The Weekend Wrap: The Tiller Assassination
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Print
Email
PDF The Dish was all over yesterday's big story - the assassination of George Tiller by a crazed Christianist. We traced O'Reilly's troubling rhetoric here, here, and here, and readers checked my reaction here. We chronicled the disturbing role of Operation Rescue here, here, and here, and commentary from the far right here, here, here. A noteworthy voice on the far-right was Robert P. George, who struck the perfect chord. We also aired personal accounts of abortion here and here.
A traumatic Sunday, to say the least. For the right approach to religion, listen to Bob Wright.
The Weekend Wrap: The Tiller Assassination
[Source: Good Times Society - by The American Illuminati]
The Weekend Wrap: The Tiller Assassination
[Source: International News]
The Weekend Wrap: The Tiller Assassination
[Source: News Reporter]
The Weekend Wrap: The Tiller Assassination
[Source: October News]
The Weekend Wrap: The Tiller Assassination
[Source: Mma News]
The Weekend Wrap: The Tiller Assassination
[Source: Nascar News]
The Weekend Wrap: The Tiller Assassination
The Weekend Wrap: The Tiller Assassination
posted by tgazw @ 11:57 PM,
,
Randall Terry presser: ??Tiller reaped what he sowed?"
PrintEmailPDF by Pam Spaulding
Jesus H. Christ, I think I’m going to be sick. Look at what Randall Terry said at today’s press conference. (Right Wing Watch):
Terry: The point that must be emphasized over, and over, and over again: pro-life leaders and the pro-life movement are not responsible for George Tiller’s death. George Tiller was a mass-murder and, horrifically, he reaped what he sowed.
Q: So who is responsible ...
Terry: The man who shot him is responsible ...
Q: ... because that makes it sound like you were saying that he [Tiller] is responsible.
Terry: The man who shot him is responsible.
Q: What did you mean by “he reaped what he sowed”?
Terry: He was a mass-murder. He sowed death. And then he reaped death in a horrifying way.
And Kyle at RWW said the presser ended with this outlandish statement:
The event came to an utterly bizarre ending when Terry said that Tiller’s murder “can be a teaching moment for what child-killing is really all about” ... and then seemed to ask those in attendance if they’d be willing to buy him lunch - he likes Guinness and chicken wings.
People, this is frightening. The eliminationists and womb-controlling domestic terrorism advocates believe a doctor who ran a medical practice performing legal services got what he deserved. This is sick - between this guy and O’Reilly, the Tiller family is suffering all over again. This won’t be the end of this kind of violence, I’m afraid. This man is fanning the flames of the crazies—we have to fear domestic terrorism more than anything coming from abroad.
Randall Terry presser: ??Tiller reaped what he sowed?"
[Source: Good Times Society - by The American Illuminati]
Randall Terry presser: ??Tiller reaped what he sowed?"
[Source: Newspaper]
Randall Terry presser: ??Tiller reaped what he sowed?"
[Source: News Weekly]
Randall Terry presser: ??Tiller reaped what he sowed?"
[Source: News Argus]
Randall Terry presser: ??Tiller reaped what he sowed?"
[Source: Home News]
Randall Terry presser: ??Tiller reaped what he sowed?"
[Source: Home News]
Randall Terry presser: ??Tiller reaped what he sowed?"
Randall Terry presser: ??Tiller reaped what he sowed?"
Randall Terry presser: ??Tiller reaped what he sowed?"
posted by tgazw @ 11:53 PM,
,
Norb Vonnegut: What Would Grove Do?
Today, Acrimoney is pleased to introduce Grove O'Rourke from Sachs, Kidder, and Carnegie.
Grove manages about $2 billion in total assets for wealthy families. He's seen it all inside his investment bank. He'll be joining Acrimoney for a new guest series: What Would Grove Do? As a regular on our blog, Grove will discuss market events, trading lingo, and how to work with financial advisers.
On June 10, 2009, The New York Times reported that authorities are indicting seven executives for selling tax shelters. Acrimoney believes, however, the article contains broader implications for understanding investments. Even if you've never seen a tax shelter.
Acrimoney: Thanks for visiting, Grove.
Grove: Glad to join your team.
