Weekend Open Mic

As you read this, I am traveling to Southern Virginia to visit family. I’ll be in Hampton Va for the weekend. With the weather getting warmer ( it’s about time ), most of us will be spending more time outdoors and less time on the computer.  At least Spring has finally arrived!

About these ads

Comments

  1. No Gman? What’ll we do?
    Okay, here’s a thought …
    Rutgers … the gift that keeps on giving … Eric Murdock, “Pay him. Pay that man his money.” …

    http://temporaryknucksline.blogspot.com/2013/04/rutgers-gift-that-keeps-on-giving-eric.html

    • gmanfortruth says:

      If he was black this wouldn’t be a story. Why? The leftists are racists, just like you :)

    • Stephen K. Trynosky says:

      Had a little HS reunion the other day, class of ’64. Spoke about this, during the conversation Was reminded of the excellent English/Lit teachers we had at the Prep (Manhattan). Over the years, certain things have stuck in my mind and surprisingly quite a bit of Shakespeare. “All the World is a Stage” comes to mind. The persona of a coach, or a drill Sergeant for that matter is about the same. Very few are psychotics but they all act that way. I am reminded of the Lew Alcindor/Kareem Abdul Jabbar flap at Powers Memorial High School. Jabbar got his start there. When the all boys Catholic High School was on the ropes a few years ago, I was surprised and a little disappointed that it’s # 1 alum did not step forward despite the change in religion. A friend and basketball junkie told me why. In his senior year, he flubbed a play and his coach used the N—– word. Stupidity, in and of itself, should be a hanging offense.

      I can recommend two excellent movies here. The first is from ’57. It is fascinating because it demonstrated just how motivational/intimidating you can get without resorting to profanity or beating people up. “The DI” with and by Jack Webb of “Dragnet fame. Absolutely anyone who does not see this old B&W movie BEFORE joining the Marine Corps is a dolt. Had Private “Pyle” of “Full Metal Jacket” done so, he would have done something smart like join the Navy or Air Force or run off to Canada. The second, from a few years back, Gene Hackman in “Hoosiers”. The redemption of an over the top coach reduced from the big leagues of college ball to a five man team in Indiana.

  2. Happy Friday SUFA!!

    What’s you plans for this weekend? Mine is to do some yard work with the kids, painting a fence before summer arrives in Florida. Teaching my kids the benefits of good old fashion hard work.

    • “Teaching my kids the benefits of good old fashion hard work.”

      Show them the benefits of capitalism while you’re at it and feed them … :)

      • I teach them about capitalism when I pay them for the work they do. They get to eat when their normal household responsiblities are completed.

        • And if they don’t complete their responsibilities, they don’t eat? Oy vey …

          • That has happened, but not often. I know the concept of personal responsibility is foreign to you but it does still exist in some people.

            • Starving your kids is fucking stupid … unfortunately, I’m sure you understand stupid.

            • My kids are not as stupid as you, they do their chores before they would starve. It’s only a leftist like you that would avoid work to your own detriment,

              • Except you already bragged about “They get to eat when their normal household responsiblities are completed.”

                I don’t doubt your kids are smart … it’s YOU I’m calling a moron … for bragging about starving his kids … regular genius, you are :)

              • Charlie, you try so hard to insult people that all you do is expose your lack of intelligence. I pity those that have regular contact with you.

    • Happy Friday to you too :) Just dropped my daughter off at work-it’s a shame she can’t find full time work! Thinking the reason she can’t hasn’t got anything to do with Capitalism but with a government that has totally overstepped their place.

  3. Gun Grabbers’ Latest Gambit
    Mandatory liability insurance is a pathway to registration — and confiscation.

    by
    Tom Blumer

    Bio
    April 5, 2013 – 12:35 am

    On Tuesday, I came across the following at the Daily Caller: “A contingent of liberal Democrats in Congress is proposing a new federal gun control idea: mandatory liability insurance for gun owners.”

    Gun purchasers without such insurance would face a fine of “as much as $10,000″ if the “Firearm Risk Protection Act” introduced in March by New York’s Carolyn Maloney and seven other Democratic congressmen were ever to become law.

    The draft legislation prohibits the sale of a firearm unless “the purchaser presents to the seller proof that the purchaser is covered by a qualified liability insurance policy.” Said insurance policy must specifically cover “losses resulting from use of the firearm while it is owned by the purchaser.” The plaintiffs’ bar will almost certainly begin to argue in court cases that if your gun was stolen and used in a crime, you’re now liable for the results of its use (you’re still its owner, even if you don’t possess it).

    In preparing this column, I spoke with an insurance agent who represents one of the country’s leading property and casualty companies. He told me that a typical umbrella liability policy does not directly deal with gun-related matters, and that applications for such policies do not ask if the applicant or others in the household own a gun. That is to say, the policies Maloney envisions are currently very rare, though my contact did tell me that there are insurance companies which can customize a policy to a specific matter such as gun liability on a case by case basis.

    So if you were an underwriter attempting to formulate a policy and pricing structure for an individual gun liability policy, what kinds of information would you need to protect your company from financially crippling losses and to appropriately price the risks involved? Here are just a few of the items I believe you would need to know:

    The applicant’s age and gender. Logically, one would expect that younger men would face higher premiums than older women.
    The criminal history of the applicant and others in their household. Obviously, the worse those histories are, the higher the premiums.
    The applicant’s driving record, as an indicator of his or her standard of care. Again, the worse it is, the higher the premium.
    Where the applicant lives. Living in a dangerous neighborhood would drive a higher premium.
    How many guns the applicant owns. More guns owned would mean higher premiums.
    What type of guns the applicant has. As is the case with cars, certain makes and models are more often involved in accidents and crimes than others.
    Last but certainly not least, the serial numbers of those guns, so that the insurance company can verify that a gun owned by the applicant really was involved in whatever incident generates a claim.

    In other words, Maloney’s bill represents the beginning of a mandated national gun registry run (for now) by the insurance industry. (Several people have told that they they do not insure their guns under property policies because insurance companies — properly but nevertheless dangerously — insist on obtaining specific information about guns owned.)

    As drafted, Maloney’s baloney only applies to post-passage purchases. As such, the de facto registration requirement and the cost of the insurance itself — an Illinois legislator estimated that such a policy would cost between $500 to $2,000 per year — will significantly deter new purchases, which is of course what the bill’s sponsors want. It’s likely that the volume of legally recorded purchases will decline significantly. Many citizens who legitimately need to protect themselves, either because of personal circumstances, the crime-infested neighborhoods in which they live, or both, won’t be able to arm themselves. Criminals will know that, and target their activities accordingly.

    Anyone who believes that the bill’s sponsors and Democrats in Congress want to permanently limit the liability insurance requirement to new purchases hasn’t been paying attention for several decades. Especially if they get their way on Maloney’s measure, the liability mandate will come to be seen as a normal standard of care for all gun owners, and the pressure to apply it universally will grow. Already, a bill introduced but defeated in Illinois would have required all who carry concealed weapons to have insurance, while a proposal that didn’t make it into Connecticut’s recently passed draconian gun control law would have forced every firearm owner to have it.

    My insurance company contact told me that for now they are prohibited by law from providing any detailed information they have about guns covered in property policies unless it is appropriately requested by law enforcement. That will surely change once the databases become sufficiently large. Gun-grabbers disguised as concerned neighbors will demand to know who owns guns in their neighborhood, and what guns they have. Politicians supposedly interested in crime prevention will also demand to go fishing to “clean up” high-crime neighborhoods. This will of course have the opposite effect, but they won’t care.

    The next step is confiscation, a stated goal of more than a few leftist politicians, up to and including New York Governor Andrew Cuomo.

    All of these measures violate the Second Amendment and law-abiding citizens’ natural law right to defend themselves, their families, and their property. They also prove that, at least for the left, the Second Amendment to the Constitution means nothing. They — the unconstitutional laws and the radicals pushing them — must be stopped.

    http://pjmedia.com/blog/gun-grabbers-latest-gambit/?singlepage=true

  4. Psychiatrist warned campus police about Aurora shooter a month before mass murder
    posted at 9:21 am on April 5, 2013 by Ed Morrissey

    In a revelation that may have Colorado voters rethinking their state’s push on gun control, court documents revealed that the mass shooting in Aurora that killed 12 and injured 70 more could have been prevented by law enforcement. The psychiatrist for suspect, James Holmes, had warned campus police that Holmes was dangerous and homicidal a month before the shooting took place. Lynne Fenton even told the police that Holmes had begun to stalk and threaten her, and yet no action was apparently taken:

    A University of Colorado psychiatrist told campus police a month before the Aurora movie theater attack that James Holmes had homicidal thoughts and was a public danger, according to records unsealed Thursday.

    Lynne Fenton, a psychiatrist at the Denver campus, told police that Holmes had also “threatened and harassed her via email/text messages” in June 2012. He is standing trial for the July 20 shooting rampage that killed 12 and injured 70 during a midnight premiere of the latest Batman movie. …

    Soon after the shooting, university police said they had not had any contact with Holmes, a graduate student doing neuroscience research. But a search warrant affidavit released Thursday revealed that an officer had told investigators that Fenton had contacted her to report “his danger to the public due to homicidal statements he had made.”

    In releasing the arrest and search warrant affidavits and other documents, District Judge Carlos Samour, the new judge overseeing the case, ruled that neither the prosecution nor defense had convinced him that making the files public would cause harm or that keeping them sealed would prevent harm.

    The prosecution had tried to keep these records sealed, and it’s not difficult to see why. (They can be viewed at KUSA’s website, where they were posted last night.) The narrative from political and law-enforcement leaders in Colorado has been that this could have been anyone with a gun who just flipped out, and a society without gun control cannot hope to stop it. But Holmes didn’t just flip out shortly before the murder, and police had ample warning of the danger he presented.

    Police have testified to having no contact with Holmes before the shooting. Why exactly was that? The complaint/warning from Fenton should have prompted police to make sure Holmes wasn’t a threat to Fenton, at the very least. Had they performed that standard follow-up — and remember, this was a mental health professional telling the police that her patient was both homicidal and threatening her specifically — the police might well have had Holmes in custody long before the shooting.

    Instead, this information has remained under seal while Colorado politicians insisted that it was the guns that created the unforeseen danger of mass murder. The new release destroys that narrative, and poses another question. If police in Colorado can’t be bothered to follow up on information from a psychiatrist that her patient has become homicidal, dangerous to the community, and has threatened her specifically, why bother passing gun laws at all?

