Sign-on Letter on Child Support Due Sept. 20

We need your help to make sure that Congress does not cut funding for child support enforcement.

If you represent a national, state, or local organization, please join the group sign-on letter to Congress in support of critical funding for the child support program. We will be accepting sign-ons until close of business on September 20, 2010.

The full text of the letter is below. To sign-on your organization in support, please go to: http://action.nwlc.org/childsupport2010

So what's at stake? Child support agencies will lose the long-standing authority to use incentive payments earned for good performance as a match for federal funds. The combination of incentive payments and other federal funds provides a majority of funding for the child support program throughout the United States, and has helped drive dramatic improvements in the program. The child support program touches the lives of 17.4 million children - or one out of four - and distributes about $24 billion dollars in child support to families annually.  But families stand to lose $2 billion in uncollected support in FY 2011 alone if the federal incentive match is eliminated as scheduled on October 1.   

If you represent an organization, please join the group sign-on letter to Congress in support of restoring these critical funds for the child support program.  And if your organization has state or local affiliates, please forward this letter for them to sign on!

For detailed information on this issue, check out NWLC's fact sheet:

http://www.nwlc.org/resource/preventing-cuts-child-support-enforcement-vital-families

Thank you, once again, for your support.

Full text of letter:

Dear Senator:

Child support program funding will be cut this fall if Congress does not act. Child support agencies will lose the long-standing authority to use incentive payments earned for good performance as a match for federal funds. The combination of incentive payments and other federal funds provides a majority of funding for the child support program throughout the United States, and has helped drive dramatic improvements in the program.

The organizations below urge you to maintain funding for a program that touches the lives of 17.4 million children, or one out of four. That involvement lasts for the first 18 years of a child's life. Since the program's enactment in 1974, child support has enjoyed bipartisan support, because it reinforces family responsibility and has a results-oriented funding structure. We urge you to continue the successful policy a Republican House and Senate and Democratic Administration created in 1998 to provide performance incentives rewarding efficient, results-oriented programs and penalize those not meeting standards.

Your support is needed because:

In this economy, a strong child support program is needed more than ever.

?    In FY 2009, the program collected $4.78 in owed child support for every dollar invested in the program. (OCSE)

?    Caseloads increased in FY 2009 to 15.8 million, the first increase in two years. During FY 2009, the numbers of new orders established increased by 6.3 percent, the largest one-year increase in over a decade. (OCSE)

?    Child support saves government funds otherwise spent on programs providing housing, cash assistance, and medical services as it provides a regular source of income to families.

?    OMB has characterized the child support program as "one of the highest rated block/formula grants of all reviewed programs government-wide?."

The child support program supports and strengthens families.

?    The program works to ensure that children in single-parent households receive a reliable source of financial and medical support.  The program increases family self-sufficiency, reduces child poverty, improves child school achievement, and encourages both mother and father to be involved and committed to their children.

?    The program collected $26.4 billion from noncustodial parents in FY 2009 and distributed $24.4 billion to families; the rest reimbursed federal and state public assistance costs. (OCSE)

Child support reduces the poverty rate by 25% among families that receive it (CRS), and accounts for 39% of family income for poor custodial parents who receive it.  (Urban Institute)

?    Child support services are available to all families.  In FY 2009, only 14% of the caseload were current TANF recipients, 43% were former TANF recipients, and 43% never received TANF.  80% of child support payments went to families not currently receiving TANF. (OCSE)

Cuts to child support funding will weaken programs and hurt families.

?    If the current incentive structure is not maintained, states will lose 16% of their funding on average.  In these tough times, states won't be able to make up for the loss, and will be forced to cut core services and innovative programs.

?    Because of service cuts, families will lose over $2 billion in child support payments in FY 2011, based on estimates from OCSE and the Congressional Budget Office.

Child support and the families it serves deserve continued bipartisan support. We urge you to continue that support this fall by acting to maintain the incentive payment structure which is a critical component of the program's success.

Read The Full Article:
http://thepoliticsofjamiesanderson.blogspot.com/2010/09/sign-on-letter-on-child-s
upport-due.html

Add to del.icio.us

Digg this

Post to Furl

Add to reddit

Add to myYahoo!

