Sunday, April 14, 2013

"They don't get anything..." That is the most honest statement Senator Rubio made.




The bill is designed to be obstructionist. He is terrible.

To begin if a Republican Senator cannot move past the racism of the Right Wing then it is a sad day indeed. 

The ten year period is ridiculous. To begin, it will cost significant monies to secure the southern USA border by 100%. It is not possible, but, Senator Rubio insists it has to be done. Go ahead, stop the boat lifts, stop the drug cartels, do it all in ten years or less. It is nearly an impossible task while still insisting gun legislation and assault weapon bans are unnecessary. It will never happen.

The ten year window can be cut down to five by removing Homeland Security from the picture entirely. Homeland Security will become pressured to secure the border with "The Sequestration" on going and the nation's security will be compromised. It is not possible for Homeland Security to take this on any more than it has already.

The Border Security Commission needs to be the only focus to this task and it needs funding to achieve that goal. The Border Security Commission needs to be placed WITHIN the Homeland Security agency, but, needs autonomy and autonomous funding. Securing them under Homeland Security will provide continuity in policy between all parties acting for national security. 

This is a national security issue and the commission should include members with State Department credentials so there is ability to speak with Mexico and Canada, here again for policy continuity. Also, aren't Visas housed in the State Department, too?

The E Verify system is an excellent idea, but, it needs to be housed in the Treasury Department because that is where passports and IDs are issued for frequent travelers across our borders. So, the Treasury Department needs to be represented on the Border Security Commission as well.

Probationary Residency Status is a huge burden for fifteen years or more. Senator Rubio wants to have all these folks reviewed for work status on a regular basis. If the Probationary Status reveals the immigrant is out of work or laid off or on unemployment they can be deported. FOR FIFTEEN YEARS, this is going to hang over their heads? This is ridiculous. Do you know the cost to find these folks, track their progress or lack of it in the system and then expect law enforcement to deport them is enormously expensive. ICE has been things to do than chance grandmas and grandpas to find out if they are working.

While I am on the subject of ICE, one of the Right Wing Media's favorite bellyachers; I point to the gun control legislation now before the Senate. Section 107 specifically took the complaints of ICE seriously to provide responsibility for making decisions about gun walking. The chronic complaining is due to lack of a clear chain of command and accountability for these decisions. Now, there is a clear path of accountability, so long as the bill passes both houses and is voted into law. These decisions about dangerous policing can finally have authority or not from Cabinet Level positions.

But, back to Senator Rubio's proposals. He needs to go back to the drawing board and ask for bipartisan participation in developing the bill. I think the background check is vital, but, then there is gun legislation reflecting that as well. How can Senator Rubio ask for background checks for immigrants but not those purchasing a gun? That is ridiculous. Aliens in the USA, legal or not, do have hurdles to meet, this is all part of Immigration Reform, too.

The monies he is asking for is unreasonable. The immigrant is mostly poverty level or lower Middle Class and has to pay for background checks, fines, registration fees, renewals of what frequency he does not state and to top off all the punishment for 'Coming to America' they can no longer receive food stamps or Medicaid or any other aspect of citizen's rights. So, now we are starving people and keeping them a public health hazard. What joy. Then after all that with ten years of emotional and financial abuse, they have to still apply for a Green Card and all the expenses that go along with that. Lawyers are going to be rolling in dough and our court systems will backed up for decades. All that while these people work and ATTEMPT to stay in the USA. Amazing.

I have not read the legislation. I don't know the number of the bill. I am sure when Senator Rubio speaks again he'll finally state how badly he misstated his understandings. He should have had a water bottle during the interview.

He is not seasoned enough to write this legislation. He just isn't. If he has his way this will cost us the USA Treasury all over again.

Until tomorrow. 

Congratulations.

She looks just like her mother. 

Children are a sincere blessing, aren't they?

By 
LINDSEY BOERMA / 
CBS NEWS/ April 14, 2013, 5:15 PM


Meet the newest (click here) member of the Bush dynasty: Margaret Laura "Mila" Hager, born Saturday night to former first daughter Jenna Bush Hager and her husband Henry Hager.
Former President George W. Bush on Sunday released a statement announcing the news that he and his wife Laura are grandparents: "Laura and I are thrilled to announce the birth of our grandchild," he said. "Mila" was born at 8:43 p.m. in New York City....