    Update: Give CBS credit for covering this on their own:

    The question on everyone’s minds is “Why?”, as Manuel Bojorquez says at the end — but not just “why did Holmes commit this murder?” We also want to know why the police never bothered to even talk with Holmes after Fenton’s warning.

    http://hotair.com/archives/2013/04/05/psychiatrist-warned-campus-police-about-aurora-shooter-a-month-before-mass-murder/

  5. I Don’t Give a S**t’: Teachers’ Alleged Bullying of Conservative Student Launches School District Investigation
    Apr. 5, 2013 12:15pm Tiffany Gabbay

    I Dont Give a S**t: Teachers Alleged Bullying of Conservative Student Launches School District Investigation

    Benji Backer. Photo credit: FN

    A 15-year old student at Appleton North Highschool in Appleton, Wisconsin, is claiming that he was bullied by faculty members for being a conservative. Now, the school district has launched an investigation into Benji Backer’s accusations and are taking the claims “seriously.”

    Backer told Fox News that he has had to endure name-calling and harassment as well as watch other students be indoctrinated.

    According to Backer, the tensions began to mount when he was 12, during Governor Scott Walker’s battle with the unions and liberals’ unsuccessful re-call bid.

    Since then, Backer claims that teachers denigrated Walker and labeled Republicans as racist

    “They are harassing and bullying me as well as indoctrinating other students,” Backer told FN.

    In an essay first published by FreedomWorks, the student wrote:

    “My teachers have always talked about bullying, including bullying homosexuals and how wrong it is,” Backer wrote. “I agree 100 percent. They shouldn’t be bullied, nor should anyone else.”

    He then made the correlation that if members of the gay and lesbian community are entitled to equal treatment, so too are people with divergent political views.

    “If teachers expect bullying to end with homosexuals, they should want it to end with every type of bullying possible, including political views,” Backer, who served as the Wisconsin co-chair for Young Americans for Mitt Romney, wrote.

    Ben Vogel, an assistant superintendent for the Appleton school district, told FN they an investigation into the allegations of harassment has been launched and that they are taking it seriously.

    “I’m always going to be concerned when a student comes and shares that they feel they are being treated unfairly in a classroom,” Vogel said. “We want all students to feel like they are safe at their school and in the individual classes.”

    Vogel maintained that the district has a strict policy relating to politics in the classroom and that it will pursue those in breach accordingly.

    “We have school board policy regarding political activity in the classroom – when it’s appropriate and when it’s not appropriate,” he said. “We will follow up and make sure our teachers are doing what they need to be doing and if they’re not – then we will follow up accordingly.”

    Among the incidents Backer claims he endured, was when his English teacher used expletives while castigating students who may have been supportive of Walker.

    “He was swearing and saying how wrong it was for anyone to support Scott Walker,” Backer wrote in his essay. “Students were telling him to stop, and he wouldn’t.”

    While the thought of a teacher railing against a governor in a classroom setting is unsettling, Backer said the harassment grew worse and soon became personal.

    “He started to talk to me about how much harder he worked compared to my dad, a small business owner,” Backer said of his teacher. “He [the teacher] went on to ask how much my parents made because he wanted to compare it to his salary.”

    The incident catalyzed Backer’s parents to meet with the high school’s principal, prompting the teacher to apologize. Oddly, however, the teacher then allegedly backtracked and began cursing at Backer.

    “My teacher asked, ‘You know how you went down to the principal’s office?’” Backer recalled. “I said, yes, and he said, ‘I don’t give a s**t.’”

    Bruce Backer, Benji’s dad, told FN they were taken aback by the incident.

    “We were surprised that politics was being brought into the school during classes that had nothing to do with politics,” the elder Backer said. “We didn’t understand why there was a need to focus on Benjamin’s beliefs.”

    Vogel said they were aware of the incident with the English teacher and “are very specifically following up on all the accusations and concerns.”

    According to Backer, the bullying and harassment did not stop with his English teacher but trickled down into run-ins with a substitute teacher as well, who allegedly lamented the poor treatment of President Obama due to Republican-driven racism.

    Based on reports, Vogel seems to be on the Backer’s side and seemed to acknowledge that faculty members are using tactics of indoctrination during their classes.

    “Obviously we want students to be thinking and talking about current events,” he said. “But that needs to be done in a fair and balanced way. That’s not a means for a teacher to share specifically what their views are and try to indoctrinate students in a certain way.”

    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/04/05/i-dont-give-a-sht-teachers-alleged-bullying-of-conservative-student-launches-school-district-investigation/

  6. Guns and babies: A tale of two massacres
    April 4, 2013 | 9:00 pm

    David Freddoso
    Examiner Columnist
    The Washington Examiner

    You might not know it, but there’s a mass murder trial going on in Philadelphia. There has been plenty of courtroom drama, and the death penalty remains a possibility.

    The media are seldom shy about such sensational affairs, but they have been with one. Perhaps it’s because the accused mass murderer is an abortion doctor, who along with his medically untrained staff is accused of killing a female patient and several babies who had already been born, alive and breathing.

    Doctor Kermit Gosnell’s preferred method of killing these latter, according to witnesses, was to sever their spinal cords. Upon his arrest in January 2011, his urine-scented and blood-soaked clinic was deemed a “house of horrors.” (I will spare readers further details, which are far worse.)

    This trial’s gruesome revelations are emerging at almost the same time as new details about the loathsome and cowardly murderer who killed his own mother and then 26 others at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., late last year.
    Sign Up for the Opinion Digest newsletter!

    Some will find the comparison inappropriate, but from a political perspective, Gosnell’s trial is to abortion what Sandy Hook is to gun ownership.

    Both are emotional cases with horrific details that cry out for public policy debates. And in each case, the debate pits public safety against something widely considered a constitutional right.

    The two cases are different in that Sandy Hook received wall-to-wall coverage and thus facilitated a national conversation about mental health and gun control — a debate whose outcome is yet to be determined.

    Not so with the Gosnell trial, which has been completely blacked out by the media. The American people are now like a jury, shielded from relevant information because judges (read: editors) decided it might prejudice their views — in this case, against lightly regulated abortionists.

    Whatever one’s position on gun control, the appropriately heavy coverage of the Sandy Hook massacre at least served a public purpose by starting a discussion about mass shootings.

    At its most thoughtful, the debate considered what measures might have prevented the massacre and which could be squared with Americans’ constitutional rights.

    At its worst, the debate suffered from media cheerleading for panic gun control legislation — as in, “pass something, anything!” — including but not limited to such left-leaning figures as CNN’s Piers Morgan.

    In stark contrast, television coverage of Gosnell’s trial has been “hard to find,” as the Wall Street Journal’s Peggy Noonan put it very charitably last Sunday on “Meet the Press.”

    In fact, not counting Noonan’s allusion, Gosnell’s case has not been mentioned even once on any of the three major networks in the last month (his trial began March 18).

    It has received only seven mentions on cable television since it began, one on CNN and six on Fox News. In print, Gosnell’s case has been largely ignored outside of local media outlets in Pennsylvania and Delaware.

    It’s not as though there isn’t an obvious connection between the Gosnell case and public policy. Legislators in some states (including Pennsylvania and now Alabama) have acted since Gosnell’s arrest to crack down on the next abortion quack.

    The media have collectively and perhaps deliberately failed to draw the obvious connection between the two stories.

    The month after Gosnell’s arrest, Virginia’s legislature approved new health and safety rules for abortion clinics on a nearly straight party-line vote in 2011.

    Gov. Bob McDonnell, R, approved the new rules three months ago. Last week, amid Gosnell’s trial, abortion rights groups unashamedly announced they had submitted thousands of comments in opposition. The state Board of Health is expected to hand down a final decision next week.

    Many have asked what kind of law they could pass to prevent the next Newtown. Few are writing about how to prevent the next Kermit Gosnell.

    Given the frequent claim that abortion is safer for being legal, and the eagerness of the abortion rights lobby to distance itself from Gosnell, why such incredible and inflexible resistance to basic safety regulations?

    The gun lobby is often accused of resisting any new gun law as if it were the proverbial camel’s nose under the tent. The liberal editors who are keeping Kermit Gosnell’s case off the air should ask themselves whether they aren’t taking sides in the culture war.

    Or can public health, public safety and public debate be subordinated to the question of whose camel’s nose is going under whose tent?

    http://washingtonexaminer.com/guns-and-babies-a-tale-of-two-massacres/article/2526271?utm_source=Washington%20Examiner:%20Opinion%20Digest%20-%2004/05/2013&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Washington%20Examiner:%20Opinion%20Digest

    Seems all the talk of how we must have legal abortions to stop back alley abortions is a bunch of crap. People seem more than willing to allow “back alley abortions” as long as they hang a sign on the wall. People who are against abortion are accused of not caring about babies after they’re born. Seems abortion pushers don’t care about the baby or the woman before, during, or after.

    • Anita , Don’t know if it’s been a month yet, can’t remember :) But I’m taking myself out of time out.

      Did you know people are actually supporting Planned “to kill your children” Non-Parenthood’s comments on after birth abortion?

      • Seems the baby might still not be “viable”. they keep saying the mother should decide-now the mother at this point just went through an attempted abortion which probably included drugs of some sort-is she really the one who would be making this decision, not that she has that right?

      • I’ve decided to talk to myself :) Just think about it-they want to leave the decision to a drugged up mother and a doctor-who has every reason to prefer that the baby die. The mother may sue him for failing to do his job correctly. People will question whether or not the fetus was at the legal limit for abortion. So the doctor could be up against criminal charges and the clients too-and if the baby was within the legal limit-well then, maybe the legal limit is wrong and they’ve been killing “viable” babies for years. Yeah, lots of reasons that doctor shouldn’t be able to make the decision and the mother, I suspect by any legal standards doesn’t have the capacity to make it, nor quite frankly the right-she has shown a desire to kill the baby-I would think that would be a clear conflict of interests.

        Now lets look at the big picture-we are now having a conversation on when we should allow a baby to die outside the womb because of a set of circumstances we PURPOSELY CREATED. We are talking about when a doctor can be sued for failing to kill someone. Again our society is totally screwed up.

        • the clients too-I meant to type the clinic too.