Acrimoney: Nobody's ever heard of Sachs, Kidder and Carnegie. Before we review the NYT article, can you tell us more about your firm?
Grove: You'll hear plenty this September.
Acrimoney: Oh?
Grove: That's when the novel, Top Producer, goes on sale.
Acrimoney: Hey, wait a minute. You're a work of fiction?
Grove: I prefer to think of myself as an amalgamation of the good guys in finance--advisers who put their clients' interests first.
Acrimoney: Then, you can give us an insider's view?
Grove: With no fear of Wall Street retribution. What's somebody going to do, delete me?
Acrimoney: Okay then. We know tax shelters were all the rage from 1994 to 2004. What did you tell your clients?
Grove: Shelters are more toxic than Chernobyl. You remember the 1986 nuclear disaster in the Ukraine?
Acrimoney: Do we ever...
Grove: According to the NYT, the tax shelters charged fees equal to a "percentage of the tax savings."
Acrimoney: What's the problem?
Grove: It violates Rule Number One--never bet against the IRS. The returns from tax shelters all come at the expense of Uncle Sam. It's like picking a fight with the umpire.
Acrimoney: You said these investments were more toxic than Chernobyl. What tipped you off?
Grove: Fees.
Acrimoney: Too high?
Grove: So high, in fact, they triggered Rule Number Two--investment fees over 2 percent are a red flag.
Acrimoney: Two percent fees are too high for any investment?
Grove: Every rule has an exception. But I'm a careful guy when it comes to my clients. And the truth is, I start scrutinizing fees well before they hit 2 percent.
Acrimoney: How much were the tax shelter fees?
Grove: 4.5 percent.
Acrimoney: You're kidding.
Grove: It gets worse. On COBRA, one of the shelters named in the NYT article, investors paid nonrefundable fees of $1.06 million and signed nondisclosure agreements before they could view documents.
Acrimoney: Hang on. They paid $1.06 million up front? Before they could "examine the merchandise?"
Grove: Danger Will Robinson. Or, "Buyer beware," for those who didn't watch much television in the 1970s.
Acrimoney: Wait a minute. Are you making up these details?
Grove: You can't make this stuff up--
Acrimoney: Hey, that's our line.
Grove: If you don't believe me, click here to see my source: Bitten by a COBRA?
Acrimoney: You have two rules. Are there any others?
Grove: Rule Number Three--watch out for Wall Street's kitschy acronyms. They sound smart. But they're usually shorthand for manufactured products with big fees and questionable value. The tax shelters in the NYT article, for example, included COBRA and SOS.
Acrimoney: COBRA is an acronym for a tax shelter?
Grove: Most people think of health insurance when they hear COBRA. According to the US Government, COBRA stands for Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985. That's a mouthful.
Acrimoney: But there's a different COBRA?
Grove: One tax shelter used COBRA as the acronym for Currency Options Bring Reward Alternatives.
Acrimoney: That's ridiculous.
Grove: SOS stands for "Short Options Strategy." But I prefer "Sack of..." Just kidding.
Acrimoney: Hey, can you Save Our Shekels?
Grove: You bet. Next week, let's talk about how to communicate with financial advisers.
Acrimoney: That's it for today. Grove, thanks for joining us on Acrimoney.
Grove: Wouldn't miss it for the world. I look forward to guest blogging.
More on Financial Crisis
Norb Vonnegut: What Would Grove Do?
[Source: Good Times Society]
Norb Vonnegut: What Would Grove Do?
[Source: Boston News]
Norb Vonnegut: What Would Grove Do?
Norb Vonnegut: What Would Grove Do?
posted by tgazw @ 10:53 PM,
,
60 Turned Away Because Of HIV
PrintEmailPDF An AIDS conference scheduled for this week in Washington, DC, will not have 60 participants - Canadians who could not enter the US because they have HIV and didn't realize that they still had to jump through several hoops to get a temporary waiver:
As many as 60 Canadians had been turned away from the U.S. border in spite of "stated U.S. policy that foreigners living with HIV would no longer be barred from entering the country." However, even though Congress acted to repeal the law that keeps HIV+ visitors out, relevant U.S. Department of Health & Human Services regulations have not been revised, and HIV+ visitors are still not allowed to enter the country... "The 60 Canadians had planned to attend the North American Housing and HIV/AIDS Research Summit in Washington, D.C. from June 2 to June 5."