Lowcountry Boil & Stump to be held on September
21, 2010

Georgetown, SC --  The Georgetown County Chamber of Commerce's cornerstone election event, The Lowcountry Boil and Stump is here.  Presented by the Coastal Carolina Association of Realtors, the event is slated for Tuesday, September 21, from 5:30-7:30pm at the Carroll A. Campbell Marine Complex at the Sampit River Park Boat Landing in Georgetown.  Contributing sponsors are Georgetown County Parks & Rec, Bell Legal Group, SCB&T, Liberty Terminals and W. Sherwyn Jacobs.

All candidates, from all levels of government, on the November ballot for our area have been invited to attend.  Each candidate will have three minutes on the "stump", but will also be meeting and greeting the crowd throughout the evening.  To date we have 22 candidates committed to attend. 
"Low voter turn out is a very critical issue.  Informed citizens are more likely to vote and your Chamber of Commerce wants to do everything it can to assist with that process in our community," says Annette Fisher, president of the Chamber.

The event is free to the community.  A lowcountry boil, dessert and beverages will be available for $7.00 per person on-site.  Representatives from the local chapters of the League of Women Voters, Kids Voting USA, the Republican Party, the Democratic Party and the Election Commission will also be on hand to answer questions and provide materials. 

The rain site will be at the National Guard Armory.

Read The Full Article:
http://thepoliticsofjamiesanderson.blogspot.com/2010/09/lowcountry-boil-stump-to-
be-held-on.html

Add to del.icio.us

Digg this

Post to Furl

Add to reddit

Add to myYahoo!

Important Piece (Stanmentum)

When Nancy Pelosi met with her caucus Tuesday night to make the case for pushing a middle class tax cut vote pre-election, they had Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg there to show members the numbers and how they show this debate is a winning issue for[...]

Read The Full Article:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Talking-Points-Memo/~3/IH8-e6ZC2kQ/important_piece
_stanmentum.php

Add to del.icio.us

Digg this

Post to Furl

Add to reddit

Add to myYahoo!

Color It Blue

The first post-primary poll of the Delaware Senate race is out. Rasmussen shows Democrat Chris Coons with an 11-point lead over Republican Christine O'Donnell. Here's the graph showing the TPM Poll Average of the race: Republican - Delaware - Christine[...]

Read The Full Article:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Talking-Points-Memo/~3/J-1kb9WF790/color_it_blue.p
hp

Add to del.icio.us

Digg this

Post to Furl

Add to reddit

Add to myYahoo!

Obama to hire Elizabeth Warren

A very good choice. Poor Larry Summers must be having a pretty bad day though. Warren may not have made it through Senate confirmation to be the formal consumer director because the GOP was dead set against anyone who wasn't a banker and part of the problem. The GOP knows where their bread is buttered.

President Barack Obama plans to name Wall Street critic Elizabeth Warren to a special advisory role helping to set up the new U.S. consumer financial watchdog, Democratic sources said on Wednesday.

Warren, a 61-year-old Harvard law professor, would report to Obama and the Treasury Department in a position that would bypass the Senate confirmation process.

An announcement was likely to come on Friday.

Warren is reviled by many on Wall Street for her calls to crack down on abusive lending practices by financial firms, but she is a hero to liberal activists and consumer groups.

Add to del.icio.us

Digg this

Post to Furl

Add to reddit

Add to myYahoo!

UPDATE: HARVARD ADDRESSES PERETZ SHAME ++ Jeff
Goldberg Defends Marty Peretz -- But Not That Bigot, Helen Thomas

Here is the latest from Harvard on Peretz. He is considered greatest embarrassment in 374 years although one Harvard grad said, "He didn't go to Harvard and he was never more than a TA there. My kid lives in Holworthy Hall and gets drunk and throws up all over himself every Saturday. Is that Harvard's fault? And my kid actually is a student there. Why is Peretz Harvard's shame?"

My answer: the scholarship being set up to honor racist Peretz is at Harvard.

***

Here is Jeff Goldberg citing with approval a defense of Martin Peretz by Andrew Sullivan. Sullivan basically argues that Peretz is a well-intentioned man who is nuts on the subject of Arabs and Muslims but is decent nonetheless.

Sullivan writes, "Marty is a man of deep passion and such passion, especially on a subject like the Middle East, sometimes leads to irrationality."

And, for writing that, Goldberg calls Sullivan "big-hearted" (Sullivan seems "big-hearted" to me too, but I don't know him).

But here's the thing. Peretz didn't slip up once or twice and spout bigotry against Muslims and Arabs. He does it several times a week. Hating Arabs and Muslims is primarily what he is about. How can that be forgivable?