        • Johns Hopkins’s and Planned Parenthood’s troubling extremism

          By George F. Will, Published: April 5

          We know Johns Hopkins University is devoted to diversity, because it says so. Its “Diversity and Inclusion Statement,” a classic of the genre, says the university is “committed to sharing values of diversity and inclusion . . . by recruiting and retaining a diverse group of students.” Hopkins has an Office of Institutional Equity and a “Diversity Leadership Council” that defines “inclusion” as “active, thoughtful and ongoing engagement with each other.” Unless you are a member of Voice for Life (VFL), an antiabortion group.

          Hopkins’s Student Government Association has denied VFL status as a recognized student group for two reasons: VFL’s Web site links to other organizations that display graphic images of aborted babies. And it plans to engage in peaceful, quiet “sidewalk counseling” outside a local abortion clinic, which the SGA considers “harassment.”

          Hopkins’s student conduct code enjoins students “to protect the university as a forum for the free expression of ideas.” And although Hopkins has a stern policy against sexual harassment, it says the purpose of this policy is not “to inhibit free speech or the free communication of ideas by members of the academic community.” Presumably that also applies to other forms of “harassment.”

          Suppose such SGA-recognized student groups as the Arab Students Organization, the Black Student Union, the Hopkins Feminists, or the Diverse Sexuality and Gender Alliance were to link their Web sites to provocative outside organizations or were to counsel persons not to patronize firms with policies those groups oppose. Would the SGA want to deny them recognition as student groups? Of course not. Obviously, the SGA has acted to express animus against the content of VFL’s speech and to protect students from the discomfort of disagreement.

          People who do not want to see the images to which VFL links need never see them. Nevertheless, an SGA member says pro-life demonstrations make her feel “personally violated, targeted and attacked at a place where we previously felt safe and free to live our lives.” If encountering ideas she does not share makes her feel this way, she is unsuited to a proper academic setting. She may, however, be suited to Hopkins, which should be embarrassed, if it still can be.

          Hopkins’s institutional intolerance would be boring were it simply redundant evidence of academia’s commitment to diversity in everything but thought. It is, however, indicative of the increasingly extreme ambitions and tactics of those operating under the anodyne rubric of “choice.” In Florida recently, a legislative debate that reverberated in the U.S. Senate in the 1990s was revived concerning the right to choose infanticide.

          In 1996, the Senate debated outlawing partial-birth abortion, whereby a baby is delivered feet first until only the top of the skull remains in the birth canal, then the skull is punctured and its contents emptied. Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) asked two pro-choice senators, Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) and Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), this: If the baby slips entirely out of the birth canal before it can be killed, should killing it still be a permissible choice? Neither senator would say no. In a 1999 debate, Santorum asked Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) whether she agreed that “once the child is born, is separated from the mother, that that child is protected by the Constitution and cannot be killed.” Boxer said: “I think that when you bring your baby home . . .”

          Sort of like driving a new car away from the dealership. But, then, what principle forbids killing a baby at home if its crying interrupts the parents’ enjoyment of Jay Leno’s monologue?

          Recently in Florida, Alisa LaPolt Snow, representing Florida Planned Parenthood organizations, testified against a bill that would require abortionists to provide medical care to babies who survive attempted abortions. Snow was asked: “If a baby is born on a table as a result of a botched abortion, what would Planned Parenthood want to have happen to that child that is struggling for life?” Snow replied: “We believe that any decision that’s made should be left up to the woman, her family and the physician.” She added, “That decision should be between the patient and the health care provider.” To this, a Florida legislator responded: “I think that at that point the patient would be the child struggling on a table. Wouldn’t you agree?”

          Planned Parenthood, which receives more than $500 million in government subsidies, is branching out, expanding its mission beyond the provision of abortions to the defense of consumers’ rights: If you pay for an abortion, you are owed a dead baby.

          http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/george-will-johns-hopkinss-and-planned-parenthoods-troubling-extremism/2013/04/05/419524d2-9d51-11e2-9a79-eb5280c81c63_story.html?wprss=rss_opinions

      • :) I was outside at the firepit til 2am last night..came in to see you were talking to yourself all day. No one responded to your article..which is a good thing..that insures that you won’t have to go right back in time out! :)

  7. gmanfortruth says:

    Lurking from afar :)

  8. Oy vey!!

    MSNBC’s Hayes: Let Released Gitmo Detainees Live in U.S., with Paid Restitution

    By Jeffrey Meyer | April 05, 2013 | 12:32

    MSNBC’s newest liberal darling Chris Hayes has just been given a promotion, going from weekend anchor to host of his own primetime show, All In w/ Chris Hayes. So how does he celebrate? By arguing that Guantanamo detainees should be paid restitution and allowed to live in the United States, with a path, ultimately to citizenship, of course.

    In an article posted on MSNBC.com, Hayes criticized Guantanamo Bay’s continued existence in a piece entitled, “Time for radical action on Guantanamo.” Hayes, who railed against Obama’s failure to keep his promise to close the prison in Cuba, argues that:

    The dozens of men who have been cleared by the United States government for release should be released immediately, should be paid restitution, and offered legal residence in the United States.

    Hayes began his diatribe by sympathizing with the 40 or so detainees engaging in a hunger strike at the prison, comparing them to the hundreds of New York City fast food workers who walked off the job on April 4. Hayes argued that:

    Of the 166 detainees left at Guantanamo over half of them have already been cleared for release, meaning that the government does not have a case against them and does not think they pose a threat to the United States. And yet they languish at the prison at Guantanamo.

    Unsurprisingly, primarily blamed Republicans in Congress for Guantanamo’s continued existence:

    And he did, to his credit, try to close the facility, only to be met with the most craven of political opposition from Republican—and then fellow Democratic members of Congress. But faced with that opposition, he and the Democrats—and frankly all of us as citizens—have fallen into accepting complacency.

    Hayes ignored the obvious fact that most countries from which the detainees originate do not want these men to return to their county, for obvious reasons. If numerous countries do not want to accept these inmates back into their home country, why would the United States? Hayes not only wants these detainees to receive restitution, but also offer legal residence in the United States, a policy that is far to the left of President Obama.

    The issue of what to do with detainees at Guantanamo who have been found not guilty is a sensitive and tricky issue, but Hayes’ reactionary response ignores the seriousness of the war on terror.

    Hayes decides to end his liberal plea the following way:

    If that sounds radical or outside the boundaries of political feasability, I would say that shoving tubes up the noses of men a few times a day to force them to stay alive in our prisons, even though we readily admit we have to no reason to continue to keep them, is pretty damn radical, too.

    Hayes’ extreme liberalism is what we can expect on a nightly basis from the new primetime MSNBC host. Unfortunately, such outrageous statements are not foreign to Hayes, who, you may recall, admitted that he’s “uncomfortable” with calling U.S. military servicemen and women who are killed in action, “heroes.”

    Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jeffrey-meyer/2013/04/05/msnbc-s-hayes-let-released-gitmo-detainees-live-us-paid-restitution#ixzz2PcJtthnK

    • “The dozens of men who have been cleared by the United States government for release should be released immediately, should be paid restitution, and offered legal residence in the United States.”

      I’m not a Chris Hayes fan, but he’s spot on with this. They should be given 1 million a week for every week they were incarcerated … anyone who is incarcerated falsely should be given 1 million a week (or a day) for such incarceration. Last week a guy was released after 41 years in prison … falsely accused. He should get restitution so big he can join the 1% and then own a few pols …

      I can’t wait to see how much Trayvon Martin’s family gets for their son being killed because of some asshole law made by assholes … that will be a beautiful thing when they ring the cash register on that murder.

      That is all …
      :)

      • Did you ever consider that your attitude in the TM case is exactly how innocent people get railroaded? Why don’t you wait for the trial before passing judgement? We have all seen how impartial trial by media can be.

        • T-Ray … the law is absurd, no matter what the outcome of the trial (and I’m not so sure Zimmerman will be found guilty, although I believe he probably is guilty). The law is what should be on trial. It is stupid. We already have a self-defense law and to suggest this is all about giving people accused of murder a way to avoid court costs is bullshit. It is a way to justify killing, end of story.

          Zimmerman does what the police told him and stays in his car and he doesn’t kill some kid coming home from the store with nothing but skittles and an ice tea on him. Zimmerman doesn’t feel empowered to bring his gun, maybe the chicken-shit stays in his car without the police warning. Zimmerman, if we believe his story, got his ass kicked by a kid 10-11 years younger than he was … and his life was “in danger.” Yeah, right …

        • T-Ray,

          Why don’t you wait for the trial before passing judgement?

          Do you apply this same standard to everyone?

          Like – I don’t know – maybe Gman?

          • :)

          • Did you, T-Ray, ever consider how many people are found guilty after a “trial” and were absolutely innocent? 60 Minutes just did a show about a black man (no racism, not in America) who was sent away at 16 for 41 years for a crime he didn’t commit.

            I’ll provide the G-man response: Yeah, right, Chuckles … listen to the lame stream media. Let them make up your mind for you! You’re a sheeple, chuckles … it’s all fixed … it’s all part of the great liberal conspiracy … remember #26? The commi’s want you to bring up racism at every opportunity so they can take over! Yeah, that’s the ticket …

            Oy vey …

            • Hey Charlie,
              When you start talking to yourself, you know you’re fully SUFA-ed!!

              • :) :)

              • Cute, Todd, real cute. Why don’t you just call me out by name. :) But as my mother used to tell me, when I’d ask her -Who are you talking too- “I’m talking to someone that is very smart and not a smart aleck”.

    • VH,

      Hayes ignored the obvious fact that most countries from which the detainees originate do not want these men to return to their county, for obvious reasons. If numerous countries do not want to accept these inmates back into their home country, why would the United States? Hayes not only wants these detainees to receive restitution, but also offer legal residence in the United States, a policy that is far to the left of President Obama.

      Maybe this should be a lesson to be a little more careful when scooping up people and declaring them “enemies” with little or no evidence.

      This is a problem we created, and we have to solve it.

      There’s an awful lot of (misplaced) bluster here at SUFA about “freedom” and “liberty” and how Obama is destroying that for YOU.

      But none of you seem to give a shit about “freedom” and “liberty” when it applies to other people. I find that quite disgusting.

      • You make a very valid point-this is a problem we have to solve. We can’t just keep these people in jail if they have been cleared of any wrong doing. But it is still an Oy vey moment. I simply don’t understand why, if they are innocent of any wrong doing, we can’t take them back to where we found them.

        • Because we locked them up in horrific conditions for many years and turned them into animals.

          The “Oy vey moment” is:

          How can you think we can just dumped them back in the dessert where we found them and say “Sorry, our bad…”?

