There have been many articles out on the blogosphere talking about Louisiana House Bill No. 195 regarding the new rules for dealers in second-hand, used or junk goods in the state of Louisiana.  They’ve been eronneously reporting that these dealers will now be prohibited from taking cash from their customers for these second-hand goods, therefore targeting small flea markets and people having garage sales.

Well this just didn’t sound right to me so I got busy doing what I do best, RESEARCH.

  • First, I read the bill and it’s amendments for myself and felt that it was NOT targeted at yard or garage sales, but instead at businesses like flea markets and second-hand stores.
  • Second, I read the resume of the bill which describes in simple language what the old law said and what the new one says.
  • Third, I called Representative Clifton Richardson’s office and confirmed what I felt to be true. They sent me Richardson’s news release regarding the bill.
  • Fourth, I viewed the archived recording of the actual debate regarding this bill at the House Commerce Committee hearing of May 10th.

Before the passage of this bill, there were different laws dealing with: second-hand dealers, R.S. 37:1861-1870; junk dealers, R.S. 51:571-578; and metal dealers, R.S. 51:571-578. This new bill is basically lumping all those dealers together and requiring the same from them all.

This bill actually came about because of the large number of problems Louisiana has been having in the area of copper and other metal being stolen and re-sold. It has gotten to the point that the thieves are digging the copper out of the ground and destroying contruction sites to obtain the metal for resale. This bill would address that problem and help law enforcement to ensure all second-hand dealers are obtaining their goods in legal, reputable ways.

To explain how the law is written, I will use an example:
Mr. X owns a second-hand furniture and appliance store. He is the “second-hand dealer” as outlined in the bill. He purchases a refrigerator from someone, who is considered the “seller“. When he purchases that item he must: 1) pay for it with a check, money-order, or electronic transfer, therefore establishing a money trail for the purchase. 2) He must obtain a statement from the seller of that item that it was paid for or owned by the seller – this is new to the second-hand dealer law but was already included in the junk dealer’s law. Having this statement keeps the second-hand dealer from getting into trouble, if the item indeed turns out to the stolen. 3) He must keep a record for three years with details regarding the purchase of that good from the seller. They already had to do this, but they changed what is required in the record a little. You can read page 2 of the resume to get the details of what is required in the record.

The bill provides for exemptions for different businesses, such as pawn shops who operate under R.S. 37:1785-1800. The part of the bill that exempts garage and yard sales is covering under the part which is now R.S.37:1861, paragraph A which includes the sentence:  Anyone, other than a nonprofit entity, who buys, sells, trades in, or otherwise acquires or disposes of junk or used or secondhand property more frequently than once per month from any other person, other than a nonprofit entity, shall be deemed as being engaged in the business of a secondhand dealer. Personally, I would have felt more comfortable if the terms garage sales and yard sales had been spelled out more specifically, but they felt that the average citizen having a garage sale would most probably not have them more than once a month and those who do more than once a month are probably selling goods that they have purchased for selling and therefore need to be covered under this law.

So, as you can see, the news coverage regarding this bill has gotten mis-communicated. If I have a garage sale, the law doesn’t apply. If I operate a small flee market I do have to follow the law, but I definitely CAN take cash from the customers who come into my flee market and want to buy my second-hand goods.  I’d like to know what you think.

Sources:

Actual Bill: http://www.legis.state.la.us/billdata/streamdocument.asp?did=760886

Resume of Bill: http://www.legis.state.la.us/billdata/streamdocument.asp?did=762297

News Release: Act 389, 2011 RS[2]

Archive Video of Floor Debate: http://house.louisiana.gov/H_Video/2011/May2011.htm : Page down to May 10th and Click on Commerce.

I am definitely considered in the lower class category in the United States today. As a single mother I make almost $2.00 an hour above minimum wage and I have no bills other than my mortgage, utilities, insurance, gas, and food. Yet I barely have enough money to cover those cost of living expenses that I do have.