I congratulate CNN on this investigative journalism. It was all too easy.

video

Legislators don't believe there is a problem? For real. Criminality is a good economy for the USA I suppose, because, that is exactly what any legislators are stating when they don't act to end it.

S. 649

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]
[S. 649 Placed on Calendar Senate (PCS)]

Calendar No. 32113th CONGRESS

1st SessionS. 649

To ensure that all individuals who should be prohibited from buying a firearm are listed in the national instant criminal background check system and require a background check for every firearm sale, and for other purposes.

This part always makes me laugh. No different than the silent filibuster. The first and second reading of the bill is only the title. It is never the entire legislation. This is established practice across the country in most states, too.

Think about it. Would there be huge political shifts in our congress if it wasn't this easy to pass law?

If the bills actually had to be read and a Senate roll call vote taken at the readings we won't have to worry about three quarters of this mess. They would get the job done and not want to go back to revisit it any time in the near future.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

March 21, 2013
Mr. Reid introduced the following bill; which was read the first time

March 22, 2013
Read the second time and placed on the calendar

These are the stated purposes of this bill. It is all housekeeping. It is about establishing better outcomes to these established laws. There is not that much new here and why the bill is reasonable in length. The amendments are where there is probably new law. 

Maybe a better way to look at this bill is to strengthen it with better language.

Sec. 101. Short title.

Subtitle A--Ensuring That All Individuals Who Should Be Prohibited From Buying a Gun Are Listed in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System

Sec. 111. Reauthorization of NICS Act Record Improvement Program grants

Sec. 112. Penalties for States that do not make data electronically available to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. 

Sec. 113. Clarification that Federal court information is to be made available to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System.

There is nothing earth shaking with this bill. It authorizes the Attorney General to require compliance with existing laws and to set up funding in the way of grants to facilitate electronic records that will provide national access. The DATA bank is simply a matter of existing public records that are currently inaccessible electronically and composed to criminal infraction. There is no registration of anything here. There is no reason to oppose this measure.

Compliance of the states is based on 'percentage reported.'

Remember the federal date base already contains some violent offenders if they also committed federal crimes. So, the federal government, in this case US Justice Department, already has a general idea of what to minimally expect from every state.

This is the standard used for states to report. The AG can't simply make it up as he goes. There is a standard prescribed in the law.

National Instant Criminal Background Check System (referred to in this section as `NICS') including court disposition and corrections records.

I do want to mention something here about the funding. 

``(1) In general.--There are to be authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section $100,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2014 through 2018.

This is not all that much money. It would be to any individual, but, what this breaks down to is APPROXIMATELY $2 million per state. Now there are US provinces and territories, so that is not accurate as well as tribal lands, but, this not an expensive grant program. Add to that grants already in use by states in regard to HHS and electronic medical records and this aspect becomes less expensive.

HOWEVER. Under no circumstances do these monies enter into any type of sequestration or budget cuts. I think that should be clear in this bill as well. This is too important and given the level of demands by the NRA of preferred Congressmen and women it is important these monies are never toyed with.

Also, the distribution of these funds are based on the reporting compliance of the states and the discretion of the AG. The monies assist the entire nation to build an accurate data base of those not eligible to buy guns. It is important.

SEC. 112. PENALTIES FOR STATES THAT DO NOT MAKE DATA ELECTRONICALLY AVAILABLE TO THE NATIONAL INSTANT CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECK SYSTEM.

``(A) During the 2-year period...the Attorney General may withhold not more than 3 percent of the amount...if the State provides less than 50 percent of the records required to be provided under sections 102 and 103.

``(B) During the 3-year period after the expiration of the period described in subparagraph (A), the Attorney General may withhold 4 percent of the amount...if the State provides less than 70 percent of the records required to be provided under sections 102 and 103.

It could be argued this should be stronger. Basically, the 3 and 4 percent is a FINE / PENALTY for noncompliance. It is built directly into the bill. There should also be a penalty for NON-PARTICIPATION. If a state, like Texas, decides invoking this bill will insult political dogma it might refuse the monies all together. There should be a fine applied to other monies Texas or Louisiana or Arkansas receives from the federal government. To make it as painless as possible, but, still effective.

But, the percentage could be easily argued to 5% and 10% at the very least. These grant monies are important. Additionally, any private contractors invoked by the states have to BID on the contracts with MARKET VALUE contractual funds in the bid.