          • Taking them back to where they were-isn’t dumping them in the dessert. Anymore than if another Country took me and returned me here. And I don’t think their home Countries consider them animals because they were locked up.

        • I’m fine with sending them back … so long as they are compensated for their LIBERTY!!!!! A MILLION A DAY SEEMS FAIR TO ME … MAYBE $1.4 Million an HOUR, LIKE THE HARD WORKING HEDGE FUND MANAGER FROM BOSTON WHO “EARNED” $1.4 MILLION AN HOUR IN 2010. i WONDER IF HE GOT A RAISE YET?

  9. Bye :) Hope everyone enjoys or is enjoying the beautiful day.

  10. Suze Orman, You’ve Insulted the Memory of My Lesbian Mom
    Robert Oscar Lopez

    On Piers Morgan, Suze Orman ambushed Ryan Anderson with a crowd-pleasing, smug flourish. After hearing Anderson’s explanation of his opposition to same-sex marriage, she said she felt “compassion” toward him because he was “uneducated” about the issue. She told him that he needed to study all the financial ramifications for same-sex couples: estate taxes, health benefits, property rights, etc.

    This may be shocking to people like Suze Orman, but gay love used to be wonderful
    because once upon a time, it was about love and not about money. If you were in a gay relationship, you knew it was because the other person loved you, not because the other person wanted federal benefits like military housing, a bridal registry at Nordstrom’s, or dental coverage.

    It remains the case that the vast majority of gay people (at least the ones I know) are kind-hearted, decent folk. These media Moseses do not speak for us.

    Orman is part of the “instant” gay political class, arm-in-arm with Rachel Maddow and Dan Savage. These power-hungry social climbers helicoptered into the gay community from above and forced the pro-marriage ideology on us. They live remote from recent gay struggles or even from the brutal reality of today’s community, which is largely poor, marginalized, uncoupled, and battling monsters like depression, suicide, addictions, eating disorders, and sexually transmitted diseases. Ostensibly, gay marriage equality will “trickle down” into some improvement in the lives of everyday gays — but let’s be real. Gay marriage equality will change common gay people’s lives as much as the election of Barack Obama changed everyday black people’s lives.

    If you are rich enough to leave ten million dollars to your gay lover when you die, and you have $185,000 to spend on a surrogate mother so you can purchase an heir, then by all means, the legal nuances of having marriage equality will mean a great deal. But I am having trouble seeing why we need to make the fight for marriage equality a priority for such privileged persons, especially when civil unions would be easier, would cover basic legal protections, and wouldn’t impinge as dangerously on the principles of motherhood and fatherhood for the purposes of family law.

    Since I have come forward with my story as a kid raised by lesbians in the 1970s and 1980s, I have been confronted by many people who call me “anti-gay” or “hate-filled” or “homophobic” because I see the importance of both fathers and mothers in children’s lives and underscore the need for LGBTs to develop their own model for relationships (like civil unions) rather than try to apply to themselves a model for “marriage” that was designed for people in a totally different reality.

    There are details here that matter: My mother was divorced, and she did the best for me in our circumstances. Having two moms and no dad was better for me than having one mom and no dad. But she tried her best to establish contact between me and my dad, because she knew that my father mattered in my life. It is an insult to her memory and my memory of living with her for lesbians today to take the importance of a father so lightly. The struggles my mother and I faced were nothing to be taken lightly; it is wrong for lesbians to pre-arrange families without a father, not to solve a circumstance outside of their control, but rather to satisfy their own insatiable demand to know what it’s like to be a parent.

    It is so hard to explain all that needs to be said in the debate about same-sex marriage and same-sex parenting, because everywhere we go, there are time limits and taboos, people screaming at us, and others who only want crisp sound-bites. When I testified in Minnesota before the state House and Senate committees, I was given two minutes before the former and eight minutes before the latter. The two-minute speech, which was understandably rushed and incomplete, is the one that got all over the internet. When I was interviewed by Minneapolis TV, stations ran edited coverage where my idea was whittled down to twelve seconds.

    Suze Orman insulted my mother’s memory by narrowing down all the complex history I have just described into a pitch for gay couples’ better financial standing. What was wonderful about gay love in my mother’s era was that it was love, not financial planning. The purity of her love showed in the way she never tried to eradicate my ties to my father, and in the way she stayed together with her female partner even though there was no money to be gained for either of them by being with each other.

    If same-sex marriage suddenly means that lesbians blow off the fathers of their children and reduce love to tax itemization, I say sign up for civil unions, and let’s please go back to being the loving community we once were.

    Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2013/04/suze_orman_youve_insulted_the_memory_of_my_lesbian_mom.html#ixzz2PhgL4xSV
    Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

  11. @ FL Moron: You can try and walk back bragging about starving your kids all you want, putz, but those were your words. And trust me, the people who have regular contact with me think I’m nuts for playing here … you brag about starving your kids and speak of intelligence. There’s nothing to try and insult, genius. Your words speak for themselves … do yourself a big favor should you ever find yourself in a court of law … don’t defend yourself. :)

    • Charlie, you are a sad little man, I have pity for you and hope you continue to post here as it is obvious you have no one in your life to talk to. Maybe you should get yourself a dog or cat for companionship to help with the loneliness when we are not here to respond to your ignorant ramblings.

      BTW, have you ever sought professional help? I hear they have medication that might be able to help.

      • FL … I’ll have you know I’m a great big man … and I come here mostly for a laugh, which you continue to provide (responding to my jabs) … other time I come to see what the Colonel, VH, Anita my love and Stephen (probably a few others I”m forgetting off hand) have to say because it is often interesting (even if I don’t agree with it) … I spend lots of time at my computer writing … either for school, my publisher and/or my dopey blog … these visits are usually breaks from my writing, although I sometimes get involved in discussions that aren’t totally insane (what I deem to be pointless arguments) … trust me, the day I worry about what a genius like yourself thinks, that’s the day I’ll seek help. On the other hand, I’m thinking maybe you need an exorcism … that “he has risen” bit last week was pretty friggin’ scary …. :)

  12. FLPatriot,
    Maybe I missed it, but I haven’t seen any response about Income Mobility:

    http://standupforamerica.wordpress.com/2013/03/29/happy-easter/#comment-156329

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Todd

      I held off to see if FLP had a response. Since there is none I will provide a comment or two.

      First, all the data you presented proved that Income Mobility DOES exist. It does not disprove that claim.

      Second, the data and conclusions of the various reports DO NOT address the “Premise” that was supposedly under investigation. They rely on movement of groups of people regardless of the efforts and actions taken by those seeking to improve themselves.

      I am curious why it is that the “left” and/or “progressive” seems so intent on trying to show that there is no such thing as income mobility or that there are “permanent economic classes” in this country. Why??

      • JAC,

        I held off to see if FLP had a response.

        Luckily you only “held off” and didn’t “hold your breath” waiting for his response…

        First, all the data you presented proved that Income Mobility DOES exist. It does not disprove that claim.

        Please provide your analysis to make your point…

        I’m guessing you mean people move around in their own little “puddle” all the time – from 19% to 21% and back. But the real question is “is there true income mobility in a continued upward trend?”

        Second, the data and conclusions of the various reports DO NOT address the “Premise” that was supposedly under investigation. They rely on movement of groups of people regardless of the efforts and actions taken by those seeking to improve themselves.

        I think I agree, but you may need to spell this out a little more detail.

        All kinds of things impact “income mobility” stats:
        * Low skilled workers entering the labor market push everyone up, even though nothing else has changed.
        * Every time one person moves up, someone else moves down.

        I am curious why it is that the “left” and/or “progressive” seems so intent on trying to show that there is no such thing as income mobility or that there are “permanent economic classes” in this country. Why??

        Because the “income mobility” in America is very limited, and it’s getting harder and harder to move up in the “economic classes” in America.

        I am curious why it is that the “right” and/or “conservatives” seems so intent on denying this?

        And remember, it was FLPatriot who thought “income mobility” stats were important. So if you want to discredit the whole idea of “income mobility” being a meaningful measure, talk to FLPatriot.

  13. A great quote:

    “I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it.” ― John Stuart Mill

    And a great comment about it:

    Conservatives are by nature fearful people who desire stultifying conformity while thinking themselves free.

    • Bottom Line says:

      Politically, I am an ultra conservative. Socially, I am ultra liberal.

      I talk to people of all walks of life, both conservative and liberal alike. It has been my experience that stupidity is equally distributed among political philosophy.

      I don’t mind stupid people. By itself, stupidity is not an issue with me. I can usually tolerate it fairly well.

      The issue is when stupid people rationalize justifications to violate others. And what makes it even worse is that stupid people can rarely be reasoned with. They simply refuse or are incapable of understanding another means of managing aside from violating others…acting in accordance with, or supporting, evil.

      Stupid and evil is a particularly bad combination as it almost always manifests into some sort of situation that forces a defensive posture against violence.

      On a personal level, the solution is simple; mind your own business until someone seeks to violate you. Try to reason with them as a means of giving them the opportunity to do the right thing. When/if reason and rationale in the interest of a win/win becomes exhausted or impossible as a viable solution, …kill them.

      When expanded to a national or global level, it becomes a bit more complex. Based upon the apparent genius observation of ‘Mathius’s First Law’, the solution always ends up as some form of genocide….either by a steadfast path to self destruction whereby the survivors are those who are naturally inclined by their own accord to get along peacefully as well as fight off those that seek to violate, …or by some sort of induced pre-emptive strategy.

      The former is an example of Order out of Chaos, while the latter is a more controlled method. The most efficient means available that I can think of is via super bio-weapon.

      Step 1 – Locate and inoculate all available innocent prepubescent persons and offer them some form of sanctuary.
      Step 2 – Locate and inoculate all available persons with a natural inclination to get along peacefully.
      Step 3 – Execute a pandemic.

      I once presented to someone the question; ” What was the Lord thinking when allowing Noah to build the ark? ”

      Her answer: …because someone had to save the animals.

    • Stephen K. Trynosky says:

      It all depends on your definition of conservative. Modern conservatism in the United States begins in the post war era probably with William F. Buckley Jr. as its primary spokesman. Under no circumstances would Buckley or his acolytes of whom I consider myself one fall under the banner “stupid”. While I was involved in politics I noted the stark difference between “Traditional” and “Libertarian” conservatives. While being a sucker for tradition is some limited forms, I tended to see myself more in the mold of a libertarian. Preserving things for the sake of having my summer house in Newport or my Yacht or my Private jet really has nothing to do with being conservative.

