Founder Of Greenbrier School For Girls Admits He Is Responsible For Teens Death

This is just one example of the hypocrisy of those who claim to believe so firmly in the precious lives of children. These "tough love" treatment camps exist all over the country, and this is by no means the only death reported in one of them.

"Right to Life" is not about life. It is about sex. Women must give birth to the babies who are the result of illicit sex. Once the child is born, it is no longer a subject of moral interest.

Founder Of Greenbrier School For Girls Admits He Is Responsible For Teens Death | Huntington News

Almost immediately, the director of the Academy, Lionel Jay (L.Jay) Mitchell took the approach that Ryan had not intentionally tried to kill himself. In fact, he told WV News recently that his opinion was Ryan wasn’t suicidal, and that the boy was just seeking attention because he wanted out of the program. Mitchell stated that neither himself, staff nor Alldredge Academy were negligent in the death. It was just a tragic accident.

Paul Nusbaum, then director of the Department Of Health & Human Resources (DHHR) disagreed with Mitchells contentions and filed an ORDER to cease and desist the operation of Alldredge and close it down because their investigation found numerous violations in the day to day operation of the Academy. The DHHR wanted to close it down because of the likelihood other teens were in immanent danger if Alldredge remained open.

Tucker County prosecutor, “Mont” Miller investigated Mitchell and staff as well for neglect that resulted in the death of Ryan Lewis. Mitchell and camp counselor John Weston White were indicted on felony charges by way of the county grand jury. Shortly thereafter, Mitchell hired an attorney and was able to get Kanawha County Judge Duke Bloom to throw out the DHHR’s closure order and not only allowed Alldredge to remain open and operating, he also allowed Mitchell to change the name of the facility.

Ironically, according to documents we located from the Government Accountability Office, both Kanawha and Tucker County authorities overlooked the fact that Alldredge was also illegally operating the facility on US Forrest property without paid permits or usage forms.
Not long after Judge Blooms ruling, the Tucker County prosecutor decided to drop the felony charge of neglect against both Mitchell and White if the company, Alldredge, would entertain a plea bargain against the actual corporation for neglect and pay a $5,000 fine.

Mitchell agreed to that offer, which kept him out of jail and not convicted personally for Ryans death. According to WV law, no one convicted of a crime of neglect resulting in death can have a permit from DHHR to operate a facility like Alldredge. Being a former attorney, Mitchell knew this when he agreed to pleading out the corporation instead of himself personally.

Sources report that dismissing the felony charges against Mitchell, and subsequent plea agreement, were also supported and approved by Tucker County Circuit Court Judge Andrew Frye.

Obama's Social Security Talk Is Turning Voters Off, Pollsters Say

I think that the Democratic Party clearly, definitely and purposefully already HAS defined itself: it is the party that wants to gain power and be in charge.

It has decided that most efficient and effective way to do that is to make the wealthy happy, because the wealthy will give them money to campaign and buy elections. This is the fastest and most pleasant way to win elections. In the meantime they take you to golfing resorts, lend you their airplanes, hire your relatives and take you out to nice dinners.

Average working people can’t do any of that for you. And you still have to walk around in the snow in New Hampshire and ask them to vote for you. This is demeaning and tiresome.

Why do what even a majority of average people want, when you can get the same result by pleasing a minority of wealthy people?

And like the dishonest steward in Jesus’ parable, by making friends with the master’s money, you will be welcomed into their homes (and given high-paying jobs) after you have been turned out of office.

The “Democratic Party” is not going to do scheisse for us, and there is no point wasting our time trying to get it to revive populist values that it never really had.


“You dumb son-of-a-bitch! We ain’t one-at-a-timin’ here. We’re MASS communicatin!” Pappy O’Daniel


Obama's Social Security Talk Is Turning Voters Off, Pollsters Say

WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama's apparent willingness to consider cuts in Social Security benefits may be winning him points with Washington elites, but it's killing him with voters, who see the program as inviolate and may start to wonder what the Democratic Party stands for, if not for Social Security.

That's the conclusion of three top progressive pollsters who spoke to reporters Wednesday at a briefing sponsored by the Economic Policy Institute, the Century Foundation and Demos.

"For the public, cutting benefits is the problem, not the solution," said Guy Molyneux, a partner at Hart Research Associates.

As a result, the pollsters said that any Democrat seeking elected office in 2012 should be begging Obama not to say anything about Social Security cuts in his State of the Union address later this month.

Lying, Cheating and Stealing to Gut Social Security | CommonDreams.org

Lying, Cheating and Stealing to Gut Social Security | CommonDreams.org:

"If accuracy is the issue, rather than cutting benefits, we could ask the Bureau of Labor Statistics to design a price index that specifically measures the rate of inflation experienced by the elderly. There is little interest in Washington in this exercise because the evidence we have now indicates an elderly index would lead to a higher COLA, not a lower one. So, in the interest of accuracy, let's be clear: The Social Security cutters want to see a lower COLA for Social Security beneficiaries. They do not give a damn about having an accurate one.

he Washington insiders may not be very honest in their efforts to cut Social Security, but they deserve some sympathy. After all, on policy grounds they have no case.