I am in that bracket of Americans who do not pay federal income tax. Now some people say that is ashame. However, I (and other lower income families) didn’t set up the system. My employer deducts from my paycheck exactly what the federal government tells them to (in my case none). I file my taxes every year just the same as everyone else, and they actually give me some money back, even though I paid them nothing. Some would say that is horrible. However, that money is what pays for car trouble, plumbing problems, clothes and school supplies, and other unexpected costs during the course of the year and rarely lasts the entire year.  I’m not asking anybody to feel sorry for me. It is what it is and God meets all my needs as they arise. I don’t feel poor, I feel blessed.

However, the 9 – 9 – 9 plan that Herman Cain proposes scares me. As I understand his plan (and I could be wrong), everyone would have 9% federal tax taken out of their paychecks and not have to file their taxes at the end of the year. If I’m understanding this correctly, this means that I would not get any money back from the federal government and I would also be down 9% on my paycheck each payday. That means I would have to live off of approximately $135 less pay each month. I’m barely making it from paycheck to paycheck as it is.  Then you take into consideration that I would have to begin paying 9% more on most anything I buy. This would be a major impact on my budget.

So for the year, considering the 9% tax on my paycheck and not getting the Earned Income Credit, I would make $7600 less each year than I do now. Couple that with the fact that the cost of living is not going down and we have a major problem. The cost of gas, food, etc keeps going up and my paycheck does not keep up with the rate of inflation. Now if they could 100% guarantee that inflation would go down and not up, then we might be o.k., but when you still have the Federal Reserve printing money out of nothing, inflation is guaranteed to keep going up. In addition to all that, what guarantee would we Americans have that the next President wouldn’t raise that percentage from 9% to something higher.

Herman Cain’s plan may seem simple and that is why it appeals to many people, but the negative impact it would have on middle and low class families is HUGE! 

My thoughts are that they need to fix Washington in order to fix the economy and until they do that, all their efforts will be in vain. They need to scale back the size of the federal government like doing away with the useless Department of Education, and other departments that are not within the scope of the duties of the federal government as outlined in the Constitution. In the companies that are left, I’m positive they can find many wasteful costs and expenses that they could slash, as well as doing away with many positions within those departments. They need to get back to a money system that is backed by gold and silver and quit printing money from nothing. They need to bring businesses back from over-seas and help people be able to create more businesses here in the United States.  We need to manufacture more.

I most definitely don’t have all the answers, but I do know that as long as Washington operates under Keynesian Economic prinicples, this country is in dire trouble, and all of it’s citizens will feel the impact.

Posted by: JD | August 11, 2010

The United States of Islam

Americans better wake up and look around them soon to see what is happening before it is too late to change the course of the United States.  I believe that the United States as a whole and much of the population here are way too politically correct for their own good.  We hear all the time that we should not offend anyone and we should not discriminate against anyone’s religion.  Now I’m not against Islam, per se.  They don’t know the truth of Jesus Christ and him dying on the cross for the sins of humanity, however, they have their right to believe how they wish just like I do.

The problem begins when they want to destroy all the other religions of the world and want to force their religion and Sharia law on other countries, like ours.  We have warning bells ringing all around us.  We need to be politically incorrect and stand up and say NO!!  NOT HERE!! 

We have Judge Joseph Charles in NJ denying a muslim woman a restraining order against her ex-husband.  He says:

In considering the woman’s plea for a restraining order after the couple divorced, Charles ruled in June 2009 that a preponderance of the evidence showed the defendant had harassed and assaulted her, but “The court believes that [defendant] was operating under his belief that it is, as the husband, his desire to have sex when and whether he wanted to, was something that was consistent with his practices and it was something that was not prohibited.”

We have the whole situation with the Muslim Center being built at ground zero.  The issue is not a muslim center.  The issue is location.  It is just stupid and insensitive to put a muslim center near the site of the place where radical muslim’s created such devastation.  The people who cannot see that have something seriously wrong with them.

We had news not long ago about Christians in Dearborn, Michigan being chased off for handing out the gospel of John on a street corner near a Muslim festival.  Yes, it was probably insensitive and they did move several blocks away.  Still they were asked to stop.

