Alabama Lunchroom Lady Cops Plea: 46 year-old “cougar” pleads guilty to sex with high school student

At what point must we acknowledge that in many sex crimes cases, women are punished differently than men?

Six months in jail, to be followed by five years probation?

If that’s not a joke, I don’t know what is.

Is such different treatment not a violation of the United States Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause?

See Michelle Coker Taylor’s Arrest & Booking record with the Fayette County, Alabama Sheriff’s  here:
https://creator.zoho.com/sheriff3201/inmates-applicantion/record-print/Inmates_View/947281000000264007/

—

Michelle Coker Taylor, 46, pleaded guilty to having sex with a student while she worked in the cafeteria of Fayette County High School and began her six month stay in jail for that crime last week. (Fayette County Sheriff’s Office)

Ex-Fayette school cafeteria worker pleads guilty to having sex with student

Michelle Coker Taylor to serve six months of 20-year term, then 5 years on probation

Former Fayette County school system employee Michelle Taylor has pleaded guilty to criminal charges for having sex with a student.

Published: Tuesday, November 5, 2013 at 3:30 a.m.
Last Modified: Monday, November 4, 2013 at 11:50 p.m.

A former Fayette County school system employee has pleaded guilty to criminal charges of having sex with a student, according to a news release from Chris McCool, district attorney for the 24th Judicial Circuit District.

Michelle Coker Taylor, 46, was sentenced to

American Entitlement Culture

Recently, I happened across an item which read “When they analyze the demise of western society due to the entitlement epidemic, it’ll trace back to giving kids awards just for showing up.”

Of course, it can sometimes be difficult to discern sarcasm when reading, and I rather suspect there is at least a smidgen of sarcasm in that brief remark.

Sarcasm, of course, can, and is often used to convey a truth, or truths about numerous subjects, and is a teaching tool, as well.

Because I often use dictionaries to aid my understanding, I chose to look up the definition of the word “entitlement.” Here’s what I found:
As a verb, to “entitle” is to give someone a legal right, or a just claim to receive or do something.

For example, in the United States, the First Amendment is an entitlement to

Reasoned Debate: Our Second Amendment Rights & Preventing Firearm Violence

Alabama State House GOP “Dare Defend Our Rights” gun logo, from the FaceBook page of Speaker of the Alabama House of Representatives Mike Hubbard, R-Auburn

Recently in another Social Media forum, a long-time friend had posted a link to a site operated for the Alabama State House GOP faction, which is a so-called “supermajority” in that state’s elected legislative body. That site may be found here: http://ALHouseGOP.com/WeDareDefend/.

Perceiving that that those political ideologues were very likely drumming up support for their positions based upon pure emotion and fear, rather than reasoned, rational and informed debate, I initially responded by quickly writing a somewhat sarcastic response, precisely worded to give pause for thought. My initial response elicited a query, to which I delightfully replied more eruditely.

The exchange as it exists presently, now follows.

• Me: Yeah. Alabama was wrong on their right to segregation and their right to deny civil rights, too.

• Friend: So, do you support the

Thoughts on Veteran’s Day 2012

This oath – and its variants which I have also taken – is one I have never, and shall never forswear:

“I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”

That is a bond about which most will never know. I did so, because it is the good, just, right, honorable and proper thing to do. It still is, and always shall be.

Yes, I am

Perversions of Justice & Twisted Interpretations of Our Constitution by Activist Judges

Once, upon a time (in my lifetime), there was little to no need for $uch $pending as we recently witnessed in the November 2012 General Election.

Formerly, Pre$ident$ and Congre$$ were elected without much money.

Now, due in large part to

Alabama’s Two Greatest Problems: Ignorance & Apathy

Not too long ago, I asked someone – just an average person, someone unknown to me – what they thought were Alabama’s two greatest problems.

Their amazing response was “I don’t know, and I don’t care.”

Naturally, that was the correct answer.