      Labels change over the years. Wilson was a Progressive, a racist progressive. The policies of our current president have more in common with the state/industrial fascism and the cult of the leader of the 1930’s than traditional Democratic Party politics I grew up in. Modern republican conservatives, while bemoning the excesses of the social safety net and welfare state we have entered do not try to eliminate them, merely rein in their excesses and suggest that perhaps we have not yet achieved nirvana, perhaps there is a better way.

      Mill’s comment was stupid and shows a man stuck in his time unable or unwilling to see that there is a future and evolution is a way that future is reached.

      “Stultifying conformity”, is more a trait of liberal academicians than anyone else except perhaps. blind hero worshiping reporters. What we have today in government leadership is there for anyone to see, anyone who is willing to take off the blinders and do the hard, painful thing, namely think.

      • Stephen,

        Under no circumstances would Buckley or his acolytes of whom I consider myself one fall under the banner “stupid”.

        Apparently, you didn’t read the quote real closely…which makes me think maybe it does apply…

        The policies of our current president have more in common with the state/industrial fascism and the cult of the leader of the 1930′s than traditional Democratic Party politics I grew up in.

        And now you’re just proving that you do fall for the “dog whistles” of the Right…which again, makes me think maybe it does apply…

        Modern republican conservatives, while bemoning the excesses of the social safety net and welfare state we have entered do not try to eliminate them, merely rein in their excesses and suggest that perhaps we have not yet achieved nirvana, perhaps there is a better way.

        Does this “better way” include tax cuts for the rich and entitlement cuts for the poor?

        Mill’s comment was stupid and shows a man stuck in his time unable or unwilling to see that there is a future and evolution is a way that future is reached.

        And you continue to make me think it does apply…

        Do you believe in EVOLUTION?

        blind hero worshiping

        Like the people who worship Reagan?

        anyone who is willing to take off the blinders and do the hard, painful thing, namely think.

        It sure would be nice if this occurred at SUFA…

      • “The policies of our current president have more in common with the state/industrial fascism and the cult of the leader of the 1930′s than traditional Democratic Party politics I grew up in.”

        Stephen, come on, man. This President is more Republican than Progressive. For christ sake, look at who’s been benefiting since he’s in office. The 1% … by leaps and bounds … you have to be kidding. He’s done next to nothing for the poor, including that sham health care system. That benefited insurance companies first and foremost. Unviersal health care would help the poor … but that isn’t going to happen for a while yet. It will, make no mistake. It has to … no matter how crinkled the right’s draws get over it. It’s inevitable. Calling Obama (or inferring) he’s a socialist is some pretty foolish name calling.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          charlie

          The FIRST Progressive President was a REPUBLICAN.

          I suggest you aim your insults at yourself. It is you who doesn’t seem to understand your own history. And YES, Obama is of the 1930’s version, in case you wondered my opinion.

          A died in the wool FASCIST PROGRESSIVE.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Todd

      Yes, it is very interesting. But notice the author admits they are not necessarily presenting “HISTORY” in a different way as much as using the place to create discussion of modern ideas.

      That is not a very “healthy” way to present history in my view.

      Now the use of theater to portray “accurately” the conflicts is good. But there remains danger of this becoming just as much an attempt to force one way of thinking as the author seems to be criticizing.

  14. Just A Citizen says:

    Rest in Peace Margaret.

    Your vision and determination should be an inspiration to all.

    • We want a society where people are free to make choices, to make mistakes, to be generous and compassionate. This is what we mean by a moral society; not a society where the state is responsible for everything, and no one is responsible for the state.

      RIP, Iron Lady

    • Have enjoyed listening to some of her speeches and reading her quotes today. Straight talk – why is this so hard for leaders to do today? These are the kinds of words/speeches that resonate with people.

  15. Here’s a good explanation of how most of you have been duped into voting against your own economic self-interest with “dog-whistle” screams of “freedom”…

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/08/opinion/krugman-insurance-and-freedom.html?ref=paulkrugman&_r=0

    • You know Todd, I was working on a detailed response to your income obility question but now I feel that time was wasted. If your going to link to Krugman as an intelligent thinker, then your off the deep end my friend.

      Here is why I can’t take Krugman serious: “It goes without saying that Republicans oppose any expansion of programs that help the less fortunate — along with tax cuts for the wealthy, such opposition is pretty much what defines modern conservatism.”, only a ignorant hack would say such a thing.

      In one sentance Krugman gets 3 things completely wrong.

      1. Republican action has little to nothing to do with modern conservatism.
      2. Conseratives do not favor tax cuts only for the rich, conservatives call for tax cuts for everyone… equally. Conservatives are the only political philosophy that treats all people equally.
      3. Welfare does not benefit the less fortunate, if it did we would not have poor people in America after trillions spent in welfare over the decades.

      I would expect charlie to link to Krugman, but I expected more from you Todd.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        BWahaha! FLP, why would you expect anything intelligent from any link coming from the left? The HuffPo hack’s think Chris Mathews is a genius for Pete’s sake :roll:

      • FL P expects a lot from me … the self righteous little worm expects me to have morals! How dare he? I’m a lefty … all we want is to steal their money! Krugman … pa-lease … I’m a Bernie Sanders man … I expect those who reap the most from the backs of the workers to pay up … next time they bring up how much they pay in taxes (the 1%) remind them how much they reap off the backs of others … or are they really “working” for all that gelt?

        He has risen … sweet jesus on a vespa …

        • gmanfortruth says:

          Chuckle’s says ” I expect those who reap the most from the backs of the workers to pay up … next time they bring up how much they pay in taxes (the 1%) remind them how much they reap off the backs of others … or are they really “working” for all that gelt?”

          That’s fine, let’s have the 1%, no, maybe the top 5%, pack all their stuff and leave? They can take their investment money, their companies can close and they can all just go away because they are just not appreciated here anymore. Great idea.

          • Let them go, G … they’re already gone (you putz). It’s a global economy. The only reason they’re still here is because the government and Army can protect them, but they can transfer their money (and do) with a single keystroke.

            They can’t take the land with them, can they? Something tells me we’ll be able to figure out how to survive, G. Something tells me the rightful owners of profit will benefit most once they are gone (although I’d make damn sure to seize their stolen loot before they went anywhere). Investments … who’s going to invest? Gee, I guess we’d all just fall apart without them … just like all those other socialist and communist economies … they’re all gone now, right? They don’t exist anymore, right? Iceland, your favorite “communist” country …

            And you’re the one who wants to be taken seriously? Only here at SUFA, brother … only here.

            • gmanfortruth says:

              Why is it that even when I agree with you, you can’t help but show your ignorance and revert to name calling? I was serious, they can all go away, I think we would all be better off. Get rid of the big banks, we don’t need them. Get rid of all the retail stores, we can order online if we need something. The great part about this idea, if they goe, the government will follow right behind them :)

      • FLPatriot,

        You know Todd, I was working on a detailed response to your income obility question but now I feel that time was wasted.

        I don’t buy it. You don’t have a detailed response. You just found an opportunity to pretend you have a detailed and then an excuse not to post it.

        Prove me wrong…

        If your going to link to Krugman as an intelligent thinker, then your off the deep end my friend.

        It seems you can’t accept (or debate) views that differ from yours. Instead of dismissing the source, take down his points one-by-one. If Krugman is such an un-intelligent thinker (as you claim), that should be easy…

        And who are the economists that you follow / believe?

        1. Republican action has little to nothing to do with modern conservatism.

        Like so many “conservatives” (whatever that means to you at the moment) here at SUFA, you nit-pick about syntax and simple definitions instead of debating the issue (talk to JAC about that one).

        2. Conseratives do not favor tax cuts only for the rich, conservatives call for tax cuts for everyone… equally. Conservatives are the only political philosophy that treats all people equally..

        OMG, this is so cute it makes me chuckle ;)

        You shouldn’t stray into economic issues – you’re not very good at them.

        Let’s look at some percentages and the REAL numbers behind them:

        If your income is $50,000 and you pay a 30% tax rate, that means your taxes are $15,000 a year. A 10% tax cut means a $1,500 reduction in taxes.
        If your income is $5,000,000 and you pay a 15% tax rate (see Mitt Romney), that means your taxes are $750,000 a year. A 10% tax cut means a $75,000 reduction in taxes.
        If your income is $5,000,000 and you pay a 30% tax rate (not true but everyone thinks it is), that means your taxes are $1,500,000 a year. A 10% tax cut means a $150,000 reduction in taxes.

        Is a $1,500 reduction in taxes equal to a $75,000 or $150,000 reduction?

        Do you understand that the tax savings the rich get is more than the average middle class income?

        This is the problem most people have with economics – and especially large numbers. They just can’t “wrap their head around” them. You can’t even fathom what it would be like to have an income like that, or the “burden” of paying that terrible amount of taxes…

        3. Welfare does not benefit the less fortunate, if it did we would not have poor people in America after trillions spent in welfare over the decades.

        Wow…not even sure how to respond to this…

        How about you do another one of those “detailed responses” and explain exactly how this adds up?

        Don’t forget to use real incomes and real spending, over real years and real people.

        I would expect charlie to link to Krugman, but I expected more from you Todd.

        Gee-whiz, you entire response just sorta-feels-like-veiled-personal-attack targeted to stop the discussion. I wonder why this is?

        You can insult me all you want – and all your little SUFA friends will high-five you. It’s happened many times here. But I’ve never gotten a valid rebuttal on economic issues. Going back 4 years – you can start here:

        http://standupforamerica.wordpress.com/2009/05/22/the-reality-of-taxing-the-rich/#comment-12889

        But maybe you’ll be the first one…

        • Advice to FL Patriot … next time “HE” has risen, ask him for the details Todd has been asking of you … :)

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Todd

          Oh boy, where to start.

          Todd, you are committing the exact same crime against reason you seem to be accusing the others of doing. First of all, percentages applied to taxes is NOT about Economics. It is a simple discussion of Math and Statistics. Which can be used by BOTH sides of the argument depending on what values you use to make a predetermined point.

          For example, a cut in taxes paid of 10% is a cut of 10%. So is a reduction in the tax RATE from 10% to 9%. Which of course will give you a much different answer in terms of total taxes paid in “dollars”.

          You want to use total dollars paid to make your argument but when the left was beating up the Bush tax cuts they were using the “percentage” reduction as applied to the “marginal rates”. Remember, it took two years to get an idea what the actual “total tax” reduction was for each income group.