The situation echoes a recent incident in which a Cuban unsuccessfully sought to remain in the U.S. under a 1966 American law that provides for permanent U.S. residency for those who emigrate to American shores from Cuba. But in the case of Raul Hernandez, the long-standing law was superceded by the ban on HIV+ foreigners, even though Hernandez had been living in Arlington, Virginia, reported The Southern Voice in a May 20 article.
The Obama administration seems unable or unwilling to expedite this. People with HIV outside America need to know that there has been no change and the discrimination against the HIV-positive continues despite the law change and despite the change in administration. Travelers beware. They can and will detain you or turn you back.
60 Turned Away Because Of HIV
[Source: Good Times Society - by The American Illuminati]
60 Turned Away Because Of HIV
[Source: Spanish News]
60 Turned Away Because Of HIV
[Source: Nascar News]
60 Turned Away Because Of HIV
60 Turned Away Because Of HIV
posted by tgazw @ 10:14 PM,
,
Octo-Mom Inks TV and Book Deals
PrintEmailPDF 
Move over, Jon and Kate. Showing that eight is definitely not enough when it come to reality television, Nadya "Octo-Mom" Suleman has finalized a deal to star in her own series about her and her 14 children.
Suleman, who gave birth to six boys and two girls in January, signed a deal with British production company Eyeworks to produce a "quasi-reality" show, attorney Jeff Czech tells People. Suleman's show will document select ...
Other Links From TVGuide.com
Octo-Mom Inks TV and Book Deals
[Source: Good Times Society - by The American Illuminati]
Octo-Mom Inks TV and Book Deals
[Source: Television News]
Octo-Mom Inks TV and Book Deals
[Source: News Herald]
Octo-Mom Inks TV and Book Deals
[Source: La News]
Octo-Mom Inks TV and Book Deals
[Source: Onion News]
Octo-Mom Inks TV and Book Deals
posted by tgazw @ 9:46 PM,
,
WHY ARE WE BAILING OUT GENERAL MOTORS?
PrintEmailPDF As president of General Motors when Eisenhower tapped him to become Secretary of Defense in 1953, ?SEngine Charlie? Wilson voiced at his Senate confirmation hearing what was then the conventional view. When asked whether he could make a decision in the interest of the U.S. that was adverse to the interest of GM, he said he could.
Then he reassured them that such a conflict would never arise. ?SI cannot conceive of one because for years I thought what was good for our country was good for General Motors, and vice versa. Our company is too big. It goes with the welfare of the country.?
Wilson was only slightly exaggerating. At the time, the fate of GM was inextricably linked to that of the nation. In 1953, GM was the world?"s biggest manufacturer, the symbol of U.S. economic might. It generated 3 percent of U.S. gross national product. GM?"s expansion in the 1950s was credited with stalling a business slump. It was also America?"s largest employer, with over 460,000 employees. Its blue-collar workers received (in today's dollars) $60 an hour that year in wages and benefits.
Today, Wal-Mart is America?"s largest employer, the majority of whose employees receive just over $10 an hour. And General Motors is filing for bankruptcy. Wilson?"s reassuring words in 1953 now have an ironic twist. There will be little difference between what is good for America and for GM because it is soon to be owned by U.S. taxpayers who have forked out more than $60 billion to buy it.
But why would U.S. taxpayers want to own today?"s GM?
The answer, after the jump.
--Robert Reich
WHY ARE WE BAILING OUT GENERAL MOTORS?
[Source: Good Times Society - by The American Illuminati]
WHY ARE WE BAILING OUT GENERAL MOTORS?
[Source: Boston News]
WHY ARE WE BAILING OUT GENERAL MOTORS?
[Source: News Argus]
WHY ARE WE BAILING OUT GENERAL MOTORS?
[Source: Chocolate News]
WHY ARE WE BAILING OUT GENERAL MOTORS?
[Source: La News]
WHY ARE WE BAILING OUT GENERAL MOTORS?
WHY ARE WE BAILING OUT GENERAL MOTORS?
posted by tgazw @ 8:59 PM,
,
Multimedia
Top Stories
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links