I’m including an article by Gary Lane at CBN called “Sharia Law: Tearing the West in Two” who interviewed Nonie Darwish who is a human rights activist and former muslim:

Sharia, or Islamic law, is gradually working its way into public life in Islamic and non-Islamic nations around the world. What is it and what does sharia mean for Christians and others forced to abide by it?

“Sharia law is a legal system on the teachings of the Qur’an, the Sunna and the Hadith of Mohammed applied into the community as the legal basis for life,” Jeff Hammond, with Bless Indonesia, said.

Hammond is a Christian who has lived and worked in Indonesia, the world’s most populous Muslim nation, for 35 years. He says Indonesian Christians are concerned about creeping sharia law, now in place in half of the country’s 32 provinces.

“It’s going from one province to another, it’s not something that’s happening all at once, but step by step,” Hammond said.

Cruel and Usual Punishment

For example: even Christian school girls are forced to cover their heads in Padang province. Elsewhere in Indonesia, children attending public schools are required to learn the Qur’an.

In Indonesia’s Bandeh Aceh province, shariah police make nightly patrols to ensure that unmarried or non-related couples are not seen together in public.

“Christians are very concerned, not only because of what is happening here in Indonesia, they also see reports that are coming from other countries,” Hammond explained.

In Islamic nations like Somalia, devotion to Sharia law caused vigilantes to behead a 25-year old aid worker for converting from Islam to Christianity.

In Iran, women are legally stoned to death for committing adultery.

In Afghanistan, prostitutes are executed for their behavior.

In Pakistan, the government apparently has accepted the imposition of sharia law in the Taliban controlled Swatt Valley of the northwest frontier province. It’s a place where violators of sharia are often subjected to lashes.

Enforcement of Pakistan’s blasphemy laws have led to the imprisonment of Christians, like 20-year old Sandal Bibi and her father Gul Sheer on charges of blasphemy against the Qur’an.

Ripping the West in Two

Author and lecturer Nonie Darwish says the goal of radical Islamists is to impose sharia law on the world, ripping Western law and liberty in two.

She recently authored the book, Cruel and Usual Punishment: The Terrifying Global Implications of Islamic Law.

Darwish was born in Cairo and spent her childhood in Egypt and Gaza before emigrating to America in 1978, When she was eight years old, her father died while leading covert attacks on Israel. He was a high-ranking Egyptian military officer stationed with his family in Gaza.

When he died, he was considered a “shahid,” a martyr for jihad. His posthumous status earned Nonie and her family an elevated position in Muslim society.

But Darwish developed a skeptical eye at an early age. She questioned her own Muslim culture and upbringing. She converted to Christianity after hearing a christian preacher on television.

in her latest book, Darwish warns about creeping sharia law – what it is, what it means, and how it is manifested in Islamic countries.

For the West, she says radical Islamists are working to impose sharia on the world. If that happens, Western civilization will be destroyed.

As Americans, we are tolerant of other people’s and other religions.  They, however, need to realize they are in the United States.  They conform to our laws and ways of doing things.  Just like we SHOULD expect the Mexicans to come into our country legally and obey our laws, we expect muslims to come here legally and obey our laws.  One of the biggest laws of our land is the freedom of religion.  If you want to be Catholic, Baptist, Islamist, Jewish, Buddist, or atheist, you have that right.  That right extends to family members, including women and children of muslim families.  If they don’t like that, then they can leave and go live in a muslim country that has Sharia law.

So get vocal Americans and say NO!  Quit sticking your head in the sands of political correctness!!  Here is Nonie Darwish website: http://nonie-darwish.blogspot.com/

Posted by: JD | July 9, 2010

Are You a Good Parent?

Are you a good parent?  Are you sure?  What if you had to prove it to the courts or to Child Protective Services?

We NEED the Parental Rights Amendment (S.J.Res 16 and H.J.Res 42).  I first learned about the Parental Rights Amendment when my sister first started homeschooling my daughter.  I learned about the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, a United Nation’s treaty which, if ratified by the United States Senate, would become the law of the land.  It would override parental rights and override state rights.  I’ve written several articles about the treaty here at my blog.  If you have not heard about the treaty, I would urge you to read them. 