The problem was, that those were the problems – ignorance and apathy.

Of course, that

The only thing that sucks harder than Alabama’s economy, is Governor Bentley.

Let’s be absolutely certain about a few things.

Number One: Alabama Governor Robert Bentley is – as a politician – a liar, thief and utter incompetent who is shitting on the people of Alabama and wiping his dirty ass with the United States Constitution.

Number Two: Alabama Governor Robert Bentley is – as a politician – a racist.

Number Three: The majority of the state’s Republican leaders are also incompetent boobs, liars and racists.

Number Four: I have utterly NO respect for the man Robert Bentley. Not as a politician, not as a human being. NONE whatsoever.

I predict Alabama will only be better off only AFTER he leaves… the dirty rotten scumbag.

—

Alabama has the worst economy in the Southeast. Wonder why? (Joey Kennedy)

Published: Thursday, October 25, 2012, 11:30 AM     Updated: Thursday, October 25, 2012, 12:17 PM

By Joey Kennedy | jkennedy@al.com

Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley-R, with HB 56 sponsors Sen. Scott Beason-R, left, and Rep. Micky Hammon-R, right, still defends the state’s terrible immigration law, despite the clear damage it has caused to Alabama’s economy. (AP)

Remember when the Legislature was steamrolling through that overreaching, harsh, toughest-in-the-nation immigration law in 2011? The sponsors said not only would be be mean enough to make individuals and families so miserable they’d self-deport, but also would boost Alabama’s economy and put good ol’ red-blooded, U.S. citizen Alabamians back to work.

Odd report this week, then, from the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia, which said Alabama has the worst economy in the Southeast. Worse than Louisiana. Worse than South Carolina. Heck, worse than, my goodness, ThankGodforMississippi

Makes us proud, doesn’t it?

There is a saving grace. While Alabama’s economy sucks more than any other in the Southeast, it’s only the fourth worst economy in the United States. Yea us! We’re No. 47!

The outlook for Alabama isn’t that sunny, either, the report says. Unemployment is down to about 8.3 percent, from last October’s 8.8 percent, but economists attribute that to jobs that have simply disappeared, not to jobs having been created.

That, too, can be traced to the immigration law, which left farmers, construction companies, restaurants and other labor-intensive industries looking for workers, then settling for fewer of them when Alabamians failed to fill the jobs.

A University of Alabama economist was ridiculed by state officials and others when he said

Guess whose salaries will NOT be sequestered? Yup. Congress.

Congress sets Congressional salaries. Not voters. Why should there not be a mechanism to limit their ability to do so, and why should there not be a mechanism for determining how much they’re paid?

—

Sequester cuts? Not for Senate and House salaries

By SCOTT WONG, 9/14/12 3:19 PM EDT

Money for smaller classrooms and afterschool programs would get the ax. So would funding for border patrol agents, food inspectors and cancer research.

But the salaries of members of Congress? Their $174,000 annual take won’t be touched.

Because lawmakers couldn’t

Sure, money is power. But, is it also liberty and freedom? Or, is it a tool?

As Bob Dylan sang some years ago, “The times, they are a-changin’.” Our laws should reflect those changes while adhering to the values ensconced in our Constitution. In essence, the argument is about freedom – freedom from the large corporations that supply “content” via the Internet. As well, openness and honesty – popularly termed as transparency – should be the hallmark of all dealings, by government and enterprise.

In short, what we’re encountering in this age, in this era, is an almost unprecedented and wholesale onslaught of money and the power that comes with it. It is, in essence, a corrupting influence. It is, in essence, a type of bribery – and bribery is itself, a form of theft. Bribery is a form of theft because it takes away, removes, or forbids resources from going where they ought, or rightfully should. In this case, it robs freedom from the people. Not only does it usurp their decision-making capacity, it is a blatant announcement and condemnation of freedom, because it says that the rich, the wealthy have freedom, while the poor and disenfranchised have none.