``(2) Mandatory reduction.--After the expiration of the period referred to in paragraph (1)(B), the Attorney General shall withhold 5 percent of the amount....if the State provides less than 90 percent of the records required to be provided under sections 102 and 103.''.

Make that 25% at least. The states have to prove by the end of the funding they have mastered their capacity for electronic records in this date base.

(b)...the Attorney General shall publish, and make available on a publicly accessible website, a report that ranks the States by the ratio of number of records submitted by each State.
This provides the opportunity for NGOs to police the states with least compliance and actively pursue better legislators and / or legislation within that state. It is also the beginning of solid information about the way guns are handled in the USA.
SEC. 121. PURPOSE.
The purpose of this subtitle is to extend the Brady Law background check procedures to all sales and transfers of firearms.
I already read this and registered my concerns on previous entries. The wording is exactly the same as previously noted.
TITLE II--STOP ILLEGAL TRAFFICKING IN FIREARMS ACT
SEC. 201. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the ``Stop Illegal Trafficking in Firearms Act of 2013''.
SEC. 202. HADIYA PENDLETON AND NYASIA PRYEAR-YARD ANTI-STRAW PURCHASING AND FIREARMS TRAFFICKING AMENDMENTS.
These are the trafficking law updates. It demands citizenship for purchase, but, if there is any intent to use the weapons in a crime there are penalties. This section reaffirms the importance of "LICENSED" gun anything in regard to sales. The government is trusting those licensed entities to follow the law and provide good serve to the public while insuring their safety. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this updated section of the bill.
If anything, this section of the bill insures the 'gun economy' in the USA. It assigns responsibility and economic permanence to the USA economy. It provides that services provided will be lasting and lawful while realizing fees for service.
...the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), the Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Designation Act (21 U.S.C. 1901 et seq.), the Controlled Substances Import and Export Act (21 U.S.C. 951 et seq.)...
I didn't mention these three laws in the list above. The wording in this section is all the same as previously stated in other entries. But, I don't believe I made something clear about Section 7.
SEC. 207. LIMITATION ON OPERATIONS BY THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.
The Department of Justice, and any of its law enforcement coordinate agencies, shall not conduct any operation where a Federal firearms licensee is directed, instructed, enticed, or otherwise encouraged by the Department of Justice to sell a firearm to an individual if the Department of Justice, or a coordinate agency, knows or has reasonable cause to believe that such an individual is purchasing on behalf of another for an illegal purpose unless the Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General, or the Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division personally reviews and approves the operation, in writing, and determines that the agency has prepared an operational plan that includes sufficient safeguards to prevent firearms from being transferred to third parties without law enforcement taking reasonable steps to lawfully interdict those firearms.
This removes authority from ATF (Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms) to carry out gun walking trials WITHOUT first approval of US Justice Department. It assigns responsibility for these decisions. Accountability and no more he said, she said. Sec. 207 has implication beyond the USA, so at some point the State Department needs to be written into the law. It is a communication issue, possibly even Homeland Security needs to be included in that level of concern. I am thinking after Justice approves, there is a submission process to Homeland Security and / or the State Department depending on where the approval will impact and before implementation.

TITLE III--SCHOOL AND CAMPUS SAFETY ENHANCEMENTS ACT
SEC. 301. SHORT TITLE.This title may be cited as the ``School and Campus Safety Enhancements Act of 2013''.

This is a really great aspect of this bill. It provides a community based intervention for schools. It is important.

SEC. 304. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. Section 2705 of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3797e) is amended--

(1) by striking ``$30,000,000'' and inserting ``$40,000,000''; and

(2) by striking ``2001 through 2009'' and inserting ``2014 through 2023''.

This is a long program, too. That is a good thing. It provides time to build competency. It is a tough problem to overcome. They need time and funding.

This funding should also be independent of any funding the state receives. Let's say Louisiana wants to refuse the state funding, but, New Orleans wants to improve their school systems in the way these monies emphasis, it should be able to do that. I think The American Jobs Act was allowing that option, even though it didn't pass. But, I don't see why cities (sometimes with substantial gun problems) should be eliminated from these funds just because the state isn't interested.

I am fairly certain I didn't mention this before.

``(A) indicating whether--``(i) all audits issued by the Office of the Inspector General under paragraph (1) have been completed and reviewed by the appropriate Assistant Attorney General or Director;

The audits that determine funding will be conducted by the Office of Inspector General and then reviewed by Justice to determine grants.