          All of this misses the bigger point. You are arguing over how to calculate THEFT. So no matter what number you use you are still talking about THEFT.

          At the next level of values then lets address Individual impacts as opposed to Group Stereotyping or “averages”. You presume that 150,000 dollar in reduced taxes has a much GREATER value to the millionaire than a 1500 tax cut to a poor person. Yet you know nothing of the economic situation of each as “individuals”. This is a critical point missing in the debates. You don’t know, I don’t know and NOBODY can know.

          Which supports the notion that this is just a big argument to Rationalize STEALING under the cover of Govt Taxes.

          • JAC,
            I was responding to FLPatriot’s comment that “Conseratives do not favor tax cuts only for the rich, conservatives call for tax cuts for everyone… equally. Conservatives are the only political philosophy that treats all people equally..”

            When the percentage is the same (and it doesn’t matter how you calculate or define “percentage”), the result is always a bigger “dollar amount” change for the wealthy – both up and down.

            All of this misses the bigger point. You are arguing over how to calculate THEFT. So no matter what number you use you are still talking about THEFT.

            Ah yes, the good old fall back when you run out of valid arguments…

            At the next level of values then lets address Individual impacts as opposed to Group Stereotyping or “averages”. You presume that 150,000 dollar in reduced taxes has a much GREATER value to the millionaire than a 1500 tax cut to a poor person. Yet you know nothing of the economic situation of each as “individuals”. This is a critical point missing in the debates. You don’t know, I don’t know and NOBODY can know.

            I did not presume anything. I did not say the reduced taxes has a much GREATER value to the millionaire vs the poor person. I simply compared the change in taxes in dollars vs percentage.

            But this is an interesting point. You say NOBODY can know…the individual impacts…who values their tax cut more…because…I know nothing of the economic situation of each as “individuals”. And that’s correct – to a point.

            But when it comes to raising taxes on the wealthy, you make assumptions about all these things. How the increased taxes will reduce economic activity, result in job loses, etc. And yet you know nothing of the economic situation of each as “individuals”…

            Which supports the notion that this is just a big argument to Rationalize STEALING under the cover of Govt Taxes.

            And you still don’t have an alternate way to fund government…

            • “And you still don’t have an alternate way to fund government…”

              Federal sales tax. If we eliminate all other forms of taxation and only charged a federal sales tax it would fund the government and hurt the “evil rich” people the most, just the way you like it. The difference is that people would be able to earn as much as they want and at the same time decide how much taxes they pay.

        • But yet the left, including you Todd, will never say how many dollars are enough for one person to pay.

          Hypothetically:

          There is no government and your city needs a new fire house. Anita, the millionaire, kicks in 10k. Todd, the avg guy, kicks in 1k. Anita pays 9k more than Todd for the same building. But Todd yells that Anita didn’t pay enough, she should pay more. Anita says she paid 9 times what Todd paid, and wonders how many times more than Todd she should have to pay. Todd will never give a number.

          What if we were talking about government baked candy bars. Would you pay 1 dollar and make me pay 10 dollars for the same candy bar?

          • Just A Citizen says:

            Anita

            Yes, he would. Or at least he would create the argument for others to use for that purpose.

            Keeping your own money is an “expense” to the Govt. enablers. Remember that and you know all you need to know about the “others”.

            New PROPAGANDA line of the DNC was released early last week but I didn’t get a chance to point it out for everyone. Chris Mathews was ranting about the “GUN SAFETY” efforts by the Dems and how the “crazies” and “unreasonable” people were opposing “GUN SAFETY”.

            See there………..you are “unreasonable” and obviously “crazy” because who in their right mind would oppose “Common Sense Gun Safety”????

          • Anita,
            You make all kinds of assumptions about how I would act in this situation. But you don’t know, I don’t know and NOBODY can know. ;)

            Get rid of all deductions (or most – we could discuss keeping a few), treat all income equally, and use the existing tax-rates. Is that simple enough?

        • But Todd…I did respond to economic issues…..very detailed and posted at least 10 sources from the government…..you never responded back….so, I will be happy to discuss economic issues with you. I feel that I am well versed in same….so…

          where would you like to start? we can discuss anything you want without platitudes and name calling……call the shot….let us begin. You pick the subject.

          • Well Colonel,
            The topic is “Income Mobility”. Go for it. Maybe you can do FLPatriot’s work for him…

            • Great….where do you want to go with this topic. Does it exist? Is it good or bad? I think I will just discuss it….and whether there is a legitimate argument for or against it….fair?

              • Ok…I went back and read some of the contrast and it appears that the argument centered around the age old argument that the rich are getting more so and the poor are getting more so due to the lack of “income mobility”. In other words, the so called 1 percent control all the money and the so called masses have no opportunity because of this…..correct?

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Todd

      Krugman has to CHANGE the definition of Freedom from that of the Right in order to make his argument.

      Something he doesn’t like to admit in public very often.

      Voting to steal from others will not enhance freedom, liberty or justice. Perhaps those of us who vote “against” our own economic interest place a higher VALUE on our freedom than on having Govt provided health insurance.

      • “place a higher VALUE on our freedom than on having Govt provided health insurance.”

        Yep, so long as it comes at the expense of others, yous seem fine with it … :)

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Charlie

          How does me NOT having Govt provided insurance impair anyone’s ability to get health insurance?

          How does my NOT Stealing from others cause them an EXPENSE?

          Put up all the smiley faces you want. It doesn’t wash away or hide ignorance.

          • gmanfortruth says:

            Because Krugman said so :)

          • I was speaking of liberty, JAC … you must have missed that … or maybe you’re just ignorant :)

            The right seems to have no problem with liberty, especially when it comes to others losing theirs … the power and the glory (Money) … the old squeeze play … doesn’t make a difference how the money was “earned” … the right wants to keep it at the expense of the poor (to include the middle class, since effectively, there isn’t one anymore) … we’re the great 3rd world country in the world, JAC :)

  16. gmanfortruth says:

    After 936 miles round trip, I’m back in the country where I belong :) I had a nice visit with family and even had a nice long chat with a guy from the Netherlands I was able to ask lots of questions about their Social programs, taxes, healthcare, cost of living etc. I will share all of that in my next article.

    Hope today finds all of you happy and healthy :)

  17. These are fantastic!

    Margaret Thatcher Quotes

    “Hope is no basis for a defense policy.”

    “Well behaved women seldom make history.”

    “We should back the workers, not the shirkers”.

    “There can be no liberty unless there is economic liberty.”

    “You may have to fight a battle more than once to win it.”

    “If your only opportunity is to be equal then it is not opportunity.”

    “If you want to cut your own throat, don’t come to me for a bandage.”

    “Europe was created by history. America was created by philosophy.”

    “When you hold back the successful, you penalize those who need help.”

    “Pennies do not come from heaven. They have to be earned here on earth.”

    “There’s no such thing as entitlement, unless someone has first met an obligation.”

    “Being powerful is like being a lady. If you have to tell people you are, you aren’t.”

    “Let our children grow tall and some taller than others if they have it in them to do so.”

    “We were told our campaign wasn’t sufficiently slick. We regard that as a compliment.”

    “To cure the British disease with socialism was like trying to cure leukaemia with leeches.”

    “Many of our troubles are due to the fact that our people turn to politicians for everything.”

    “There is no such thing as society: there are individual men and women, and there are families.”

    “What great cause would have been fought and won under the banner ‘I stand for consensus’?”

    “If my critics saw me walking over the Thames they would say it was because I couldn’t swim.”

    “Marxists get up early to further their cause. We must get up even earlier to defend our freedom.”

    “Thinking realistically never got anyone anywhere; be true to your heart and aim for your dreams!”

    “The Labour Party believes in turning workers against owners; we believe in turning workers into owners.”

    “To wear your heart on your sleeve isn’t a very good plan; you should wear it inside, where it functions best.”

    “Standing in the middle of the road is very dangerous; you get knocked down by the traffic from both sides.”

    “Good Conservatives always pay their bills. And on time. Not like the Socialists who run up other people’s bills.”

    “If you just set out to be liked, you would be prepared to compromise on anything at any time, and you would achieve nothing.”

    “Democratic nations must try to find ways to starve the terrorist and the hijacker of the oxygen of publicity on which they depend.”

    “When all the objectives of government include the achievement of equality – other than equality before the law – that government poses a threat to liberty.”

    “Disciplining yourself to do what you know is right and importance, although difficult, is the highroad to pride, self-esteem, and personal satisfaction.”

    “People think that at the top there isn’t much room. They tend to think of it as an Everest. My message is that there is tons of room at the top.”

    “Object to merit and distinction, and you’re setting your face against quality, independence, originality, genius against all the richness and variety of life.”

    “Socialists have always spent much of their time seeking new titles for their beliefs, because the old versions so quickly become outdated and discredited.”

    “Let me give you my vision: A man’s right to work as he will, to spend what he earns, to own property, to have the state as servant and not as master. These are the British inheritance. They are the essence of a free country, and on that freedom all of our other freedoms depend.”

    “I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left.”

    “I do not know anyone who has got to the top without hard work. That is the recipe. It will not always get you to the top, but should get you pretty near.”

    “Look at a day when you are supremely satisfied at the end. It’s not a day when you lounge around doing nothing; it’s when you’ve had everything to do, and you’ve done it.”

    “In the Conservative Party we have no truck with outmoded Marxist doctrine about class warfare. For us it is not who you are, who your family is or where you come from that matters, but what you are and what you can do for your country that counts.”

    “Communist regimes were not some unfortunate aberration, some historical deviation from a socialist ideal. They were the ultimate expression, unconstrained by democratic and electoral pressures, of what socialism is all about. … In short, the state [is] everything and the individual nothing.”

    “I believe politicians must see that religious education has a proper place in the school curriculum. The Christian religion – which, of course, embodies many of the great spiritual and moral truths of Judaism – is a fundamental part of our national heritage.”

    “During my lifetime most of the problems the world has faced have come, in one fashion or other, from mainland Europe, and the solutions from outside it.”

    “It’s passionately interesting for me that the things that I learned in a small town, in a very modest home, are just the things that I believe have won the election.”

    “We want a society in which we are free to make choices, to make mistakes, to be generous and compassionate. That is what we mean by a moral society – not a society in which the State is responsible for everything, and no one is responsible for the State.”

    “… it is not the creation of wealth that is wrong, but love of money for its own sake. The spiritual dimension comes in deciding what one does with the wealth. How could we respond to the many calls for help, or invest for the future, or support the wonderful artists or craftsmen whose work also glorifies God, unless we had first worked hard and used our talents to create the necessary wealth?”