If – as the Supreme Court has declared – money is the equivalent of free speech, and neither cannot, nor should not be limited, what freedom does the poor man have? Again, if money is equated with free speech (that is, our First Amendment rights), the poor man has none. And that, my dear readers, is but one reason why such a ruling is not only ANTI-Constitutional, but is antithesis of freedom.

Making a further case, our nation’s specie – that is, the currency and coinage – is the property of the United States government. It is NOT private property. Money is a thing used to represent something else. So again, I ask rhetorically… in such instances, and in this case, what does it represent?
—

Google Says “It’s Our Web”–and they bought it fair and square

April 23, 2012 Chris Castle

Who can forget then-candidate Ronald Reagan’s classic line at the 1980 New Hampshire candidate’s debate:  “I’m paying for this microphone!”  And Google probably is wishing that whichever Ivy League idiot thought of rebranding their anti-SOPA campaign site with the double entendre “It’s Our Web” had not been quite so…uh..transparent…about it all.

President Obama had dinner with technology moguls February 17, 2011 in California’s “Silicon Valley” at the home of John Doerr, venture capitalist and partner at Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, in Woodside, California. Flanking the president are (L) the late Steve Jobs, Founder/CEO of Apple Computer, and (R) Mark Zuckerberg, CEO of FaceBook. Also present are:Cisco CEO John Chambers, Google CEO Eric Schmidt, Netflix CEO Reed Hastings, Oracle CEO Larry Ellison, Twitter CEO Dick Costolo and Yahoo CEO Carol Bartz. Art Levinson, chairman and former CEO of Genentech, is on the Apple board of directors, and was also present. White House press secretary Jay Carney said after the dinner President Obama exchanged ideas with the business leaders “so we can work as partners to promote growth and create good jobs in the United States,” and discussed research and development spending proposals with the CEOs. (Official White House photo by Pete Souza)

Because it certainly is “their web” and they bought it fair and square according to

Cheap Labor: Alabama legislature to consider bill allowing prisoners to be hired

In Alabama, it’s “Deja Vu all over again,” or “Back to the Future” again, and again, all over again…

Some folks say they want to “take America back.”

The only problem I have with that, is that they never say where, or how far back they want to take America.

Do they want to take it back to the Jim Crow law era, before the time of Civil Rights?

Or, do they want to take it back to before suffrage (the right of women to vote)?

Or, God forbid, dare they take it back even further? Surely not to King George!

Where ARE our “leaders'” sense of ethics, righteousness and justice?

I remain convinced, they are

Ousted & Disgraced ex-Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice re-Jesuses Voters

The appalling irony of it all, is that Moore’s political history is exceedingly marred, because he is the ONLY justice EVER in the history of Alabama to be removed from the Alabama Supreme Court by and through the Alabama Court of the Judiciary November 13, 2003, on ethics charges, for defying Federal Court Order.

Mr. Moore’s job – as any jurist’s job – was to interpret the law, not establish it, not to write it, but to interpret it.

Granted, Mr. Moore is a religious man. No one is disputing his faith. However, we, the people are not and do not elect a chief religious law jurist. We do not elect someone whom is expert in religious law, nor on the basis of their religious expertise, or faith. The United States Constitution specifically states that there shall be no religious test required of any person whom holds any political office.

The No Religious Test Clause of the United States Constitution is found in Article VI, paragraph 3, and states that:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

Why, oh why would anyone want to place someone in office based exclusively upon their religion?

Is not that very idea the one which most – if not all – religious people say they abhor in some Middle Eastern nations, in which the religion of Islam is the guiding force?

I find it ironic, if not deeply disturbing that so many otherwise good religious folk want the same thing their Muslim brethren do. But then, I wonder if they see the ironic parallel.

I doubt it.

