“FORT COLLINS, Colo. -- Police
have arrested an Occupy Fort Collins protester in connection with a $10
million arson fire that damaged dozens of condominiums and businesses
in Fort Collins. Benjamin David Gilmore, 29, was arrested on Thursday
night on suspicion of arson, burglary and criminal mischief. On Oct. 24,
a fire started at 3:30 a.m. in a four-story apartment complex under
construction. The fire spread to the occupied Penny Flats condominium
and retail building next door.
The
fire at Penny Flats caused heavy fire damage to the fourth floor and
roof, and heavy smoke and water damage to the first, second and third
floors, according to Poudre Fire Authority spokesman Patrick Love.
Damage was estimated at $10 million.
A video of the fire scene by Aaron Cathcart.
A
joint investigation between Fort Collins Police Services, Poudre Fire
Authority, and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives
investigators found the cause of the fire was incendiary, meaning the
fire was intentionally set, officials said.
Gilmore was taken to the Larimer County jail around midnight.
Gilmore In Court On Friday
Gilmore
made his first appearance before a judge on Friday afternoon via a
video camera from jail. Gilmore stood up and told the judge, "I would
just like to go home with my wife," and then he started sobbing. Bond
was set at $250,000, cash only. In the courtroom, Gilmore's mother asked
the judge to reduce the bond. The judge decided to keep the bond at
$250,000 because he said it was a serious crime that put many lives in
danger. After the hearing, several Occupy Fort Collins protesters
distanced the movement from Gilmore.
"He
may have stopped by the protest, but he is in no way a direct relation
to our movement," said protester Julia Crisafi. "We are peaceful
protesters." "One person's actions do not represent this group as a
whole," said protester Andrew Stover. "Non-violence is the way to
change."
Gilmore Well Known At Occupy Fort Collins
Gilmore
joined the Occupy Fort Collins movement in mid-October. “He showed up
on the 3rd or 4th day,” said Rich Crisler, who identified himself as the
media coordinator for Occupy Fort Collins. Crisler said he doesn't
believe Gilmore started the fire. “He had no reason to do this,”
Crisler said.
“They’re [investigators] just looking for a scapegoat.”
Crisler
said Gilmore owns a honey business. Crisler said Gilmore is very kind,
soft-spoken and wants to help people. “He’s not an arsonist. I’ve
dealt with people like this,” said Crisler, who said he was trained as a
psychologist. “Nothing would make me think of him doing something like
this.”
Crisler
believes the fire was started by several homeless people who took
refuge in the apartment complex that was under construction. Crisler
said the men had invited him to join them on the 3rd floor in the back
of the building several times to stay warm. “You could see it [the
fire] was burning from the back,” said Crisler. Crisler said the
protesters told investigators about the five homeless people.
He
said the five men were arrested, questioned and released. “It’s not a
good story to say five homeless people accidentally started a fire,”
Crisler said.”
Verum Serum had considerably more, including much evidence to make Mr. Crisler's statements basically irrelevant and perhaps even untrue. Click Right Here.
As A Catholic, I Did Not Know The Answer - So, I Asked
By Dell Hill
I’m not Jewish. I’ve mentioned, in passing, a time or two that I’m Catholic.
I
have a reasonably good sense for how Catholicism deals with various
issues, but when it comes to knowing much of anything about Judaism, I’m
clueless. That’s why I never hesitate to ask my Jewish friends the
questions and learn from their answers.
I
wondered how Jewish folks address the issue of abortion and birth
control. Catholic teachings have been made abundantly clear for a long
time, but I’ve never heard anyone discuss how the Jews treat this
subject.
So I asked.
A life-long friend - who just happens to be Jewish - said “you should ask Rabbi Simmons”. So I did.
What do Jews believe about birth control and abortion? Does it differ for orthodox, conservative, and reform Jews?
Answer:
“Generally
speaking, the use of contraceptives is not allowed. The basic Jewish
idea is that the one who does the family planning is God.
However,
there are circumstances when birth control is not only permitted, but
advisable. There are a variety of factors, most importantly the parents'
emotional and physical state. A rabbi would have to weigh the factors to
determine what method of birth control should be used, and for how long
should it be used.
As
for abortion: Nobody disputes a woman's "free choice" over her body -
to cut her hair, or to undergo lyposuction if she chooses. On the other
hand, everybody agrees that there are limits to "choice" - i.e. a woman
does not have the right to commit murder.
So
the abortion debate really comes down to one basic question: Does
abortion constitutes murder? In other words, does a fetus have the
status of human life?
The
Jewish position is a rational, middle ground, taking into account both
the quest for spiritual greatness and the realities of everyday life.
