineries. Kreutzer's admonition to the Obama Administration? So, block the XL pipeline if you think the environment will be better served by shipping Canadian oil an extra 6,000 miles across the Pacific in oil-consuming super tankers and then refining it in less-regulated Chinese refineries. In addition, be aware that replacing the Canadian oil means the U.S. also must import more oil by tankers, which are less efficient than pipelines. The facts, though, don't matter to environmentalist activists. They don't matter to certain celebrities, and now they apparently don't matter to the Obama Administration, either. Evidently, neither do jobs or energy independence. Following the President's decision, actor Robert Redford applauded Obama and said, "This is American democracy at its best: a president who listens to the voice of the people and shows the courage to do what's right for the country." No, Mr. Redford, you're wrong. When the President puts his job over those of tens of thousands Americans, that is politics and a presidency at its worst.

revive

U  YD Y verb

inflected forms: revives; revived; reviving

1 a [with object] : to make (someone or something) strong, healthy, or active again The doctors were trying to revive the patient. [=to make the unconscious patient conscious again] Visiting my old house has revived [=brought back]childhood memories. The water revived [=refreshed] the flowers. The success of the movie has revived her career. The government is trying to revive the economy. Our spirits were revived by his enthusiasm. 1 b [no object] : to become strong, healthy, or active again The store's business is beginning to revive. 2 [with object] : to bring (something) back into use or popularity The family is trying to revive an old custom. 3 [with object] : to arrange to have (an old play, opera, etc.) performed in front of an audience He has decided to reviveMolires Tartuffe.

The Fall of the USSR and the Debate over Russia

Twenty years ago, the world watched the Soviet Union fall. The regime that was "planted by bayonets," as President Ronald Reagan once described it, did not take root, and ultimately the empire that once walled itself off from the West with an Iron Curtain could not shield its people from seeing the shining light of democracy. Next Tuesday, when the Republican presidential candidates come together to discuss foreign policy and national security in a debate presented by The Heritage Foundation and American Enterprise Institute on CNN, they should remember the lessons that the fall of the USSR taught us, but they should also look ahead to the challenges that remain in Russia and around the world today. Chief among those challenges are those brought about by the Obama Administration's pursuit of a "reset" in relations with Russia.

In his "Evil Empire" speech to the British House of Commons in 1982, President Reagan quoted Winston Churchill, who said, "I do not believe that Soviet Russia desires war. What they desire is the fruits of war and the indefinite expansion of their power and doctrines. But what we have to consider here today while time remains is the permanent prevention of war and the establishment of conditions of freedom and democracy as rapidly as possible in all countries." Reagan said, "Well, this is precisely our mission today: to preserve freedom as well as peace. It may not be easy to see; but I believe we live now at a turning point." Reagan was among those who led the Western world when it stood at that turning point. Victory in the Cold War came, and the reasons for the USSR's collapse were many, ranging from its mania for top-down economic control, to its oppression of its own people, to its efforts to hold an empire in Eastern Europe and Central Asia, to the courage and leadership of Russian dissidents and Western leaders. President Reagan was among those leaders who saw the evil of the Soviet regime for what it was and sought to roll back the communist advance. He confronted the Soviet threat head on, and ultimately the West won victory in the Cold War. By contrast, the Obama Administration is failing to see the true character of those who lead Russia today. Indeed, the victories of 1991 have not yet been secured and are under threat. Speaker of the House John Boehner (ROH) recently delivered a blistering critique of the President's "reset" strategy and painted a picture of where Russia stands today: Over the last two and a half years, Russia has been the beneficiary of American outreach and engagement. [Yet it] has continued to expand its physical, political, and economic presenceunder the guise of...a 'sphere of influence.' Within Russia, control is the order of the day, with key industries nationalized, the independent media repressed, and the loyal opposition beaten and jailed. Russia uses natural resources as a political weapon. And it plays ball with unstable and dangerous regimes. Heritage vice president Kim Holmes says the Obama Administration's posture toward Russia has failed because the President expected more from the Russians than they are willing to give under any circumstance. And that's despite entering into the dangerously flawed New START missile defense treaty and canceling key missile defenses in Europe. Holmes notes that the "reset" policy is a failure because it assumes that Russia's leaders share our interests when, in fact, Vladimir Putin and Dmitry Medvedev have far different goals: amassing hundreds of billions of dollars and protecting it indefinitely. Holmes explains the impact this has on Russian-U.S. relations: At the end of the day, Russia looks around the world and sees enemies, potential rivals, and clients. That's why it mistreats neighbors and why so many of them distrust it. That's why it desperately needs America to pay homage to it with concessions in arms control negotiations and cancelled missile defense programs. Its attitude toward the U.S. belies a calculated set of self-interested moves to gain financial and geopolitical advantage over other nations. The United States--and those who seek the presidency--should understand Russia's reality and the fact that Putin and those in power operate under a different set of rules. As such, offering up concessions on treaties like New START sacrifices U.S. security in favor of Russia's gain. Today, The Heritage Foundation will host a special event taking a deeper look at these issues in "Legacies and Lessons from the 20th Anniversary of the Fall of the USSR." (Watch online today from 11:30 AM to 1:00 PM.) And while the world remembers the fall of the Soviet Union, it is worth remembering that communist tyranny still exists in the world today, only a few miles from America's shore. Despite the continued oppression of Cuba's people by its communist regime, journalists and the Obama Administration alike pay it little notice. Heritage will address this subject, too, in today's event "The Unwritten Story: How the Media and the Obama Administration Overlook Cuba's Wave of Repression." Though the communist ideology was dealt a significant blow 20 years ago when the Soviet Union fell, freedom for the Russian people is by no means guaranteed as the country rapidly backslides into autocracy. Likewise, with an oppressed people suffering under the Cuban regime, America's leaders must take notice and speak loudly in defense of freedom while also standing up for America's interests in the face of tyranny.