Now, I don't know if Sullivan defended Helen Thomas who once, once, made an offensive statement about Israel and Zionism and that one statement cost her a job, a career and a reputation. This despite the fact that no one has ever accused Helen Thomas of having personal animus to Jews. She just doesn't like Israel, a foreign country,and she gave voice to that feeling. She did not attack American Jews as Peretz attacked American Muslims.

Here is Goldberg on Thomas. Suffice it to say, he did not defend her in any way, shape or form.

So what's the difference? It is this. Some expressions of bigotry are permissible in this country and some aren't.

One had best keep your anti-black racism to yourself -- or pretend it's just about Obama as the Limbaughs and right-wingers do. Same with Jews, where, as the Thomas case demonstrates, expressing disdain for Israel, let alone Jews, can be a career killer.

But it's still okay to express open prejudice towards gays and lesbians, Latino immigrants (legal or illegal) and, above all, Muslims and Arabs.

And that is why there are people -- although, so far, just his personal friends -- who are defending Peretz. He picked the right group to openly hate. Just ask Abe Foxman.

Add to del.icio.us

Digg this

Post to Furl

Add to reddit

Add to myYahoo!

Jim DeMint Defends His Support of Christine
O'Donnell

Click here to view this media

A lot of Republicans are none too happy with Jim DeMint for his support of uber-conservative Delaware Senate candidate Christine O'Donnell. I'll be curious to see how that plays itself out in the months to come if the Republicans fail to gain a majority in the Senate. Politico has more on some of the infighting among Republicans right now.

Soul-searching time: a GOP torn:

If nothing else, the 8 primary election defeats suffered by NRSC-favored candidates this year indicates the lack of a unified command structure within the GOP now. It has, in effect, become an uncontrolled and ungoverned party in which the powers that be in Washington are mere bystanders.

?Where are the adults?? one strategist wondered.

Davis put it bluntly: ?The Republican establishment has no cache right now.?

Those regular Republicans lashed out Tuesday night at the man they view as largely responsible for credentialing so many of the tea party hopefuls this year, Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.)

?It speaks volumes that in Jim DeMint?s world, the ?principles of freedom? are more important than a candidate who pays their taxes, is honest with voters and who isn?t a complete fraud,? said a senior GOP aide. ?Senator DeMint may be patting himself on the back tonight but many Republicans look forward to post-November 2nd when he has to explain why he helped the Democrats retain the majority for yet another two years.?

John King asked DeMint about his statement that O'Donnell's win might be worth losing the Senate seat in Delaware. And one last side note, did anyone else almost choke when they heard John King ask DeMint if he was considering a future presidential run? I'm not sure where King thinks this man has any appeal besides the deep South and a few other extremely conservative areas of the country. I can't see him having any nationwide appeal with anyone but the extreme right wing of the Republican Party, but then I guess you could say the same thing about a lot of their potential contenders.

KING: Republican Senator DeMint of South Carolina has the golden touch, endorsing conservatives who in most cases have turned into winners. Christine O'Donnell being the latest example last night in Delaware. Some Republicans aren't happy. One Republican source telling CNN they're frustrated with Senator DeMint because in their view he pushes purity over the practical. Senator DeMint joins us now to go one on one. How do you answer that point among your colleagues? You've heard it throughout the primary season, that you're a guy who wants conservatives who think like you at all costs, even if, your critics would say, the nominee is someone one who can't win.

SEN. JIM DEMINT: My critics always seem to be these anonymous people that don't talk to me directly. I haven't heard that from my colleagues and I'm certainly not interested in purity in the party.

KING: Let me help our viewers understand a bit more about you because more and more people around the country are hearing about you. Is it your view, then, that Jim DeMint would rather be in the minority than to, say, elect a Mike Castle in Delaware or a Charlie Crist in Florida who you view as too prone to deal making? Would you rather be in the minority than in the majority with Republicans like that?

DEMINT: I came into the Senate with 55 Republicans. A strong majority. Majority of Republicans in the house. Bush in the white house. We spent too much. We borrowed too much. We lost the faith of the American people. And we got thrown out. So there's no need in focusing on the numbers if we don't have any principles to back it up. Again, it's not about purity. It's about pretty commonsense ideas now that I think are right at the mainstream of where America is. We can't keep spending our way into prosperity, growing the government. We can't keep taking over auto industry and the health care industry. These things have Americans alarmed. So it's not about the trivial political labels of moderate or conservative or liberal. It's about survival or bankruptcy right now in our country.