In
Jewish law, a baby attains becomes a full-fledged human being when the
head emerges from the womb. Before then, the fetus is considered a
"partial life."
So is it permitted to destroy this partial life?
Generally,
no. This is illustrated by a case in the Talmud whereby a building
collapsed on Shabbat. The rescue crew does not know if anyone is trapped
under the rubble or not. And even if someone is trapped, they may
already be dead. Despite these doubts, we push aside the restrictions of
Shabbat in order to dig out the rubble - on the chance that it may
result in the prolonging of human life. Why? Because every part of human
life - even a doubtful, partial human life - has infinite value.
This applies to a fetus as well.
However,
there can be certain factors which may create an exception. For
example, when partial life threatens a full life. The Talmud discusses a
case where doctors say that if the mother continues with the pregnancy,
she will die. In such a case, we kill the fetus in order to save the
mother. Why? Because when the partial life of the fetus is weighed
against the full life of the mother, we give precedence to saving the
full life.
Our question now is where to draw the line? What constitutes a "threat to the mother?"
As
a general guideline, if the fetus poses a real danger to the mother -
i.e. the pregnancy will aggravate a heart condition or will cause the
mother to go blind - then there is room for discussion.
What
about danger to emotional health? There are certain circumstances where
this, too, may be grounds for abortion. For example, if the mother
became pregnant through rape, and the thought of bearing this child will
cause her a nervous breakdown or severe emotional trauma.
There
are other factors as well, including whether the pregnancy is in the
first 40 days or not. But the bottom line is that each case must be
decided individually by a rabbi well-versed in Jewish law.
* * *
Western
society has slipped far from this Torah value. Of the approximately 2
million abortions performed annually in the United States, about 75
percent are attributed to matters of convenience (i.e. having a baby
would interfere with the mother's school or work), or to financial
considerations (i.e. a baby is not affordable at this time).
In
Judaism, these constitute unacceptable reasons for killing the "partial
life" fetus. When one's parents become old and require costly
medication, should we then kill them also for financial considerations?!
Or
how about when a fetus is diagnosed as having birth defects? Some argue
that abortion of a handicapped fetus spares the child a "poor quality
of life." Yet who said that having one arm constitutes a poor quality of
life?! Should the mother of Stephen Hawking (the world's leading
astrophysicist who is near-fully paralyzed) have made a decision that
his was a life not worth living? Every time someone loses a limb in an
accident, should we kill them?!
Or
how about mental retardation? If a set of highly intelligent parents
are appalled to discover that their fetus has an IQ of "only" 100, is
abortion justified?
Judaism
says that this type of selection process is evil. It hearkens to the
Nazi program called "T-4," which systematically set out to kill all
physically and mentally disabled persons.
By
contrast, the Torah teaches that the true value of a person is his
soul. The great 20th century sage the Chazon Ish used to stand up in
respect when a person with Downs Syndrome came into the room. He
explained that to have been given such limitations, the soul of this
person must be very great, having come into this world to complete the
process of perfection in this unique way.
Ask any parents of a handicapped child and they will tell you that their child is precious - irrespective of "performance."
* * *
If the issue of abortion seems morally clear, so why is there such a bitter public debate?
Often
it is difficult to accept responsibility for the consequences of
actions. When you get behind the wheel of a car, there are a variety of
risks involved. Even if you are careful, you might accidentally run
somebody over and kill them. And you'd have to live with that
consequence.
So
too, when a man and woman engage in intercourse, there are a variety of
risks involved - among them transmitted diseases, emotional attachment,
and pregnancy. It is not a question of being careful. It's a question
of taking responsibility for one's actions.
So
what's the right thing to do. In the absence of severe health danger, a
woman must carry the fetus to full term. With 1-in-6 American couples
infertile, giving up the baby for adoption is an obvious option. (Of
course, a Jewish mother who opts for adoption should stipulate that the
child ends up in a Jewish home.)
Thank
you, Rabbi Shraga Simmons. You’ve certainly answered my question and
offered what I like to call ‘good old fashioned common sense’ to
illustrate your points.
Based
on the answer from Rabbi Simmons, I’d say that - with very few
exceptions - Jews are opposed to abortions and the use of contraceptives
to prevent pregnancy.
Why
is it then that women like Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fl), who, by all
accounts is Jewish, get away with openly advocating abortion rights for
women in America?
If her religion dictates, as Rabbi Simmons says, “In the absence of severe health danger, a woman must carry the fetus to full term,” is
there no penalty for Mrs. Schultz in staunchly supporting and voting
for abortion legislation, in violation of her own religion’s teachings?