Former Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore pulls off political resurrection

Published: Thursday, March 15, 2012, 5:30 AM     Updated: Thursday, March 15, 2012, 9:42 AM

By Kim Chandler — The Birmingham News

Former Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore — who famously defied a federal court order to remove a Ten Commandments monument from the state courthouse — has roared back from the brink of political oblivion to the cusp of getting his old job back.

Moore clinched the Republican nomination for chief justice Tuesday defeating

Gerald Dial, Alabama State Senator, Wa$te$ Taxpayers’ Time & Money Writing Religious Law, Readying Federal Fight

Some folks just want to “out-Jesus” each other.

It’s as if they attempt to demonstrate by their actions that they love Jesus more than someone else… especially and particularly if they make efforts in the public square.

Christ called such behavior a type of hypocrisy, warning that such prayers were already answered – but not by the Almighty, but rather by humans – because that’s who they chose to pray to. “And when you pray, be not like the pretenders who like to stand in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets to pray, that they may be seen by the children of men, and truly I say to you, they have received their reward.”

Truly, I say to you, dear reader, this type behavior disgusts me more than I have words adequate to describe.

Not only that, but the ninnies and nincompoops demonstrate that they have absolutely nothing better to do, and are not about the people’s business, but rather are about their own private agenda. They’re wasting time and money on worthless things. They’re neither visionary, nor reactionary.

They’re just plain, old, STUPID.

Every damn one of ’em.

Besides, if I wanted live under some religious law, I’d move to a country where that crap went on.

Idiots all.

It’s time Alabama voters had a recall law, because many of ’em would be. At the very least, we should place term limitations upon them, just like we did upon the office of the governor.

Supporters say proposal could allow Ten Commandments to be displayed on state property

Published: Tuesday, March 06, 2012, 5:35 PM     Updated: Tuesday, March 06, 2012, 6:12 PM

By David White — The Birmingham News

MONTGOMERY, Alabama — Some state senators said a bill passed by a Senate committee today would change Alabama’s constitution to say, in effect, that

Alaska man files suit, says Obama not qualified because he “has the race status of being a “Mulatto.””

And here, all along, I thought cuckoo birds were only in clocks!

Seems they’re in Alaska.

But then, this would only confirm what we knew earlier.

Old What’s-Her-Name?

Quitter?

Yup.

Suit Says Obama Can’t Run In Alaska Because He’s Of The “Mulatto” Race

Alaska-(ENEWSPF)- A man from Juneau, Alaska, has filed suit with the state’s Division of Elections to bar President Obama from appearing on that state’s ballot on the basis that the President is a “Mulatto”, and “the race of ‘Negro’ or ‘Mulatto’ had no standing to be citizens of the United States under the United States Constitution.”

Rand Paul, Conscription, Slavery, & Health Insurance Reform

Recently, U.S. Senator Rand Paul, a “TEA Party” Republican from Kentucky, and ophthalmologist specializing in cataract and glaucoma surgeries, LASIK procedures, and corneal transplants, was quoted as saying that “a right to healthcare… means you believe in slavery.”

Dr. Paul is the ranking member of the Senate HELP Subcommittee on Primary Health and Aging subcommittee, and made his comments at a Wednesday, May 11, 2011 hearing about emergency room use in American hospitals.

He said that, “With regard to the idea whether or not you have a right to health care you have to realize what that implies. I am a physician. You have a right to

Continuing Stubborn Ignorance

Having recently read this Op/Ed columnist’s article, I found the author’s remarks spot-on… so much so, that I am sharing them here for your benefit. I hope you enjoy them as much as I did.

Within the past decade, I’ve written three columns titled “Deception 101,” “Stubborn Ignorance,” and “Exploiting Public Ignorance,” all explaining which branch of the federal government has taxing and spending authority. How can academics, politicians, news media people and ordinary citizens get away with statements such as “Reagan’s budget deficits,” “Clinton’s budget surplus,” “Bush’s budget deficits and tax cuts” or “Obama’s tax increases”? Which branch of government has taxing and spending authority is not a matter of rocket science, but people continue to make these statements. The only explanation that I come up with is incurable ignorance, willful deception or just plain stupidity; if there’s another answer, I would like to hear it.