Social Security is an incredibly effective program. It provides a core retirement income to tens of millions of people, while insuring almost the entire workforce against disability or early death. And, it does this at an administrative cost that is about one-tenth as high as private insurers charge. In addition, it is fully solvent long into the future.

They have an even harder time with the politics. Social Security is enormously popular across the political spectrum from the left-wing of the Democratic Party to the devout Tea Party faithful.

In short, those who want to cut Social Security must overcome the fact that they have no argument on policy grounds and their scheme faces enormous political opposition. As a result, the Washington insiders have no choice. If they want to cut Social Security they will have to lie, cheat and steal. And the Washington insiders are very good at these tactics."

The Gulf War | Talking Points Memo

A reminder that we have been at war with Iraq continuously for 20 years, counting the years of sanctions, blockades, no-fly-zones and regular air strikes in the Clinton Years.

Some of my students have never in their whole lives known a time when we were not at war.

For what?? What have we gained from this?? Cites, states and the national government bankrupt? Thousands losing their homes? Millions unemployed?

What does this do to a country to be in a state of permanent war?

The Gulf War: from Talking Points Memo

The Vindication (by Barack Obama) of Dick Cheney | CommonDreams.org

The Vindication (by Barack Obama) of Dick Cheney | CommonDreams.org:

"General Hayden put it best, as quoted by The Washington Times:

'You've got state secrets, targeted killings, indefinite detention, renditions, the opposition to extending the right of habeas corpus to prisoners at Bagram [in Afghanistan],' Mr. Hayden said, listing the continuities. 'And although it is slightly different, Obama has been as aggressive as President Bush in defending prerogatives about who he has to inform in Congress for executive covert action.'"

Those are the nation's most extreme conservatives praising Obama's Terrorism policies. And now Dick Cheney himself -- who once led the "soft on Terror" attacks -- is sounding the same theme. In an interview last night with NBC News, Cheney praised Obama for continuing his and Bush's core approach to Terrorism:



He obviously has been through the fires of becoming President and having to make decisions and live with the consequences. And it's different than being a candidate. When he was candidate he was all for closing Gitmo. He was very critical of what we'd done on the counterterrorism area to protect America from further attack and so forth. . . .

I think he's -- in terms of a lot of the terrorism policies -- the early talk, for example, about prosecuting people in the CIA who've been carrying out our policies -- all of that's fallen by the wayside. I think he's learned that what we did was far more appropriate than he ever gave us credit for while he was a candidate. So I think he's learned from experience.

Cheney was then specifically asked whether he stood by his early attacks on Obama's national security policies -- "You said you believe President Obama has made America less safe. That he's actually raised the risk of attack. Do you still feel that way?" -- and Cheney, not exactly known for changing his mind, essentially said that, thanks to Obama's continuity, he now does not:

Barack Obama: Toward a 21st-Century Regulatory System - WSJ.com

This op-ed in the Wall Street Journal is beyond unbelievable. It is clear that he is not on our side. He is working hand-in-hand to increase the power and wealth of those who want to enrich themselves at the cost of ordinary people.


Barack Obama: Toward a 21st-Century Regulatory System - WSJ.com:

"This order requires that federal agencies ensure that regulations protect our safety, health and environment while promoting economic growth. And it orders a government-wide review of the rules already on the books to remove outdated regulations that stifle job creation and make our economy less competitive."

MLK: Beyond Vietnam

The irony here is that after Martin Luther King gave this speech he became an outcast, even in the "Liberal" community. He had stepped out of the domain of acceptable social criticism of civil rights talk, and into the the dangerous domain of the fundamental value of redemptive violence, our deepest faith in War as the ultimate solution.

Liberation Curriculum - About:

"A true revolution of values will lay hands on the world order and say of war: 'This way of settling differences is not just.' This business of burning human beings with napalm, of filling our nation's homes with orphans and widows, of injecting poisonous drugs of hate into veins of people normally humane, of sending men home from dark and bloody battlefields physically handicapped and psychologically deranged, cannot be reconciled with wisdom, justice and love. A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death."

Decent Poverty Report: Poverty and Misery | CommonDreams.org

In his book "The Birth of Christianity" John Dominic Crossan makes a clear distinction among the social levels in an agrarian economy that is being urbanized and exploited by a commercial empire. The crucial level of distinction is when the peasant farmer goes so far into debt that he loses his land and becomes a tenant farmer and day laborer with total insecurity on the way to being pushed further and further down to the level of being "expendable".

Its the difference between poor and being desperate. As more and more of us go further into unemployment, debt, foreclosure and homelessness, it this not happening here? History tell us that peasant revolutions can happen. The peasants lose, but they happen.

Decent Poverty Report: Poverty and Misery | CommonDreams.org:

"Poverty itself, the absence of money to spare, is not the enemy, Goodman told us. We should be more precise and define the problem as economic insecurity, the threat of utter destitution, the constant specter of misery and ruin. If America could eliminate or substantially reduce that threat, for millions of people-say, the threat of homelessness, foreclosure, or eviction-then living here in poverty would be tremendously improved, and suffering greatly diminished. I"