I would be very interested in hearing your answers....
“Property
is the fruit of labor…property is desirable…is a positive good in the
world. That some should be rich shows that others may become rich, and
hence is just encouragement to industry and enterprise. Let not him who
is houseless pull down the house of another; but let him labor
diligently and build one for himself, thus by example assuring that his
own shall be safe from violence when built.”
“Grim perfection fromGlenn Reynolds: “I guess they really are taking Tahrir Square as their model.”
Let it sink in: Their protests now needrape shelters. This is actually happening. And New York City lets it go on.
Zuccotti
Park has become so overrun by sexual predators attacking women in the
night that organizers felt compelled to set up a female-only sleeping
tent yesterday to keep the sickos away.
The
large, metal-framed “safety tent” — which will be guarded by an
all-female patrol — can accommodate as many as 18 people and will be
used during the day for women-only meetings, said Occupy Wall Street
organizers.
“This is all about safety in numbers,” said Becky Wartell, 24, a protester from Portland, Maine…
Some of the male OWS protesters remained in denial over the growing number of sex attacks.
“Sexual harassment gets called rape, and it’s not,” one scoffed when told of the women’s tent.”
“Just call me Kreskin. I foresee tens of thousands of pissed-off New Yorkers when they find out the mantra "if you like your health care plan, you can keep it" was as worthless as every other Obama promise.
Empire
Blue Cross Blue Shield, the largest health insurer in the region,
announced to health insurance brokers on Friday that it will eliminate most of its small group plans in the New York market effective April 1, 2012, and is slashing its financial incentives for brokers to sell those products—a move one industry insider has said would be “catastrophic” for the insurance marketplace.
...Officers
of New York State Association of Health Underwriters sent a letter—of
which Mr. Hasday was one of the signers—dated November 2, addressed to
the superintendent of the State Department of Financial Services,
stating concerns that a major carrier, which it did not mention by name,
is withdrawing from the small group market because of rate request denials/reductions in the last five consecutive quarters. Mr. Hasday later confirmed that the letter referred to Empire.
“The major carrier’s pending withdrawal from the small group market is nothing short of catastrophic to small employers in the state ... tens of thousands of employees are going to be left without coverage,
as there will be only two to three other carriers left in which brokers
may try to place coverage. If the other carriers follow suit, the
availability of coverage will dry up entirely.”
Empire is dropping coverage for two reasons, both of which will apply to Obamacare:
• All "insurance companies [must] get approval from the State Insurance Department before changing any rates."
• An "insurance company could only spend a certain percentage of premiums for non-claim costs."
Both of these strictures represent price controls that will drive insurers out of business. This is just one more exhibit demonstrating that Obamacare will be a complete and utter disaster for Americans.
We are onthe road to single-payer health care,
a system in which government controls your health care; in which it
rewards friends and punishes enemies; and in which it rations care for
those deemed too expensive.
The
oldest and youngest Americans, the handicapped, and those most in need
of health care are certain to suffer. Which is the whole point of
government-run health care: total control of human lives by the ruling
class.
“Most
U.S. residents set their clocks one hour forward in spring and one hour
back in fall. However, residents of Arizona and Hawaii—along with the
U.S. territories of Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands, among
others—will do nothing. Those locales never deviated from standard time
within their particular time zones.
Contrary
to popular belief, no federal rule mandates that states or territories
observe daylight saving time. RELATED
Federal law simply stipulates that areas that do switch back to standard time at 2 a.m. on the last Sunday in October.
Likewise,
the rule requires that regions that observe daylight saving time, or
DST, begin the period at the same time on the first Sunday in April. This is the last year, however, in which daylight saving time will fall within those days.
In
2005, the U.S. Congress passed a law extending DST by one month as of
2007. Next year, daylight saving time will begin three weeks earlier, on
March 11, and end a week later, on November 4.
Standard Time
While
the U.S. Naval Observatory in Washington, D.C., sets what is known as
standard time in the country through its maintenance of atomic clocks,
the observatory has nothing to do with daylight saving time.
Oversight
of DST first resided with the Interstate Commerce Commission. In 1966,
the U.S. Congress transferred that responsibility to the newly created
Department of Transportation. Congress ordered the agency to "foster and
promote widespread and uniform adoption and observance of the same
standard of time within and throughout each such standard time zone."
So
why is a transportation authority in charge of time laws? Bill Mosley, a
public affairs officer at the U.S. Department of Transportation,
explains that it all dates back to the heyday of railroads.
"In
the early 19th century … localities set their own time," Mosley said.