This is important, too.

(1) in section 501 (42 U.S.C. 3751)--

(A) in subsection (a)(1)--

(i) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by inserting ``or purposes'' after ``one or more of the following programs''; and 

(ii) by adding at the end the following:``

(H) Making subawards to institutions of higher education and other nonprofit organizations to assist the National Center for Campus Public Safety in carrying out the functions of the Center required under section 509(c).''; and

Institutions of Higher Education and other nonprofit organizations can also apply for these funds to contribute to the NCCPS (National Center for Campus Public Safety). That is interesting. I suppose of educational institutions have contracts with non-profits and/or their own police force, this would have to be a part of it.

This section does communicate with Homeland Security so there is already involvement that would justify a greater roll with the Justice Department. There should be no cracks in the infrastructure.

There were no wording changes to this section either.

That is the bill. I'll get to the amendments later.

S. 649

There is a good summary to this bill. (click here)

Shown Here:Introduced in Senate (03/21/2013) 

Safe Communities, Safe Schools Act of 2013 - Amends the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007 (NICS Act) (click here),...

NICS Act was:Introduced: June 11, 2007 (110th Congress)
Sponsor: Rep. Carolyn McCarthy 
Status: Signed by President George W. Bush

Slip Law: The bill became Pub. L. (Public Law) 110-180 (click here).

...the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (Brady Act) (click here),... 

...the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (click here)..., 

...and the federal criminal code to require background checks for all firearm sales, prohibit straw purchases of firearms, and expand the school safety grant program.

Fix Gun Checks Act of 2013 - Amends the NICS Act... (I already read this, so I would anticipate to breeze through it without focusing on the particulars, necessarily, but, I will read all of it.)

...Amends the Brady Act ...Authorizes the Attorney General...Stop Illegal Trafficking in Firearms Act of 2013 - Amends the federal criminal code...Directs the U.S. Sentencing Commission to review and amend... under the Arms Export Control Act, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, the Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Designation Act, or the Immigration and Nationality Act;...Controlled Substances Act, the Controlled Substances Import and Export Act,...School and Campus Safety Enhancements Act of 2013 - Amends the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968...Requires the Director of the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services and the Secretary of Education...Center to Advance, Monitor, and Preserve University Security Safety Act of 2013 or CAMPUS Safety Act of 2013 - Amends the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to authorize the Attorney General to:...

This is the law and policy this bill covers; for the most part most is already discovered and discussed. I'll read through the entirety of it. If there is any stone I left unturned I will enter it in the next entry.

I covered most if not all the related bills. 

It has not been assigned to any committee, but, most of the related bills have already made their way through committee.

This bill is sponsored by Senator Harry Reid and co-sponsored by Senator Tim Kaine.

There are currently five amendments listed; S.Amdt.711 through S. Amdt. 715. I'll read these last to know where they fit in to the bill and whether or not it enhances it's purpose or not.

The other official titles to the bill have already been recognized.

The latest actions were on April 11th of which there are four. All are to move the bill forward to a vote in the USA Senate.

The text is not horribly long of which most has already been covered.

Thank you for your kind attention.

Chained CPI? Really?

U. S. Representative Jerry Nadler has a lot to say about retirement of the Middle Class. It is interesting. He is correct.

The state of Middle Class in the year 2013 is grossly diminished since 2008. Not only that, but, the private sector does not have pensions for retirees' anymore. So, the idea you can EARN a comfortable retirement is gone.

Then there is the Wall Street solution. Right? The Middle Class could increase their wealth quotient by participating in 401k or 401b. Oh, wait, a 401b is no longer available.

...Description of 401b (click here)The term 401b refers to the IRS tax code (401 is the section and b is the paragraph), however, the codes for the original plans are no longer available to view. Both the 401a and 401b retirement plans were replaced by the 401k and are governed by the same regulations regarding deferrals and mandatory withdrawal at age 70 ½....

But, 401k is not an answer either. It is nice to collect participating additions to retirement accounts by employers, but, most retirees are ending employment with a total of $70,000 in their accounts. Too bad about 2008. Gee whiz these things happen on Wall Street, ya know.

See, 401k was the 'modern day pension' after all. It was a way of throwing good money after bad with Wall Street and bouy did that prove to be the case.

And then there is that 'evolution' the 401 designation went through. 401a, 401b, 401c,...,401k...what's next?