KING: I want you to listen. Hear the voice of someone who knows you well when it comes to Christine O'Donnell. Karl Rove has worked on many conservative campaigns over the years. I want you to listen to Rove's take on Christine O'Donnell.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KARL ROVE: It does conservatives little good to support candidates who, at the end of the day, while they may be conservative in their public statements, do not advance the characteristics of rectitude and truthfulness and sincerity and character that the voters are looking for. And we'll see how she can answer these questions. She didn't answer them thus far.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: You hear Karl Rove. He thinks by helping Christine O'Donnell get the nomination you may have denied the Republicans a chance for a Senate majority.

DEMINT: Well, Christine was going to win, with or without me. I just wanted her to know I was behind her. She's saying the same things that I'm saying. I think Karl's comments are very unfortunate. Christine's been maligned by millions of dollars, a lot of ads that misrepresent who she really is. The fact is Christine has not been on the government payroll like many here in Washington. And she has struggled, like many Americans, but she is a great person. I think she's going to be a great candidate. I think the more people in Delaware get to know her, the most likely they are to vote for her.

KING: Help us understand what happens post election. Let's say several of these candidates win. What happens in the Republican conference come January, when Joe Miller, the tea party favorite coming out of Alaska, he told me a couple of weeks a look, we can't afford social security, that should be a states rights program. What happened when he says, Jim, how do I get an amendment on the floor to do away with social security for future generations?

DEMINT: Social security is a promise we have to keep. As Joe has said, people have paid for it. We don't need to change anything for people, particularly those over 55. But he's saying the same thing I am. This Congress has been spending social security dollars that should be saved. And if we're going to take money from people's paycheck for their retirement, we need to save it for their retirement instead of spend it. We can work together on that. The first thing that's going to happen after this election is there's going to be a moratorium on earmarks that Republicans helped to pass. Because we cannot work for the national interest if our focus is always on self- serving parochial politics, taking bacon back home so we can get a press release. I think once we get rid of that conflict of interest, we can focus on fixing our tax code, fixing social security, repealing Obama care, and balancing our budget.

KING: Will you help Mitch McConnell if he says, Jim, I need your help convincing these guys that, yes, I know they're principled, but every now and then we got to be pragmatists?

DEMINT: Mitch is already a good leader and I support him. I just want folks that will help us move the country in the right direction. In the Senate, we tend to move to the lowest common denominator in our party. If we have four or five people voting with Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi, it's hard to show the country we're an alternative to that direction. So I think after this election, you're going to have some Republicans who represent mainstream America and are going to vote for those limited government ideas that America's crying out for right now.

KING: And does what you just said raises the question, what about Senate Republican incumbents, in the next cycle, Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe, two year, three years down the line, would you support a conservative challenger to them?

DEMINT: We need to see what happens after 2010. I want to work with all my Republican colleagues. We need to make sure that Americans have good choices of people who are focusing on our constitutional responsibilities. Frankly, I don't think we can, if most of the year we're working on 10,000 earmarks back home. So that's obviously a big priority for me. I don't think we can serve the interests of a nation this concept of limited government if every Congressman and senator thinks they need to get all of these pork barrel projects for their home state.

KING: Let me ask you lastly, a lot of people look at what you've done in the past several months, moving around the country, raising money, helping these conservative, and say if he wasn't thinking about it six months ago, there's no way DeMint is not thinking about running for president now.

DEMINT: I'm not thinking past 2010. I have no interest in running for president right now.

KING: Right now? How about in 2011, 2012?

DEMINT: I have no plans to run for president. I'm focusing on my job here and my own re-election.

KING: Senator Jim DeMint, South Carolina, we appreciate your time, sir.

DEMINT: Thank you.

Add to del.icio.us

Digg this

Post to Furl

Add to reddit

Add to myYahoo!

Palin Advises Christine O’Donnell To
‘Speak Through Fox News’

Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin appeared on the O’Reilly Factor last night to defend Delaware GOP Senate nominee Christine O’Donnell from intra-party skeptics like former Bush advisor Karl Rove, who said Republicans aren’t “going to be able to win” the general election with O’Donnell as the nominee. Palin advised O’Donnell to ignore the “political machine” and go rogue, just as she did on the 2008 presidential campaign, breaking away from “her handlers.” “Speak through Fox News,” Palin — a paid Fox News contributor — counseled her protégé:

PALIN: She’s going to have to learn very quickly to dismiss what some of her handlers want. Remember what happened to me in the VP. [?]