"It was kind of a crazy quilt of time, time zones, and time usage. When
the railroads came in, that necessitated more standardization of time so
that railroad schedules could be published."
In
1883 the U.S. railroad industry established official time zones with a
set standard time within each zone. Congress eventually came on board,
signing the railroad time zone system into law in 1918.
The
only federal regulatory agency in existence at that time happened to be
the Interstate Commerce Commission, so Congress granted the agency
authority over time zones and any future modifications that might be
necessary.
Part
of the Act of 1918 also legislated for the observance of daylight
saving time nationwide. That section of the act was repealed the
following year, and DST thereafter became a matter left up to local
jurisdictions. Daylight saving time was observed nationally again during World War II, but was not uniformly practiced after the war's end.
Finally,
in 1966, Congress passed the Uniform Time Act, which standardized the
start and end dates for daylight saving time but allowed individual
states to remain on standard time if their legislatures allowed it. A
1972 amendment extended the option not to observe DST to areas lying in
separate time zones but contained within the same state.
Before
the move by Congress last year to extend DST, the most recent
modification occurred in 1986, when the start date was moved from the
last Sunday in April to the first Sunday in April.
Evening Daylight
According to Mosley, the drive behind the switch is "to adjust daylight hours to when most people are awake and about."
Daylight
saving time decreases the amount of daylight in the morning hours so
that more daylight is available during the evening.
Not
everyone benefits from the change, Mosley conceded. Farmers and others
who rise before dawn may have to operate in the dark a while longer
before daybreak.
Daylight
saving time, however, can bring many benefits. Mosley said research has
shown that more available daylight increases energy savings while
decreasing the number of traffic accidents, traffic fatalities, and
incidences of crime.
Congress
noted other advantages while updating legislation in 1986, including
"more daylight outdoor playtime for the children and youth of our
Nation, greater utilization of parks and recreation areas, expanded
economic opportunity through extension of daylight hours to peak
shopping hours and through extension of domestic office hours to periods
of greater overlap with the European Economic Community."
Obama Snubs World Series Champs - Apparently Too Busy To Call
“The
Cardinals celebrated a historic World Series victory last Friday night.
But President Obama didn’t join them. He never made a call to the
champs after the seventh game of the World Series.”
By Dell Hill
The 2011 World Series was, by every measure, a classic.
A
great series of ups and downs - despite the errors - that keeps you
glued to the TV set from start to finish. This was one for the ages
because both the St. Louis Cardinals and the Texas Rangers were quite
capable of producing runs by the bushel at any given moment.
All Hail the St. Louis Cardinals - World Series Champions. Cardinal Slugger Albert Pujols
I
had no dog in this fight. My Red Sox imploded in classic and
embarrassing fashion. But, I cheered for the Texas Rangers because they
were the American League team and since having lived about twenty
minutes from the Ballpark at Arlington, I’ve been fond of Nolan Ryan’s
team.
Sooooo, how did Cardinal’s manager Tony LaRussa like his congratulatory phone call from President Obama?
What’s that you say? The President didn’t call?
That’s
hard to believe, since the President has traditionally called every
World Series Champions club house as far back as I can remember. There
must be some mistake.
According to Jim Hoft - The Gateway Pundit and a staunch St. Louis Cardinals fan - the call never came.
“The
Cardinals celebrated a historic World Series victory last Friday night.
But President Obama didn’t join them. He never made a call to the
champs after the seventh game of the World Series.
Was President Barack Obama too busy watching the “Operation Repo” marathon or something else last Friday night?
When
KMOX host Charlie Brennan asked now-retired St. Louis Cardinals manager
Tony La Russa how the traditional call of congratulations from the
White House went, La Russa suddenly realized that…it never happened.
“That’s
a good point, I hadn’t really even thought about that,” replied a
surprised-sounding La Russa, who can be forgiven for having a few other
things on his mind over the past week. “As we were getting into the
World Series we had a call from the White House to make sure they had
the correct number for my office.”
But
as the wild, champagne-drenched celebration of the team’s 11th World
Series title was going on in the locker room, that phone never rang.
“We never did get a call,” La Russa said.
Maybe Obama didn’t like their politics?
In August 2010, St. Louis Cardinals Manager Tony La Russaintroduced
Cardinal great Albert Pujols at Glenn Beck’s “Restoring Honor” Rally in
Washington DC. Pujols was awarded the “Hope” Award at the massive
rally.
In June 2010 Cardinals Manager Tony La Russacame out in favor of the tea party movement and the Arizona immigration bill.
Do you suppose that had anything to do with Barack Obama’s decision not to call the Cardinals last week?