So, what the Baby Boomers are retiring on is SSI. The average monthly income to most SSI recipients is $1400.00. 

I'll tell you why the Chained CPI is the most outrageous proposal on the books. The average income to an American today is far less than that of the Baby Boomers. So, when the current generation retires, if the USA remains in limbo fiscally forever, they will be in dire straights when they retire.

This is where we came in with FDR and we all know how much Republicans hate FDR. It shows. Who is the Middle Class putting into office after all? Living for the bubble, are we? Or is that kind of investment so far outside 'the norm' of people working two to three jobs per week to make ends meet it can never be realized until it is too late. See, Hedge Funds brag about 'riding the bubble' with the ability to 'get out' in the 'nick of time.' That level of vigilance by owners of 401ks is not possible when working takes precedent over time off.
April 11 — To the Editor:
...What confounds me is the astronomical pay of corporate chief executive officers, especially those who don't pay their employees a living wage, for instance, Walmart owners, many of whose employees need welfare to survive. Locally, what bothers me lately is the big hotel owners who have come to Portsmouth, marred our sky/landscape, and expected the public citizenry to fund the increased parking demands they have caused. Developers who create a need should include accommodations for that need in their own plans, plus reciprocate the community off which they are making huge profits, reaping multiples of what the highest-paid public servant earns....
What this retiree clearly illustrates is that Corporate Welfare is occurring on the back of the Middle Class. It is occurring at the state and local level and now there is suppose to be more at the federal level. I don't think so. President Obama has gone out of his way to create a 'kumbaya moment' with many Republicans, but, it is being used to hold the nation hostage over the debt.
Paul Ryan is a ruthless man that could not hold his seat in the House without running for Vice President, no different than Michelle Bachmann and her run for the nominee. The 2012 elections for the Republicans was about 'holding on' when they should be gone and Chained CPI is more proof.
Saturday, 13 April 2013 10:14By Alexander Arapoglou and Jerri-Lynn Scofield, AlterNet | Report

10 ways the current tax code (click here) allows the rich to accumulate vast fortunes, subject to little or no tax. And, unlike the offshore account tax fraud that gets so much press and regulatory attention, many of the most egregious tax avoidance scams are perfectly legal.
    
1. No income means no tax. Imagine two men living in the same town. Joe owns an oil exploration corporation. Pete, a geologist, works for Joe. Pete finds oil, billions of dollars worth, and when he does, Joe gives him a $1 million bonus.
Pete pays income taxes on $1 million and keeps looking for oil. Joe, the boss is now a billionaire. Although he has not sold any oil yet, the bank lends him money against the find and he builds a mansion, buys a nice car and lives it up. Even though Joe has become richer by billions of dollars, he pays no income tax. Why? He has no income....

America needs to stop undercutting their right to a secure retirement over any idea that is going to help pay down the national debt. The national debt has absolutely nothing to do with Earned Benefits. Nothing. 

If Americans want to solve the National Debt problem they need to realize it is about taxes and the size of the tax base. Adding poor paying jobs to the tax base isn't going to address the national debt in a real way. There has to be an increase in high income earners and closed loopholes.

Remember how legislators stated the yacht builders were go out of business if the tax deduction was ended? Well, let's explore that and Americans can begin to understand how Corporate Welfare hurts the USA economy and provides a slippery slope to deficits which are masked by the Republicans as related to Earned Benefits.


Yacht Costs (according to Forbes)

The purchase price of yachts varies. A 20 to 40 foot yacht, more commonly called cabin cruiser, is going to cost much less than a 100 to 200 mega or super yacht. There are also costs of ownership to consider. 

Cabin Cruisers can cost as little as $15,000 when purchased used. The price goes up as the features and length of the yacht increases. A 65' luxury yacht is advertised on the web for $2,199,000. 

In 2009, a new 20-foot cabin cruiser cost under $50,000, a 30-foot weekender yacht cost around $200,000, 50-foot cruisers were around $1,000,000, and 100-foot plus yachts ranged from $8-10 million. 

According to an article in Forbes, the most expensive yachts in 2005 had an average price of $64.37 million. with the most expensive, a 280 foot mega yacht, costing $103 million. The least expensive, a 157 footer, was $24 million. Since those are 2005 prices, it's safe to assume that the costs would be noticeably higher now. 

