Daily Archives: February 19, 2007

Historic inflation deflates millionaires

UPI | Feb 18, 2007 

British research has found that due to erosion from inflation, it would take $84 million today to maintain the lifestyle of a millionaire a century ago.

The Independent on Sunday reported that research has found that if an individual wanted to have nearly $2 million in 1907, he or she would need to have nearly $168 million today to compensate for inflation.

The study found that in Britain before World War I, an individual could live like a modern millionaire by only having a net worth of nearly $23,000.

The newspaper said that the findings from the Clerical Medical study suggest inflation significantly reduces monetary value over time and such trends would likely continue over the next 50 years.

“The value of 1 million pounds ($1.95 million) will be reduced significantly further over the next 50 years, even if inflation is kept firmly under control,” Clerical Medical official Rob Devey said. “While 1 million pounds is no longer enough to fund a lavish lifestyle, it can still go a long way with careful financial planning.”

Saudi couple victim of rise in ‘forced divorce’

Independent | Feb 17, 2007  

Fatima al-Timani is facing the end of her sixth month in prison in the Saudi town of Damman. Her only crime is to refuse to be separated from the man to whom she had been happily married for the past four years and with whom she has two children.

Fatima is the latest victim of a growing practice in the oil-rich Saudi kingdom of forced divorce, when disgruntled relatives have used hardline Islamic courts to dissolve matches against the will of the married couple.

The plight of 34-year-old Fatima, who was pregnant when court proceedings began in 2005 and is now in prison with her one-year-old son, Suleiman, has drawn widespread public sympathy in the tightly controlled kingdom.

Fatima is forbidden from seeing her husband, Mansour al-Timani. He now looks after their two-year old-son Noha, who has only been allowed occasional visits to his mother. Fatima’s relatives have accused Mansour of lying about his tribal background to win their father’s approval for the marriage and want it annulled so she can have an arranged marriage to a spouse of their choosing.

She was arrested in October of last year in the city of Jeddah and charged with living illegally with Mansour. The couple’s efforts to be reunited suffered a further setback this month when an appeals court in the capital, Riyadh, upheld the original ruling forcing the divorce.

Mansour said he will not accept the appeals court ruling and that he still considers Fatima his wife.”This ruling is a non-Islamic one and, therefore, I refuse to acknowledge it,” he said.

“If her family wants to marry her to another man while we both still consider ourselves married then there is nothing I can do about it. But God will be our judge.”

‘Castle Doctrine’ Aims To Broaden Definition Of Self-Defense

KXAN | Feb 13, 2007  

Oh no, we shouldn’t dare to defend ourselves in our own homes. We should be like Great Britain where, if you defend yourself, you go to jail. Obviously, it is better to lie down on the floor and allow thieves, rapists and murderers to have their way with us right? At the very least, we should kneel down, beg them for mercy and lick their boots the same way we kneel down and lick the boots of the cops. Hmm…makes sense.

Actually, in the New World Order double-think system, this is exactly what they expect us to do because, to them we are nothing but slaves anyway.

To me, this law is just the manifestation of common sense. You as a dignified human being, have certain inherent rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If someone wants to interfere with your rights or those of your family, then you have the right to stop them, whatever it takes, using violence only as a last resort. The average person is not going to shoot first and ask questions later. Most people have an inherent disdain for violence and only use force when their lives are threatened. Anyone with a level head is going to use force only as a last resort. Trusting people to do the right thing is the right way to go and you can be assured that this will have a real deterrent effect on all kinds of crime throughout Texas. Will some people abuse the law? Sure they will, but they will be the exception, rather than the rule, and if they break the law, they will face the consequences. This is all as it should be. This law is only reinforcing what is already in the Constitution: the right to bear arms and the right to life.

Of course, there are those who oppose such a law, but these people do not understand or respect the Constitution. They think there is something wrong with our Constitution and want to change it. They want to coddle criminals and treat them with kid-gloves. In fact, to their way of thinking, the criminals should have more rights than the average citizen, which is the result of their twisted logic. They generally believe in banning guns which not only helps crminals, but it helps the elites who want to see everyone disarmed and docile as sheep so they can implement their police state system of totalitarian control. But it seems in Texas, such people are little tolerated and hopefully the “Castle Doctrine” will pass. Watch the crime statistics fall accordingly.


Self-defense is at the center of a new debate in Session ’07.

In Oklahoma, law enforcement says it’s working. Only they don’t call it the “Castle Doctrine.” There, it’s named the “Make My Day” law. And since it was passed in the 1990s, burglaries have been cut in half.

Cases like Monday’s mall shooting in Salt Lake City always bring conversations about gun control. One Texas senator says state law does not go far enough in allowing you to protect yourself.

The saying goes that a man’s home is his castle. But as the law stands now, if someone is breaking into your home, you cannot use excessive force to protect yourself. So if a robber has a knife, and you shoot him, you could be charged.

But supporters of a new bill called the “Castle Doctrine” say the law puts your safety back in your hands.

On Aug. 28, 2006 at 2:30 a.m., a man was shot and killed outside a home in North Central Austin. He didn’t live there, and no one was ever charged, but the case raised the question: how far can you go to protect your home?

“If somebody’s breaking into your house, I think it’s fair for you to assume that person is there to do you harm,” said Sen. Jeff Wentworth, D-District 25.

Last week, Wentworth introduced the “Castle Doctrine,” which broadens the legal definition of self-defense.

“Today, you don’t have a right to defend yourself, to stand and defense yourself and your family,” Wentworth said. “You have an obligation to retreat and not use excessive force.”

That’s the way the law works now. If the “Castle Doctrine” passes, you’ll be allowed to defend yourself through whatever means necessary, including deadly force if need-be if you believe someone is threatening you at your home, in your vehicle, even at your place of business.

“This is clearly the will of the people,” Wentworth said. “Nobody has phoned me, nobody has written me, faxed me, e-mailed me, or said to me, ‘This is not a good idea.'”

Indeed, 28 of 31 senators have signed on to co-author the bill, but Sen. Royce West, D-District 23, did not.

“I need to take a little more time to look at the merits of the bill,” West said. “Don’t get me wrong. I believe in making certain [that] people can protect themselves,” West said. “However, I’m getting input from my district where people are not supportive of the bill.”

Opponents call it the “Shoot-To-Kill” bill or the “Shoot First” law — as in shoot first, ask questions later.

In Oklahoma, law enforcement says it’s working. Only they don’t call it the “Castle Doctrine.” There, it’s named the “Make My Day” law. And since it was passed in the 1990s, burglaries have been cut in half.