benign

E  QD Q adjective

1 a medical : not causing death or serious injury a benigninfection/disease 1 b medical : without cancer : not cancerous We were happy to hear that the tumor was benign. 2 : not causing harm or damage This chemical is environmentallybenign. [=it does not hurt the environment] He has a benign[=harmless] habit of biting his fingernails. 3 [more benign; most benign] : mild and pleasant benign[=favorable] weather conditions a benign climate 4 [more benign; most benign] : gentle and kind a friendly,benign teacher

5 [more benign; most benign] : having or showing a belief that nothing bad will happen She takes a benign view of her husband's spending habits. [=she does not worry about her husband's spending habits] benignly adverb He smiled benignly at his students.

The Debate over the War in Afghanistan

The killing of Osama bin Laden was a hard-won victory for the United States, but the gains made in pursuit of that day of justice and in waging the war in Afghanistan--including putting al-Qaeda on its heels--could be squandered if the Obama Administration continues its plotted course. When Republican presidential candidates lay out their foreign policy agendas in next Tuesday's debate hosted by The Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute on CNN, they should pay significant attention to this seminal war that is so crucial to America's struggle against terrorism. In June, President Barack Obama announced his decision to bring home 10,000 troops by the end of this year and a total of 33,000 troops by next summer--despite requests from the Pentagon and General David Petraeus to limit the initial withdrawal to 3,000 to 4,000, as the Los Angeles Timesreported. That decision, as The Washington Post wrote, wasn't based in a "convincing military or strategic rationale." Rather, it was "at odds with the strategy adopted by NATO, which aims to turn over the war to the Afghan army by the end of 2014." At the time, Heritage's Lisa Curtis wrote that, apart from denying his military commanders flexibility to determine the pace and scope of withdrawal based on conditions on the ground, the President "also risks upending the major achievement of eliminating Osama bin Laden across the border in Pakistan." Curtis also noted that the decision would "further discourage Pakistan from cracking down on the Taliban leadership that finds sanctuary on its soil" and "reinforce Islamabads calculation that the U.S. is losing resolve in the fight in Afghanistan and thus encourage Pakistani military leaders to continue to hedge on support to the Taliban to protect their own national security interests." Unfortunately, after the President's decision, the United States reaped a bitter harvest sown by the Pakistani government. On September 13, the U.S. embassy in Kabul, Afghanistan, was attacked, and reports revealed that those responsible were linked to Pakistani intelligence officials. Then, in testimony before Congress, Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, declared that Pakistan's military intelligence service is directing the Haqqani network, a militant group responsible for attacks on Americans, including the assault on the embassy. Sadly, Pakistan's support of insurgent groups in Afghanistan is the most significant obstacle to achieving stability in the country, and refusal by the Pakistani military to take action against the Haqqani network seriously undermines U.S. and NATO success in the Afghan mission. And that mission is critical to the United States' continued prosecution of the war against terrorists. Heritage's James Carafano and Jessica Zuckerman explain why that war is central to America's global response to terrorism: Al-Qaeda's core leadership remains in Pakistan's tribal areas bordering Afghanistan, and the Taliban (whose leadership is allied with al-Qaeda) continues to threaten stability in Afghanistan. In order to stop terrorism at its source, the U.S. must remain committed to its counterinsurgency strategy in Afghanistan, which aims to prevent the Taliban from regaining influence in the region. There are steps that the White House should take to