    “Freedom is not synonymous with an easy life. … There are many difficult things about freedom: It does not give you safety, it creates moral dilemmas for you; it requires self-discipline; it imposes great responsibilities; but such is the nature of Man and in such consists his glory and salvation.”

    “Popular capitalism is on the march … Of course, there will always be people who, in the name of morality, sneer at this and call it ‘materialism’. But isn’t it moral that people should want to improve the material standard of living of their families, by their own effort? Isn’t it moral that families should work for the means to look after their old folk? Isn’t it moral that people should save, so as to be responsible for themselves? … And it is for Government to work with that grain in human nature to strengthen the strand of responsibility and independence: it benefits the family; it benefits the children; it is the essence of freedom.”

    “…the unconditional supply of social benefits to those who were thought incapable of coping undermined the incentive to work and undercut the family unit. It promoted habits of idleness and delinquency. It permitted single-parenthood to become a financially sustainable, alternative way of life. By undermining the self-respect of so many of the most vulnerable members of society — the respectable poor struggling for decency against the odds — the dependency culture weakened society as a whole.”

    “We who are living in the west today are fortunate. Freedom has been bequeathed to us. We have not had to carve it out of nothing; we have not had to pay for it with our lives. But it would be a grave mistake to think that freedom requires nothing of us. Each of us has to earn freedom anew in order to possess it. We do so not just for our own sake, but for the sake of our children, so that they may build a better future that will sustain over the world the responsibilities and blessings of freedom.”

    “But the whole history of America is quite different from Europe. People went there to get away from the intolerance and constraints of life in Europe. They sought liberty and opportunity; and their strong sense of purpose has over two centuries, helped create a new unity and pride in being American.”

    “I was brought up by a Victorian Grandmother. We were taught to work jolly hard. We were taught to prove yourself; we were taught self reliance; we were taught to live within our income. You were taught that cleanliness is next to Godliness. You were taught self respect. You were taught always to give a hand to your neighbour. You were taught tremendous pride in your country. All of these things are Victorian values. They are also perennial values. You don’t hear so much about these things these days, but they were good values and they led to tremendous improvements in the standard of living.”

    “Socialism’s results have ranged between the merely shabby and the truly catastrophic – poverty, strife, oppression and, on the killing fields of communism, the deaths this century of perhaps 100 million people. Against that doctrine was set a contrary, conservative belief in a law-governed liberty. It was this view which triumphed with the crumbling of the Berlin Wall. Since then, the Left has sought rehabilitation by distancing itself from its past.”

    “I think we’ve been through a period where too many people have been given to understand that if they have a problem, it’s the government’s job to cope with it. ‘I have a problem, I’ll get a grant.’ ‘I’m homeless, the government must house me.’ They’re casting their problem on society. And you know, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first. It’s our duty to look after ourselves and then, also, to look after our neighbour. People have got the entitlements too much in mind, without the obligations. There’s no such thing as entitlement, unless someone has first met an obligation.”

    “In the United States, conservatives are concerned about the judicial imperialism of the courts and the sweeping social and economic changes they have imposed on the country. [They] are right to be so. The idea of courts as independent agencies of social and political change is inconsistent with democracy. The framework within which this controversy takes place is different in Britain. We see an even more far-reaching attack launched by the New Labour government and its left-wing allies on the foundations of our Constitution. One part of this program of rationalizing change, significantly, is the extension of that judicial review which is causing so much trouble here. Another is the attempt to replace our traditional first-past-the-post electoral system by those who would prefer to have horse-trading politicians choose governments, rather than leave that choice to voters.”

    “When others spoke of the fear of war, you spoke of the need for warriors and peace through strength. When others bewailed the failure of big government to provide for the collective good, you spoke of self-reliance, of personal responsibility, of individual pride and integrity. When others demanded compromise — when other demanded compromise, you, Ronald Reagan, preached conviction.”

    Compiled by Thomas George
    editor@BoycottLiberalism.com

  18. I don’t even know what to say.

    CA Proposes Law to Force Insurance to Cover Homosexual ‘Infertility’

    by Breitbart News 8 Apr 2013, 1:31 PM PDT 23 post a comment View Discussion
    The state of California is reportedly considering legislation that would force group insurance policies to provide infertility treatment for gay and lesbian couples.

    Two men who have sex with each other for a year and do not produce a baby would be considered “infertile” under the proposed legislation. So would two women having sex. Since biology does not allow those without a uterus to conceive or those without a penis to impregnate, every year-long gay couple in California would potentially be covered by this new provision of California law.

    The fact sheet supporting AB 460, the proposed legislation, states that insurance companies are denying coverage “based on [the policy holder’s] not having an opposite sex married partner in which to have one year of regular sexual relations without conception.” Which makes sense, due to biology.

    In California, however, biology takes a back seat to political manipulation. AB 460 would retain its current standard for infertility: either a “demonstrated condition” causing infertility or a year of sex without conception, including non-heterosexual vaginal intercourse.

    No wonder California taxpayers are going bankrupt. Even biology must take a back seat to political leftism now.

    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/04/08/CA-legislation-insurance-gay-infertility

    • Bah! With that reasoning its ‘plausible’ that we evolved from parrots too!

      GO ORANGE!

      • Don’t know what possessed me to type orange..I know better..

        GO CARDINALS

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Anita

          Wow, that in-state rivalry runs DEEEEEEP don’t it?

          I think I will pull for the Wolverines, cause they are so outgunned. Seems like the proper Social Democracy kind of thing to do…………….. Never mind. Can’t stand the taste of it. Guess I’ll just watch for fun since Wichita State is gone.

          I expect a BLOW OUT in favor of the Cardinals. If so I can watch my recording of last nights Viking episode and then Dallas. :wink:

          • Not only am I the only conservative around but I’m also the only Spartan around. It’s tough. Once Sparty fell, I did cheer for the Wolverines against Kansas and Florida. But now, with Ware’s injury..holy smokes that was gross…I have good reason to cheer for Louisville. Let them win it for him! Shoot JAC, WS did their job against Gonzaga and OSU. I was cheering for them vs OSU for sure. Who knows how it would have worked out if Ware didn’t get hurt? 9:30pm tip off…I’m going to be a crabby grandma tomorrow! ;)

            • Just A Citizen says:

              Anita

              I love basketball but I don’t like what the College game has become. I watched the Wichita State and Louisville game the other day with a guy about my age who was also a BBall Referee.

              The fouling by the guards and forwards on the ball handlers was awful and rarely called. Banging bodies into the dribbler, hacking arms and swiping across the body. The Refs did get Louisville for the outright brutal block outs underneath but then let the arm hacking continue there as well.

              I saw an interview with Bobby Knight yesterday. He was his usual warm and blunt self. His comment on college bball was that the NCAA has allowed it to become the minor league of the NBA. They need to return to COLLEGE Basketball.

              Enjoy the game tonight. I might watch REVOLUTION after my Dallas rerun.

              By the way, I was pulling for Sparty once my Bulldogs got beat. But the Zags come first.

  19. Just A Citizen says:

    First Margaret now Annette. A very sad day indeed.

    Rest in Peace my dear ladies.

    • Both these ladies added greatly to my life in different ways.

      May the Good Lord bless and keep them.

  20. Gosnell Worker: Baby Screamed During Live-Birth “Abortion”

    by Steven Ertelt | Philadelphia, PA | LifeNews.com | 4/8/13 3:55 PM

    Today’s testimony during the murder trial of abortion practitioner Kermit Gosnell was no less shocking than previous days. Today, a former employee described how she heard a baby scream during a live-birth abortion.

    Abortion clinic employee Sherry West described an incident which “really freaked (her) out” and related to the jury how she heard a child who was born alive following an abortion scream.

    West remembered how she referred to the dead children killed in these gruesome abortion procedures as “specimens” so she could avoid the mental trauma associated with know how they died. As local media reported:

    Sherry West, of Bear, said she was loyal to Gosnell – who is now facing multiple counts of murder for allegedly killing children after they were delivered alive at his clinic – but said the incident “really freaked me out.”

    When Assistant District Attorney Joanne Pescatore pressed the 53-year-old West for specifics about the incident, West struggled to answer, clearly uncomfortable with the memory.

    “I can’t describe it. It sounded like a little alien,” West testified, telling a judge and Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas jury that the body of the child was about 18 to 24 inches long and was one of the largest babies she had seen delivered during abortion procedures at Gosnell’s clinic.

    West said she saw the child, whose face and features were not yet completely formed, lying on a glass tray on a shelf and she told a co-worker to call Gosnell about it and fled the room.

    During her two years working for Gosnell, West said she also saw patients deliver “specimens” in the toilet, which she made a co-worker remove, adding she called aborted fetuses “specimens” because “it was easier to deal with mentally.”

    She also testified that she saw many women come in who looked like they were too far along in their pregnancies to have abortions.

    West started working for Gosnell in late 2008, after being his patient for more than 20 years. West said she had previously worked at the Veterans Administration, doing preparation work in the operating room, but left in 2007 after suffering a nervous breakdown and being diagnosed with Hepatitis C that she contracted in the hospital.

    West said she was desperate for money in 2008 because she was fighting with the VA over disability benefits and Gosnell agreed to hire her and pay her under the table. She said Gosnell, as her primary care doctor, was well aware that she had a nervous breakdown, was on the anti-anxiety drug Prozac and had Hepatitis C diagnosis.

    CLICK LIKE IF YOU’RE PRO-LIFE!

    Gosnell, whose squalid “house of horrors” abortion clinic and callous, has had almost flippant attitude toward his macabre abortion practices shocked the nation.

    “The Gosnell case is a watershed moment for the issue of abortion,” said Troy Newman, President of Operation Rescue and Pro-Life Nation. “The discovery of his horrific practices helped shed light on an abortion industry that has run amok without oversight or accountability for decades, and has prompted significant changes in abortion laws and attitudes toward enforcement in several states.”

    In all, Gosnell faces 43 criminal counts, including eight counts of murder in the death of one patient, Karnamaya Monger, and seven newborn infants. Additional charges include conspiracy, drug delivery resulting in death, infanticide, corruption of minors, evidence tampering, theft by deception, abuse of corpse, and corruption.

    Gosnell could face the death penalty if convicted and he faces a mandatory minimum 20 years. A pool of 125 was narrowed down to 43 potential jurors this afternoon and the death penalty played a role.