So she’s going to have to learn that, yes, very quickly. She’s going to have to dismiss that, go with her gut, get out there, speak to the American people. Speak through FOX News and let the Independents who are tuning in to you, let them know what it is that she stands for, the principles behind her positions.

Watch it:

video details and more

Indeed, O’Donnell appears to be quick study of the Sarah Palin school of media dodging, telling the staff of MSNBC’s Morning Joe that she couldn’t appear because of “family” reasons, despite making the rounds on Fox, CNN, ABC, CBS, and NBC the same day. And as Media Matters pointed out, O’Donnell thanked “a slew of Fox-tied supporters” in her acceptance speech for the nomination.

Add to del.icio.us

Digg this

Post to Furl

Add to reddit

Add to myYahoo!

Laws of the Land, Laws of Nature People or
Corporations Rule

video details and more

Kendrick Meek; Blast BP and Corporate Irresponsibility

Whispers whirled around the White House, on The Hill, within the Department of Justice, and finally filtered down to the streets.  In truth, talk could be heard on the avenues, where average Americans roam, long before declarations came from above.   Should BP CEO Tony Hayward Go to Prison?  The public wonder.  What would the Obama Administration do.  Countless clamored; President Bush's DOJ Killed a Criminal Probe Into BP.  It was believed that the potential indictments threatened the most senior officials.  More recently, words of warrants have become a distinct possibility.  Criminal charges are being considered against BP in Gulf oil rig tragedy.

Currently, the possibility or probability of legal action is somewhat plausible.  After all,  the Gulf region was not the only shore or sea affected.   A planet, inclusive of people, were placed in further peril, the repercussions cannot be calculated.  Someone or ones must take responsibility, or taken to task.   BP certainly has shown a desire to shift the blame.  However, a frustrated electorate may not be so anxious to forgive and forget.  For the common folk BP and other corporations are responsible for what occurred.  Constituents applaud the idea floated months ago; BP Execs Could Face Potential Jail Time.  These people have a friend in Congress, Kendrick Meek; they always did.  

Profound predictor of the future, or just a Senatorial candidate with a vision and a mission spoke of the doom and dire consequences he believed would, or should follow.  Mister Meek mused.  With anticipation, he addressed what he thought need be spoken of months before today's events.  It was June.  United States Congressman, Kendrick Meek stood before an audience at America's Future Now! 2010 conference.   Kendrick Meek spoke of justice.

I was there for the pronouncement.  I recall the day and the proclamation.  Florida Democratic Senate hopeful Kendrick Meek called for corporate integrity.  All those months earlier, he understood that irresponsibility could not be repeatedly rewarded, if it is rewarded at all.  Decisive disciplinary actions for those tycoons and companies that  aggress against and the planet must be taken.  Unscrupulous moneyed moguls, who wrongfully attack the people, must meet their reward.  Mister Meek said, then, in early summer, BP should pay the price for the folly they reaped.  Even then, the soon-to-be-Senator Meek understood; if a company rapes Mother Earth, robs the people, plants, indeed, all that is our Earthly sphere, jail time must be served.  All who break the laws of nature and the people, must suffer the consequences.  Microbes, mammals, and much more will!

Might we heed what was a warning, or will we harvest the seeds sown.  We must choose.  Hopefully, we will remember before it is too late, Newton's Third Law of Motion.  "For every action there is an equal and opposing reaction."

• Deepwater Horizon (BP) Oil-Spill Fraud. Department of Justice.  United States Government. August 24, 2010
• Should BP CEO Tony Hayward Go to Prison? By Lewis Maltby.  In These Times.July 22, 2010
• How Bush's DOJ Killed a Criminal Probe Into BP That Threatened to Net Top Officials, By Jason Leopold.  Truth Out. May 19, 2010
• Criminal charges are being considered against BP in Gulf oil rig tragedy. By David Hammer.  The Times-Picayune. September 5, 2010
• BP Execs Could Face Potential Jail Time.  CBS News. June 2, 2010<./li>
  
• Deepwater Horizon Accident Investigation Report.   BP.


• BP Will Face `Thousands' of Spill Cases, Judge Says, By Jef Feeley and Margaret Cronin Fisk.  Bloomberg. September 16, 2010

Add to del.icio.us

Digg this

Post to Furl

Add to reddit

Add to myYahoo!