ensure success in Afghanistan, and they revolve around dealing with the main obstacle to progress: Pakistan. First and foremost, the U.S. should reverse its withdrawal plan in order to show Pakistan that America is not turning its back on the region and to ensure that there is no void that the Taliban can once again fill. Next, since half of all supply routes to the NATO mission go through Pakistan, the U.S. should develop additional supply routes into Afghanistan. In response to the attack on the U.S. embassy, the U.S. should freeze aid until Pakistan takes actions against perpetrators of the attack and helps shut down the Haqqani network, designate the Haqqani network a foreign terrorist organization, establish a congressional commission to investigate Pakistan's role in fomenting the insurgency in Afghanistan and the extent to which its actions are preventing the U.S. and NATO from achieving their security objectives in the region, and pursue an aggressive drone campaign against the Haqqani network. There is much at stake in the war in Afghanistan, and Americans--particularly the brave men and women in uniform--have already made tremendous sacrifices. But their sacrifices should not be rendered meaningless for the sake of scoring political victories at home. The United States has made significant strides in the war against terrorism, but the President--and those who seek the White House--must realize that unless the U.S. changes course, America will slide backward in its mission to secure itself against those who would do us harm.

Supreme Court Schedules Obamacare Case for Early 2012, "All-Star" Lineup of Litigators Set to Represent Americans
Its official. The Supreme Court will consider challenges to Obamacare stemming from the Eleventh Circuit decision striking down the laws individual mandate.

In that case, 26 states and the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) partially won their suit, claiming that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) should be voided as unconstitutional. The Eleventh Circuit ruled that the mandate considered by many to be the linchpin of the overhaul of the U.S. health system was unconstitutional. But the court declined to strike down the law in its entirety. The Supreme Court agreed to hear arguments on a number of issues raised in the suit: severability, Medicaid, and the AntiInjunction Act, to name a few. Specifically, it will hear arguments on whether Congress had the power under Article I of the Constitution to enact the minimum coverage provision. The Court directed the parties to brief and argue whether the Anti-Injunction Act (which bars suits to stop a tax before it has been imposed) bars NFIBs and the states challenges to the PPACAs minimum coverage provision. The Court will also hear arguments on whether the individual mandate provision is severable from the rest of the PPACA. The parties will address whether the law must be invalidated in its entirety because it is non-severable and whether the mandate exceed[s] Congresss enumerated powers. Last, the Court will hear from the states petition whether Congress exceeds its enumerated powers and federalism generally by coerc[ing] States into accepting onerous conditions that it could not impose directly by threatening to withhold all federal funding under [Medicaid]. By our count, the oral argument will be at least four and one-half hours long a record time and argued by an all-star lineup of Supreme Court litigators. A typical Supreme Court argument is one hour. The Court has rarely extended oral argument longer than two hours, but has done so in important cases such as the 2003 challenge to the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act. The Court has not set a date for argument, but it could be as early as this March. The Courts term is set to end on June 25, and the Court would usually announce all its decisions for the term by then. Occasionally the Court has extended its term or ordered reargument (as in Citizens United v. FEC). We are likely to get a decision by June 25 right in time for the final months of the political battle for the November election.