But in recent months I have been hearing about several different cases of the abuse of power by family court judges and Child Protective Services throughout the United States which is happening now without the treaty being ratified.  Below are some websites that have different stories of what is happening:

http://www.justicewomen.com/tips_bewarechildprotectiveservices.html

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/474920559

http://fightcps.com/

Now, I’m all for protecting abused children, and while child abuse still continues in the United States, it is a small percentage of the population and all cases should be handled individually.  While I, myself, have not been a perfect mother, I feel that I have done well with my children.  Could I have done better?  Maybe.  If a case worker came into my home and trampled my privacy, would I be deemed a fit parent?  I would hope so, but I would hate for the fate of my children and my fitness as a parent to be placed into the hands of a third party that had an ideological idea of parenting.

Some states are passing measures to urge Congress to ratify the Parental Rights Amendment and send it to the states for ratification.  My state of Louisiana is one of those states.  I urge you to talk with your state representatives to do the same.  If you go to http://www.parentalrights.org/ you can also see if your Senator or Representative in Congress is co-sponsors of the Amendments.

The Louisiana House of Representatives yesterday voted unanimously to urge Congress to pass the Parental Rights Amendment to the United States Constitution. The House vote of 93-0 followed the April 29th vote of 34-0 approving the same measure in the Louisiana Senate.  The parental rights resolution was championed by Senator Gerald Long and Representative Jonathan Perry as lead sponsors.

The measure cites concern over the erosion of traditional parental rights in recent Supreme Court decisions which have “created confusion and ambiguity about the fundamental nature of parental rights.” 

The Louisiana measure (SCR 38) calls on Congress to approve the Parental Rights Amendment which is pending in both houses of Congress. There are currently 137 co-sponsors in the U.S. House, including five from Louisiana, and seven co-sponsors in the Senate, including Senator David Vitter from Louisiana. 

What got me started on this whole rant was an article I read from Liane Carter, the mother of an autistic child who was trying to get guardianship for her 17 year old son for when he turns 18.  The courts will decide if she is a “fit” guardian for her son.  The same son she has cared for and nurtured since he was a baby.  Here is her story:

WHEN CHILDHOOD DOESN’T END
By Liane Kupferberg Carter

The woman on the phone said her name was Aretha Franklin.

“Really,” she added.

She was calling, she said, because the Surrogate’s Court had just appointed her agency as guardian ad litem, temporary guardian for our 17-year-old son Mickey. We had just filed papers two days earlier, asking the court to allow us to assume guardianship of all legal, medical and financial decisions on Mickey’s behalf.  This is something that must be done before his 18th birthday, the age of majority, when in the eyes of the law he becomes an adult.

While other parents have been shepherding their children through SATs and college essays, our time has been filled with lawyers and estate planners, as we struggled through setting up several supplemental special needs trusts on behalf of our developmentally disabled son. The guardianship piece is the last step in this painstaking process; we have had to examine and project every possible scenario of our deaths and what this would mean for our son.  It has brought up feelings I didn’t fully anticipate. Not just the obvious ones, the fear of one’s own mortality.  As the parent of an autistic child you think you’ve done your grieving. Then it smacks you in the face again.

Last week we had to take Mickey to the lawyer’s office so that Diana, the paralegal, could officially serve him with papers notifying him that we were petitioning the court on his behalf.  Mickey, knowing that something was up, refused to stand. He refused to shake her hand or make eye contact.  Standard M.O. for him in a new situation when he is anxious. Standard embarrassment for us.

“As part of the procedure, the court has appointed Mental Hygiene Legal Services for Mickey,” she said. “Basically, their role is to complete some interviews with both of you as proposed guardians for him and with anyone else they feel would be a useful source of information.  The court will rely on their report to determine if this guardianship is a safe and appropriate one for Michael.”

Appropriate? We are his parents.

I know that having the state appoint a temporary legal guardian while they process our appeal is pro forma. They do it for every case.  It’s meant to protect my child’s best interests.  It’s meant to protect all the children in the system.  So why am I feeling as if someone has called Child Protective Services on us and now a social worker is coming to make a home visit and poke into the personal business of  how we have raised our child?  What if we don’t pass the test? Does that mean the state gets to decide what school he attends? Which medications best treat his seizures? Where, how and with whom he lives?