Ongoing costs of owning a yacht are quite high and need to be considered before purchasing one. It wouldn't be any fun to purchase one only to find out that your budget didn't allow the costs of maintaining it and taking it out on the water!


Who can actually afford this mess? Not that watercraft is not fun, sure, many people like to fish and water ski and even participate in boat races / regattas. But, most Americans can't afford yachts, so the idea this is a vital part of the USA economy is nonsense. But, let's take this one step further.

Sailboats are considered a form of a yacht. The cost is usually around $1500.00 per linear foot. So, the idea is reasonable that a 20 foot sailboat costing about $30,000 places this item within the reach of the Middle Class as if purchasing a car. Upper Middle Class is more likely the price point, but, Middle Class no less. If one can purchase a Lexus, they can purchase a 20 foot sailboat. Starting to see this the way I am yet?

These folks are probably executives, or a two income family where each income is at least $40,000 per year, doctors, lawyers, small business owners with a couple of kids, a dog or two and / or cats, 401Ks, ? maybe ? other investments, but, basically comfortable folks. Right? They purchase a sailboat because it is more 'their style' on the water. So, their purchase of a sailboat is buoyed by a tax deduction. It is all made clear to them when they purchase this vehicle and they count on it to make ends meet and continue their lifestyle.

Now comes 2008. Economic hardship follows. The economy is contracting, corporations find it a good time to reorganize and eliminate middle management and a few upper management here and there. What happens to these folks now? Do they keep the sailboat? No. They will be relieved if both are still pulling in $40,000 per year. What happens when one is laid off? Contraction of their personal economy, right? One $40,000 annual payroll added with unemployment doesn't cut it, does it?

It isn't necessary for the million / billionaires to have a tax cut to purchase or maintain their yacht. They'll keep the vehicle through hard times. They may even buy a new one if the boat builders feel the pinch to sell inventory to continue their  cash flow. But, where these tax cuts become hideous and ridiculous is where 'they snare' the Middle Class and eventually cause hardship when the economic bubble breaks. What happens to these folks? Do they keep their house? Foreclosure? Do they eventually declare bankruptcy? Sure they do.

The sailboat will be the first thing to go, but, because they have made a silly investment in a lifestyle aboard a sailboat which they might even hope would have been a blessing in their retirement, they will lose everything rather than having higher equity in their primary investments, ie: home, retirement funds.

What these tax cuts do is snare people that would be better off investing their monies elsewhere. There are a lot of people that get caught up in what their money will buy rather than what their money could provide, namely comfort.

These tax loopholes are poison to the USA economy. They have go. The revenues to the USA Treasury has to take place and it needs to happen now. We need financially secure citizens, not ones so gregarious about their "Life is Good" they make mistakes that will devastate their lives because Wall Street has engaged draconian investments and 'missed the top of the bubble.' 

I have absolutely no worries about ending loopholes. It will fine. If the only one that remains is the Housing Tax Deduction then that is the American Dream, but, all this other mess HAS GOT TO GO!

The detainees don't want to die. They want to fight. That is a positive change for the population at Gitmo.

It is okay. They can fight. They can resist. They need to be who they are. Seeking victory through death is the wrong way to think.

13 April 2013 
Last updated at 18:44 ET

Prisoners and guards (click here) have clashed at Guantanamo Bay as authorities moved inmates, many of whom are on hunger strike, out of communal cellblocks.The move came after detainees covered surveillance cameras and windows, a US Army spokesman said.He said some prisoners used "improvised weapons" and in response "four less-than-lethal rounds" were fired.The Pentagon says 43 prisoners are on hunger strike, but lawyers for the detainees say the number is higher.......Detainees' frustration
Hunger strikes have happened frequently at the US military prison, but this protest, which began in February, is reportedly one of the longest and most widespread.
However, Guantanamo officials deny claims that the strike began after copies of the Koran were mishandled during searches of prisoners' cells.
Human rights groups and lawyers representing the prisoners say it reflects growing frustration at the US military's failure to decide the detainees' future.
Nearly 100 of the detainees have been reportedly cleared for release but remain at the facility because of Congressional restrictions and also concerns of possible mistreatment if they are sent back to their home countries.
The military detention centre opened in 2002 to hold suspects captured in counter-terrorism operations after the 11 September 2001 attacks in the US....


Couple things first. This is demented thinking. Since when do law enforcement officers needs 'racial explicit' targets?