Let’s look at the facts. Article I, Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution reads:

Congress Passes Socialized Medicine and Mandates Health Insurance

Does history repeat itself?

Before this article was published, I was engaged in conversation with a friend on a subject wholly unrelated to this topic. As I listened to him he remarked, “Heck, when you join the Army, if your teeth need fixing, they’ll fix ’em. If you need glasses, they’ll put glasses on you. If you need any kind of healthcare, they’ll fix you up. The reason the Army provides healthcare is because they understand they’ll get a better quality soldier.”

Interestingly, neither my friend nor his family have a military background.

By extension, I wonder… how much more productive could the American worker be if they didn’t have to be concerned about their and their family’s health and healthcare? And then, if we completely ignore “lifestyle” related health issues. i.e., those associated with smoking or obesity, there are other chronic conditions, including heart disease, hypertension, COPD, etc., that significantly adversely affect the lives of families.

Congress Passes Socialized Medicine and Mandates Health Insurance -In 1798
Jan. 17 2011 – 9:08 pm

Rick Ungar
The Policy Page

http://blogs.forbes.com/rickungar/2011/01/17/congress-passes-socialized-medicine-and-mandates-health-insurance-in-1798/

The ink was barely dry on the PPACA when the first of many lawsuits to block the mandated health insurance provisions of the law was filed in a Florida District Court.

The pleadings, in part, read –

“The Constitution nowhere authorizes the United States to mandate, either directly or under threat of penalty, that all citizens and legal residents have qualifying health care coverage.”

State of Florida, et al. vs. HHS – http://www.scribd.com/doc/39344827/State-of-Florida-v-United-States-Dept-of-HHS –

It turns out, the Founding Fathers would beg to disagree.

In July of 1798, Congress passed – and President John Adams signed

Oathucked Up: Were Laws Violated in “Oathgate”?

I have said earlier – and I stand by my remarks, which certainly seems to have been sadly true – that the Republicans that wanted the Constitution read in the House of Representatives were practicing pure demagoguery.

Now that two of their radical “Tea Party” candidate/members have violated the U.S. Constitution by skipping their swearing-in oath in lieu of attending a fundraiser, and then voting on issues, it seems the good ol’ days of Jack Abramoff are back!

All hail the liars and thieves, and their “Screw You and Your Constitution, Too” attitudes!

How to Desecrate Our American Flag

Use it as clothing; place it on the ground, etc. The photog is a retired US Army LTC, MD (Lieutenant Colonel, O-5). Of all people, he SHOULD know better.

http://www.Flickr.com/people/PathDoc/

Desecration is defined as
• “the act of depriving something of its sacred character—or the disrespectful or contemptuous treatment of that which is held to be sacred by a group or individual,;”
• to “treat (a sacred place or thing) with violent disrespect; violate;”
• “to profane or violate the sacredness or sanctity of something; to remove the consecration from someone or something; to deconsecrate;”
• as “an act of disrespect or impiety towards something considered sacred;”
• and to be “treated with contempt.”

Flag Desecration - writing on flag, and used as a garment

Flag Desecration - flag on ground, written upon, used as garment

The word “desecrate” is

A Short History of “Privacy” in American Jurisprudence

Privacy

[Note: This entry was originally entitled “Privacy,” and was transferred to this site, having previously been posted by me on Monday, May 3, 2010 at 2:57pm.]

“Privacy” is a relatively new term in American jurisprudence, and public dialogue. Former US Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black, an AL native, wrote against “privacy” in his dissent in Griswold v Connecticut.

The development of our right to privacy emerged, interestingly enough, from Griswold v Connecticut, a 1965 Supreme Court Case which challenged the state’s 1879 criminalizing of a married couple’s use of contraceptive devices. Appellants were the