For the past 17 years, we have had therapists, teachers and administrators in our home — in our lives, evaluating him, and by extension, it often feels, us. Most of them have been lovely. (A few, not. One, it turned out, abusive. That is another story.) But there is such a lack of privacy. With 10 hours a week of ongoing after-school therapy in our home, we haven’t been able to sit down and eat a normal family dinner in years. It’s bad enough we get stared at in public; you learn to expect it. But no one wants to be observed during intimate family moments. I’m tired of the well-meaning questions that often feel like veiled criticisms: Why do you let him wear sweat pants to school when the other kids are wearing jeans? Why does he use such tepid water when he showers? Why can’t you make him eat vegetables? Last year, his teacher sat in our kitchen sipping green tea one afternoon and suggested we put kale in the blender to make a vegetable smoothie.

“And who’s going to get him to drink that?” I asked. I laughed but thought, Obviously you don’t have any children of your own yet. The underlying message often feels like: You need to discipline him better. You’re not setting the right limits. I’m weary of being watched all the time, feeling I have to defend every parenting choice I make. It doesn’t feel good.

When Aretha Franklin called, I was my most friendly and chipper. We made an appointment. Then I stewed in an icy hot bath of nerves all weekend. Should I bake brownies with Mickey before she arrived, so that she would see what a great mother I am? Isn’t that what you do when you are showing your house to prospective buyers, bake something with the subliminal scents of cinnamon and vanilla to make the house smell warm and inviting and cozy? Or would that look too obvious?

Would she ask him if he liked living with us? If we were kind to him? What if Mickey said the wrong thing? Once, when he was in fifth grade, a new therapist sat down at the table with him and introduced herself, and he got a glint in his eye.

“I like to play with matches,” he told her.

He doesn’t. But he does like to say provocative things, just to get a reaction.

O.K., I decided, bakery-bought cookies would do. She probably wouldn’t eat anything anyway. We vacuumed up cat hair, washed a bowl of grapes, brewed a perk pot of coffee.

“Make sure we hide the bong and the beer bottles,” my husband said wryly.

Aretha Franklin was lovely — professional and pretty. And young. So young. She arrived 10 minutes early with a large Coach tote bag and drew out a thick manila file folder. “Tell me about Mickey,” she said.

Do you have a few hours? I thought. Remember to smile. “What would you like to know?” I said.

“Where is he in school?” she said. Wasn’t that already in all the documentation we provided?

“He’s in a wonderful life skills program at the local high school,” I said. A program we had to force our school district to create.

“What activities do you do with him?” What haven’t we tried? His reportory is rigid and  limited. That’s the hallmark of autism.

“He loves the beach,” I said.

“Museums,” Marc said. Uh, oh, did that make us sound like we’re trying too hard to impress?

“Sports! He loves sports, he’s in a recreation program here in town,” Marc added.

I thought for a nanosecond of adding, it’s a sports program we started for special needs kids, because there weren’t any programs that would take kids like him. I stopped myself; it sounded self-serving.

“Visiting his cousins, that’s his favorite thing. Books. T.V. Video games. But we try to limit them,” I hastened to add. What if she thought we park him in front of the television?

“Would you like to meet him?” Marc said.

“Of course.”  She smiled. She was really very pretty. We coaxed him into the room, set out a large black-and-white cookie – his favorite – and a glass of skim milk. See, we give him skim, not full fat, because we are conscientious parents who watch his fat and cholesterol intake.

Mickey acted silly. He wouldn’t answer her questions. “Chicken!” he said. That’s what he calls people when he’s anxious. “I don’t want to talk,” he said. He gobbled his cookie and left.

“I know this may sound strange, but why do you want to be his guardians?” she said.

Wasn’t it obvious?

Marc said, “Who else? No one loves him as much as we do.”

“We signed on for life,” I added.

She asked for names and numbers. Mickey’s teacher. Mickey’s standby guardians, in case anything happens to us: my brother Marty; our older son Jonathan, away at college.