BP and CEOs Fight the Laws

video details and more

Kendrick Meek; Blast BP and Corporate Irresponsibility

copyright ? 2010 Betsy L. Angert.  BeThink.org

Whispers whirled around the White House, on The Hill, within the Department of Justice, and finally filtered down to the streets.  In truth, talk could be heard on the avenues, where average Americans roam, long before declarations came from above.   Should BP CEO Tony Hayward Go to Prison?  The public wonders.  What would the Obama Administration do.  Countless clamored; with full knowledge that President Bush's DOJ Killed a Criminal Probe Into BP.  It was believed that the potential indictments threatened the most senior officials.  More recently, words of warrants have become a distinct possibility.  Criminal charges are being considered against BP in regards to the Gulf oil rig tragedy.
Currently, the possibility or probability of legal action is plausible.  After all, the Gulf region was not the only shore or sea affected.  A planet, inclusive of people, were placed in further peril, the repercussions cannot be calculated.  Someone or ones must take responsibility, or be taken to task.   BP certainly has shown a desire to shift the blame.  However, a frustrated electorate may not be so anxious to forgive and forget.  For the common folk ,BP and other corporations are responsible for what occurred.  Constituents applaud the idea floated months ago; BP Execs Could Face Potential Jail Time.  These people have a friend in Congressman Kendrick Meek; they always did.  

Senatorial candidate  Congressman Kendrick Meek heard the indictments. He saw the future, and decided long before most Americans did; the behavior of BP and other corporate Executives is unforgivable.  The question is, laws of the land or laws of nature?  Might citizenry or corporations lose or rule.  The test case could be before us.  The defendants are BP, Transocean Limited, and Halliburton, or their Chief Executives.  The plaintiffs; the American people.  

Today, many more than Mister Meek or a scant number of citizens immediately affected by the crisis have begun to wrestle with the arguments and past and present applications.  "Principles" adopted by Corporate Executives, heads of companies such as BP, Transocean Limited, and Halliburton are a concern that might affect all of us for years.  Local persons in the Gulf region  have chosen to take action.  A judge, with over 400 Gulf disaster court cases on his roster explained.  BP and other companies will face "thousands" of lawsuits as a result of the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig explosion.  In April, no one in the area imagined how his or her life would be threatened by the derrick that had been the source of [economic] survival.  That is, most did not fully comprehend what Florida Congressman Meek did.

As a profound predictor of the future, or as a Senatorial candidate with a vision and a mission, he spoke of the doom and dire consequences he believed would, or should follow.  Mister Meek mused.  With anticipation, he addressed what he thought needed be spoken about months before today's events.  It was June.  United States Congressman, Kendrick Meek stood before an audience at America's Future Now! 2010 conference.   Kendrick Meek spoke of justice.

I was there for the pronouncement.  I recall the day and the proclamation.  Florida Senate hopeful Kendrick Meek called for corporate integrity.  All those months earlier, he understood that irresponsibility could not be repeatedly rewarded, if it is rewarded at all.  Decisive disciplinary actions for those tycoons and companies that aggress against the planet and us must be taken.  Unscrupulous moneyed moguls, who wrongfully attack the people, must meet their reward.  Mister Meek said, then, in early summer, BP should pay the price for the folly they reaped.  Even then, he understood; if a company rapes Mother Earth, robs the people, plants, indeed, all that is our Earthly sphere, jail time must be served.  All who break the laws of nature and the people, must suffer the consequences.  Microbes, mammals, and much more will!

Might we heed what was a warning, or will we harvest the seeds sown.  We must choose.  Hopefully, we will remember before it is too late, Newton's Third Law of Motion.  "For every action there is an equal and opposing reaction."

References and realities . . .

• Deepwater Horizon (BP) Oil-Spill Fraud. Department of Justice.  United States Government. August 24, 2010
• Should BP CEO Tony Hayward Go to Prison? By Lewis Maltby.  In These Times. July 22, 2010
• How Bush's DOJ Killed a Criminal Probe Into BP That Threatened to Net Top Officials, By Jason Leopold.  Truth Out. May 19, 2010
• Criminal charges are being considered against BP in Gulf oil rig tragedy. By David Hammer.  The Times-Picayune. September 5, 2010
• BP Execs Could Face Potential Jail Time.  CBS News. June 2, 2010
• Deepwater Horizon Accident Investigation Report.   BP.
• BP Will Face `Thousands' of Spill Cases, Judge Says, By Jef Feeley and Margaret Cronin Fisk.  Bloomberg. September 16, 2010

Add to del.icio.us

Digg this

Post to Furl

Add to reddit

Add to myYahoo!