    The first day of jury selection began with a panel of about 125 people, but most were quickly excused for a variety of factors, including opposition to the death penalty in this potential capital case, personal hardship caused by serving in a trial expected to last 6 to 8 weeks, and having a fixed opinion on the case. At the end of the first day, three female jurors had been selected. The three jurors chosen Monday told Common Pleas Judge Jeffrey Minehart they supported abortion.

    Previously, Gosnell’s wife Pearl pleaded guilty to assisting her husband at his Philadelphia abortion center where he killed a woman in a botched abortion and kills hundreds of babies in abortion-infanticides.

    Pearl Gosnell was considering a plea deal similar to the one several of Gosnell’s former abortion center employees have made where they have pleaded guilty to receive a lesser sentence in exchange for testifying against Gosnell. Pearl also worked at the abortion center Gosnell ran that had him kill and injure women in failed abortions and kill perhaps hundreds of babies in grisly infanticides by birthing them and “snipping” their spinal cords.

    She worked at the Women’s Medical Society abortion business her husband ran as a full-time medical assistant from 1982 until she married Kermit Gosnell in 1990, when she switched to only working on Sundays. At that time, the abortion business was officially closed but would do its latest-term abortions possible.

    The grand jury report indicates Pearl Gosnell testified that she alone helped Kermit do abortions on Sundays when she would “help do the instruments” in the operating room despite no medical training.

    Previously, Judge Lerner ruled two other former employees, Eileen O’Neill and Madeline Joe, are not allowed to have their cases separated from that of Dr. Kermit Gosnell. Neither O’Neill nor Joe are charged with killing babies in infanticides and, although their attorneys argued the horrifying allegations against Gosnell could unfairly taint their cases, they were not allowed to plead guilty in deals as was the case with six other former employees.

    The murder charges also came in connection with the botched abortion death of 41-year-old Karnamaya Mongar, who died at Gosnell’s abortion clinic after a failed abortion. Mongar died November 20, 2009, after overdosing on anesthetics prescribed by the doctor. Mongar’s family filed a lawsuit against Gosnell’s abortion business seeking damages.

    Gosnell and several staffers at his abortion center, including Pearl, were arrested in January after a grand jury indicted them on multiple charges after officials raided his abortion business following a woman’s death and discovered a “shop of horrors” filled with bags of bodies and body parts of deceased unborn children and babies killed in infanticides. Pearl Gosnell, Kermit’s 49-year-old wife who has no medical license, faces a charge of providing an abortion at 24 or more weeks and conspiracy and other charges.

    Gosnell has been denied bail while the case against him moves forward. Women have spoken out about their treatment and one woman says she was drugged and tied up and forced to have an abortion.

    Authorities searching the facility last year found bags and bottles holding aborted babies scattered around the building, jars containing babies’ severed feet lining a shelf, as well as filthy, unsanitary furniture and equipment.

    The grand jury investigation also shows state officials did nothing when reports came in about problems at Gosnell’s abortion center, which has upset incoming pro-life Governor Tom Corbett.

    Gosnell’s abortion center was inspected only after a federal drug raid in 2010. It was the first time the facility had been inspected in 17 years because state officials ignored complaints and failed to visit Gosnell’s Women’s Medical Society for years.

    The abortion industry has been forced to suspend two abortion businesses that employed embattled abortion practitioner Kermit Gosnell, who has been the subject of national controversy over his abortion business in Philadelphia.

    Following revelations that Gosnell is associated with two other abortion centers in Louisiana and Delaware, the National Abortion Federation made the decision to suspend the memberships of both. Atlantic Women’s Medical Services, the Delaware abortion business that employed Gosnell one day a week to do abortions, and the Delta Clinic abortion center of Baton Rouge, have both had their memberships suspended. Leroy Brinkley owns both abortion businesses. Atlantic operates abortion centers in Wilmington and Dover.

    http://www.lifenews.com/2013/04/08/gosnell-worker-baby-screamed-during-live-birth-abortion/

  21. @ Todd……..First,…income mobility must be defined before any other aspects can be discussed. Can we agree that the definition of income mobility is defined as…….” the movement of an individual or group from one income level to another. “

    • @ Todd…..Also, I prefer to do my own research. I am going straight to the Treasury Department, the Census Department, and the IRS to research results. I will not use Fox News, Huffpo, CNN, Wiki or the like because all of their numbers reflect bias. I will also not use any research used by college professors, pro or con, as their numbers will also be skewed….so as to research properly the issue of income mobility and contrast it to the axiom that the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer….one has to rely on the data as collected by those departments and extrapolate exactly what the data shows and not hyperbole of opinion.

  22. Just A Citizen says:

    TODD

    My response in CAPS.

    JAC,
    I was responding to FLPatriot’s comment that “Conseratives do not favor tax cuts only for the rich, conservatives call for tax cuts for everyone… equally. Conservatives are the only political philosophy that treats all people equally..”

    When the percentage is the same (and it doesn’t matter how you calculate or define “percentage”), the result is always a bigger “dollar amount” change for the wealthy – both up and down.

    THE SAME PERCENTAGE MEANS THAT THE PERCENTAGES ARE EQUAL. SO YOUR WHOLE REBUTTAL HERE IS TO ATTACK THE MEANING OF “EQUAL”. YOU CHOOSE TO USE THE TOTAL DOLLAR AMOUNT OF TAX PAID. I CHOOSE TO USE “TAX RATE”. THUS THERE IS NO CORRECT ANSWER WITHOUT FIRST AGREEING TO THE “DEFINITION”. YOU SEEM TO POKE FUN AT ME FOR RAISING THE DEFINITION ISSUE BUT ONCE AGAIN COMMUNICATION IS LIMITED DUE TO THIS VERY FLAW.

    NOW WITH THAT SAID, I’LL ACCEPT YOUR USE OF TOTAL TAX AS THE MEASURE OF EQUALITY. SINCE I BELIEVE IN EQUALITY UNDER THE LAW WE SHOULD CUT THE TAXES FOR RICH FOLKS UNTIL IT EQUALS THAT OF POOR FOLKS.

    SO WHICH WOULD YOU RATHER HAVE? EQUAL PERCENTAGES OR EQUAL TAX PAID?

    All of this misses the bigger point. You are arguing over how to calculate THEFT. So no matter what number you use you are still talking about THEFT.

    Ah yes, the good old fall back when you run out of valid arguments…

    WELL THAT WAS CERTAINLY SHALLOW, AND FALSE. DEALING WITH THE CORE ISSUE INSTEAD OF THE SUPERFLUOUS IS NOT AVOIDING OR RUNNING AWAY. IT IS IN FACT THE PRIMARY “VALID ARGUMENT” AND NOT THE LACK OF ONE.

    At the next level of values then lets address Individual impacts as opposed to Group Stereotyping or “averages”. You presume that 150,000 dollar in reduced taxes has a much GREATER value to the millionaire than a 1500 tax cut to a poor person. Yet you know nothing of the economic situation of each as “individuals”. This is a critical point missing in the debates. You don’t know, I don’t know and NOBODY can know.

    I did not presume anything. I did not say the reduced taxes has a much GREATER value to the millionaire vs the poor person. I simply compared the change in taxes in dollars vs percentage.

    TRUE. YOU DID NOT STATE THAT ONE HAD GREATER VALUE TO THE PERSON IN YOUR EXAMPLE. THAT WAS ME CLAIMING YOU ARE MAKING SUCH A PRESUMPTION BECAUSE IT IS EMBEDDED IN YOUR STATEMENT. HOWEVER, I DID NOT STATE IT PROPERLY. YOU ARE NOT PRESUMING A VALUE TO THE PERSON BUT TO YOU. IT IS YOU THAT SEEMS TO PLACE HIGHER VALUE, THUS IMPORTANCE, ON THE TOTAL DOLLAR AMOUNT OF TAX SAVED VS THE PERCENTAGE OF INCOME.

    IF NOT THEN WHY USE THIS VALUE INSTEAD OF % INCOME??

    BY THE WAY, DO YOU REALLY THINK THAT “CONSERVATIVES” OR “REPUBLICANS” DON’T UNDERSTAND THAT AN EQUAL PERCENT APPLIED TO INCOME RESULTS IN DIFFERENT INCOMES??

    YOUR ATTACK ON THIS IS NOTHING BUT A DISAGREEMENT ON THE CRITERIA USED TO MEASURE “EQUAL” TREATMENT UNDER THE LAW.

    But this is an interesting point. You say NOBODY can know…the individual impacts…who values their tax cut more…because…I know nothing of the economic situation of each as “individuals”. And that’s correct – to a point.

    But when it comes to raising taxes on the wealthy, you make assumptions about all these things. How the increased taxes will reduce economic activity, result in job loses, etc. And yet you know nothing of the economic situation of each as “individuals”…

    ACTUALLY YOU ARE COMPARING APPLES AND ORANGES. IN THE FIRST WE ARE DISCUSSING THE IMPORTANCE OR VALUE OF A TAX CUT TO A PERSON WITHIN A CERTAIN INCOME GROUP. YOU THEN USE THIS TO PASS JUDGMENT ON “EQUALITY” OR ” FAIRNESS”. IN THE OTHER WE ARE DISCUSSING THE NET ECONOMIC REACTION TO TAX POLICY. IT IS ALSO BASED ON PRIOR STUDIES OF SUCH ACTION AND REACTIONS.

    SO THE SIMILAR QUESTION OR ASSUMPTION ABOUT BEHAVIOR WOULD COMPARE THE ACTION/REACTION OF DIFFERENT GROUPS TO TAX CUTS/INCREASES.

    YOUR CRITICISM WOULD APPLY IF THE ARGUMENT INCLUDED A JUDGMENT OF VALUE/IMPORTANCE TO THE UPPER INCOME OF SUCH A TAX CUT/INCREASE RELATIVE TO THEIR VIEW OF “FAIRNESS” OR “EQUITY”.

    Which supports the notion that this is just a big argument to Rationalize STEALING under the cover of Govt Taxes.

    And you still don’t have an alternate way to fund government…

    ACTUALLY I HAVE OFFERED SEVERAL. YOU APPARENTLY HAVE MISSED THEM OR SIMPLY IGNORE THEM SO YOU CAN KEEP CLAIMING NOBODY HAS ADDRESSED YOUR COMMENTS. ONE OF THOSE WAS A FLAT PER CAPITA TAX COMBINED WITH MANY USER FEES.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 135 other followers

%d bloggers like this: