A blog called BlackNews.com relates,

Mark Ciavarella Jr, a 61-year old former judge in Pennsylvania, has been sentenced to nearly 30 years in prison for literally selling young juveniles for cash. He was convicted of accepting money in exchange for incarcerating thousands of adults and children into a prison facility owned by a developer who was paying him under the table. The kickbacks amounted to more than $1 million.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has overturned some 4,000 convictions issued by him between 2003 and 2008, claiming he violated the constitutional rights of the juveniles – including the right to legal counsel and the right to intelligently enter a plea. Some of the juveniles he sentenced were as young as 10-years old.

Ciavarella was convicted of 12 counts, including racketeering, money laundering, mail fraud and tax evasion. He was also ordered to repay $1.2 million in restitution.

His “kids for cash” program has revealed that corruption is indeed within the prison system, mostly driven by the growth in private prisons seeking profits by any means necessary.

The UK’s Independent covers the story here.

Share/Bookmark

The article, “Twenty Reasons Why the PPP Results are Fraudulent,” concludes that “like a cheap prostitute, PPP has left its lipstick all over the bed.”

Among the twenty reasons, the article shows that “PPP differs violently from every other major polling organization,” including CBS, Quinnpac, and the highly-esteemed Pew Research. Yet PPP is the poll all the pundits and leftist politicians are referring to. Why? We know why.

Another of GOA’s twenty reasons caught my eye:

PPP and MAIG polling contradicts everything Senators have heard from their constituents.

According to PPP and MAIG, 94% of all North Dakotans support the Toomey-Schumer-Manchin provision.

Yet, calls jammed Heidi Heitkamp’s phone lines, and they were 7-to-1 in opposition to Toomey, according to Heitkamp.  And North Dakota doesn’t have that many people.  So that notion that the in-state callers were just a small subset of the population is pure fiction.

The same is true with most swing senators.  Turnout at [Kelley] Ayotte’s town halls, for example, is reportedly predominantly pro-gun, notwithstanding the impression you would get from the biased TV coverage.  And, when you exclude the anti-gunners bussed in from Connecticut with Bloomberg-funded pre-printed signs, the pro-gun turnout is even more dramatic.

On April 30, Chuck Todd pointed out, correctly, that PPP is starkly conflicting with senators’ own internal polling.

Just how bad is PPP off? It even went so far as to claim that between 70 and 90 percent of GOA’s own members supported universal background checks. Gun Owners shows just how big a howler this really is for them and the NRA as well:

NRA conducted a scientific poll and found that only 5% of their members supported universal background checks.

GOA conducted an informal poll in which 24,866 of its members actually voted.  GOA found that only 4% of its members supported “Obama’s universal background checks” — a figure almost identical to NRA’s. Note that, except for the addition of the word “Obama’s,” we used Bloomberg’s lexicon in describing the Toomey proposal.

Click here to read the full article of 20 reasons.

Share/Bookmark

 Two masked men wearing hoodies and wielding handguns burst into the Pine Eagle Charter School in this tiny rural community on Friday. Students were at home for an in-service day, so the gunmen headed into a meeting room full of teachers and opened fire.

Someone figured out in a few seconds that the bullets were not drawing blood because they were blanks and the exercise was a drill, designed to test Pine Eagle’s preparation for an assault by “active shooters” who were, in reality, members of the school staff. But those few seconds left everybody plenty scared.

The attack would have been almost 100% lethal:

Principal Cammie DeCastro said it became clear very quickly just how many of the school’s 15 teachers would have survived. The answer: “Not many,” she said.

Elementary teacher Morgan Gover, 31, said only two teachers would have lived to tell the tale.

Of course, if any of such teachers had been trained and concealed-carrying, the shooters would have met lethal resistance. The death toll would likely have been lower.

Of course with widespread knowledge that some teachers are in fact carrying, such shootings would likely decrease in frequency. Further, no insane scare-tactic/drill like this could ever take place either, not as long as the teachers were uninformed and yet some of them are prepared to shoot back.

Not without irony, such “active shooter” drills are going on all over the country—but not surprisingly, only in gun-free zones.

Allowing concealed-carry by trained and willing teachers only makes sense, especially in a free society. But what do you think the national “news” made of this? You got it: just the opposite. CBS Seattle makes this connection:

Last month, the Oregon Senate Judiciary Committee passed, on a 3-2 party-line vote, four bills that would expand background checks and add new restrictions on carrying firearms. The bills next move to the Senate floor. The proposed legislation would expand background checks to cover private gun sales and transfers, exempting exchanges between family members, including domestic partners. It would also prohibit licensed gun owners from openly carrying firearms in public buildings, allow school districts to ban firearms on school grounds, and require concealed-weapons permit applicants to take a course taught by a live instructor. A provision requiring applicants for concealed-weapons permits to pass a firing range test was dropped.

With such logic, it seems to me that liberals are not content with 13 out of 15 teachers are killed in a mock-shooting. This institution must be completely disarmed and vulnerable so that the criminal’s job will be completed. Such a policy does nothing for safety. It is pure idiocy.

I suspect the folk in little Pine Eagle recognize this. I doubt the legislators in Seattle (other end of he State), or the pundits at CBS, do.

Share/Bookmark

The South Carolina state House on Wednesday passed a so-called “nullification” bill that is declares President Barack Obama’s health care reform law to be “null and void,” and criminalizes it’s implementation.

The South Carolina Freedom of Health Care Protection Act was passed by a state House vote of 65 to 39. The bill intends to “prohibit certain individuals from enforcing or attempting to enforce such unconstitutional laws; and to establish criminal penalties and civil liability for violating this article.”

The measure would allow the state Attorney General “to restrain by temporary restraining order, temporary injunction, or permanent injunction” any person who is believed to be causing harm with the implementation of the the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

Any South Carolina taxpayer who is forced to pay a penalty due to the federal health care mandate would be able to deduct the full amount of the penalty from their state taxes.

Additionally, the measure would outlaw state and local government from creating or using non-profit health care exchanges a outlined by the health care reform law.

Share/Bookmark

In this latest installment, abortionists counsel an undercover late-term client in regard to an injection of “digoxin” which is to stop the heartbeat of the baby. This ensures among other things that a live birth cannot “accidentally” occur. Thus the abortionist assures her client, “We induce a demise.”

When asked immediately to clarify the meaning of the word “demise,” the abortionist responded, “death.”

In other words, “We induce death.”

[wp_ad_Camp_4]

In a second room, another abortionist brought up the subject of the injection, which prompted further questions from the client regarding the possibility of a live birth. LifeSiteNews.com records the exchange:

When asked by Live Action’s undercover investigator what would happen if the baby were to survive the abortion, Linda, an abortion center counselor at the Family Planning Associates Medical Group, admits they would not help the baby survive:

Linda: Sometimes they are [alive], yeah. But it doesn’t–it doesn’t necessarily mean that it will come out whole. ‘Cause they use suction, plus they use instruments so sometimes the fetuses don’t come out–you know, it’s not complete…

Investigator: But if it does come out whole…I mean, are–will they resuscitate it? Like, will I have to take care of it?

Linda: Uh-uh… No… They do not resuscitate.

Share/Bookmark

Campus Reform reports,

Duke University plans to raise its student fees in order pay for students’ sex reassignment surgery. . . .

Administrators say they will cover the cost of the reassignment surgery up to $50,000 that will be covered with a 0.3 percent increase to overall student fees. . . .

The official plan is in-line with a Student Government Resolution passed last March that called upon the school to cover sex change operations. The school previously covered mental health care, hormone therapy and breast augmentation and reduction surgery to students who wished to change their gender.

There are 37 universities in America that cover sex change operations, according to TransgenderLaw.org. Emory University is the only other college in the Southeast, besides Duke, to offer sexual reassignment surgery to students.

According to Campus Reform, Yale University has also recently decided to provide the same coverage, though they announced no increase in students fees directly.

Share/Bookmark

Here’s a summary from Dan Calabrese:

Apparently the first draft of the form they wanted people to fill out was so long and complicated that even ObamaCare’s biggest supporters were afraid no one could get through it. So now they’re unveiling a “simplified” form that oddly doesn’t sound all that simple:

Although the new forms may be shorter, it’s unclear whether the administration can get rid of all the complexity. That’s because applicants will have to provide detailed snapshots of their incomes to see whether they qualify for government assistance. Individuals will have to gather tax returns, pay stubs and other financial records before filling out the application.

They can’t ask you any health questions, because the insurers who are supposed to pay for all your health care aren’t allowed to know anything about that. But instead, you’ll have the privilege of telling the government your entire financial life’s story so they can decide if you’re worthy of inclusion in the program.

Share/Bookmark

Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) and several other House Democrats have pushed a formal resolution (H. Con. Res. 36) claiming that women are disproportionately hurt by climate change and are forced to go into prostitution in order to survive.

Indeed it’s true. The resolution states that global warming can lead said women into “vulnerable to situations such as sex work, transactional sex, and [GASP!] early marriage.”

Since when has “early marriage” been considered on moral par with prostitution. Oh yeah. I forgot. We’re talking about feminists here. Yes, I recall The Feminine Mystique perfectly; and it was published in 1963 (after decades of activism from its author). It compared the life of a homemaker to a woman imprisoned in Auschwitz. So nothing new here.

Mr. Conservative had some choice considerations for these liberals and their ultra-concern for women:

When People Magazine asked First Lady Michelle Obama who she would be if she could be anyone else, she said: “I’d be Beyoncé.” So Michelle says she wants to be like sex symbol and Super Bowl Exotic Dancer, Beyoncé. What kind of message is she sending to young girls? Maybe Democrats should refocus on the cultural problems in our society and try valuing women for more than their sexual worth.

Share/Bookmark

Metaxas writes for BreakPointDaily:

Taranto finds himself part of what he calls “the mushy middle.” On the one hand, he sees a time and a place for legalized abortions. On the other hand, he finds the arguments in Roe v. Wade completely unconvincing. “A funny thing happens,” he writes, “when you dissent from Roe v. Wade: You come to see that there’s not much else by way of intellectual content to the case for abortion on demand.”

While his “moral intuition is that an early-term abortion, or the use of abortifacient to prevent implantation, is different from a late-term abortion or infanticide,” he acknowledges that this intuition “is irreconcilable with the scientific fact that the difference between zygote and an infant—or, for that matter, an adult—is one of degree: All are human beings at different stages of development.”

And though he doesn’t want to draw the line between abortion and homicide at conception—resulting in no line at all—he understands that as a result he is on the slippery slope toward infanticide, the crime with which Gosnell is charged.

“The abortion lobby,” writes Taranto, “opposes restrictions on late-term abortions. But surely at least they agree that infanticide—the killing of a child after birth—is murder. Or do they?”

Metaxas himself sees the situation quite clearly: “The link between the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision and the monstrous case of Kermit Gosnell is clear: if a woman’s “choice” trumps the rights of her unborn child, then why should anything change immediately following birth?”

Share/Bookmark

USA Today reports,

GOP Rep. Paul Ryan reportedly has changed his views and now says he believes gay couples should be able to adopt children.

Asked at a town-hall-style meeting Monday in Wisconsin about the issue, Ryan said he would “vote differently these days” and still opposes gay marriage. In 1999, the congressman voted in favor of banning same-sex couples in the District of Columbia from adopting.

“I do believe that if there are children who are orphans who do not have a loving person or couple … I think if a person wants to love and raise a child, they ought to be able to do that. Period. I would vote that way,” Ryan says, according to video posted on the liberal Think Progress website.

It’s clear that he still does oppose homosexual marriage, but one wonders how that position will long hold against the logical implications of the reasoning this one. If homosexuals can be described as a “loving couple,” how long will any definition of marriage withstand that? Once the definition of “love” is so perverted, the whole law of God Himself is so perverted.

And since when do social conservatives accept the argument, “if a person wants to . . . they ought to be able to. Period.”? Has the 1960s “if it feels good, do it” ethic invaded the GOP? Apparently.

And notice how uncompromisingly this is stated: “Period.” No argument, no discussion. Homosexuals have spoken. Ryan has rubber-stamped it.

With such swiss-cheese as an argument, it won’t be long before the GOP establishment leadership is openly endorsing homosexual marriage. After all, as teh article states, Ryan was only catching up to Romney, who already held this view. Welcome to the wonderful world of compromise. This is what it gets you. Period.

Let’s hope such leadership can be replaced before they lead us all astray.

Share/Bookmark