Smiles and handshakes all around; she leaves. I e-mail my brother at work, tell him to expect a call from Aretha Franklin.

He e-mails back: “I will be sure to give her R-E-S-P-E-C-T.”

It breaks the tension. Marc and I laugh.

“What’s Mommy’s job?” I used to say to Mickey when he was little.

“To keep me safe,” he would say.

I’m angry we have to go through this process. And afraid. Could the court possibly rule against us?

Because no matter how much I know logically all that we have done for our son, it never feels like enough.   It’s the endless loop in my head: could’ve, should’ve. After he was first diagnosed, I continually felt as if there were always one more therapy, one more intervention, one more special diet out there to try, that that would be the critical one, the magic, miraculous cure that eluded us, and that if we didn’t try, it meant we weren’t good parents. The recriminations. What did I do wrong during my pregnancy? Was it that Advil I took the week before I realized I was pregnant?  Did I not play with him enough as an infant? Not go to enough conferences, seminars and workshops? Or go to too many that took me away from him?  Should we have taken him to see other experts?  I should have done more.

But I don’t know what more could have been.  Sometimes, in dark moments, I think, I have not been a good enough mother.

Because if I had, he wouldn’t be autistic anymore.

I’ve been hearing some information about Islam communities arising in places like England and France, but I didn’t give it much thought . . . until recently.  A couple of weeks ago, I went on vacation.  During our adventure, we went to the laser show at Stone Mountain in Atlanta, Georgia.   At one point, while I was by myself in an area where many people walked by to go to the show, I noticed many of the people walking by seemed to be of Muslim descent.  The women were dressed from head to toe in flowing outfits, which really stood out to me because the temperature was still in the 100s. 

I just shrugged it off until I got home and started to catch up on my blog reading.  I read an article which included a speech at the Four Seasons in New York by Geert Wilders who is chairman for the Party for Freedom. The basic premise of the speech was the Islamization of Europe and how this may happen over the entire world.  When I read something like this, the first thing that I think is, “Is this speech real?”, then the second thing I wonder is, “Is the information in the speech true and accurate?

The first place I go to check rumors out is http://www.truthorfiction.com/.  Here is what they say about the speech:

Summary of the eRumor:  
A forwarded speech titled “America as the Last Man Standing” by a Dutch Member of Parliament named Geert Wilders.  It tells of what he calls the “Islamization of Europe” and warns that the United States is “the last bastion of Western civilization, facing an Islamic Europe.”
 
The Truth: 
Geert Wilders is the chairman of the Party for Freedom in the Netherlands and delivered this speech on September 25, 2008 at the Four Seasons in New York.  Click here for the complete speech.In January 2010 the Dutch lawmaker was in Amsterdam facing charges of Anti-Islamic hate speech according to a January 20, 2010 Associated Press article. Wilders is “one of a dozen right-wing politicians on the continent who are testing the limits of freedom of speech while voicing voters’ concerns at the growth of Islam.”  Click for article. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/20/geert-wilders-dutch-lawma_n_429495.html

The second thing I do is to start checking the information in the speech.  Here are my findings:

 1.  Many European cities are already one-quarter Muslim: just take Amsterdam, Marseille and Malmo in Sweden. In many cities the majority of the under-18 population is Muslim.
INFO:  There was a Fox News report written on November 26, 2004 by Steve Harrigan which says “Swedes Reach Muslim Breaking Point”.  “Swedish authorities in the southern city of Malmo have been busy with a sudden influx of Muslim immigrants – 90 % of whom are unemployed and many who are angry and taking it out on the country that took them in.”  It says that one quarter of Malmo’s population is now Muslim.  http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,139614,00.html

In Earth Times it talks about the 11.9 million dollar mosque being built in Marseille, France and that there were about 200,000 Muslims living there which makes up 25% of the population.  http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/news/146537.html

The only place I found the 25% in Amsterdam was at http://islamineurope.blogspot.com/2007/11/muslim-population-in-european-cities.html, but I was trying to find sources from news organizations instead of blogs.

2.   Many state schools only serve halal food to all pupils
INFO:  I did find an article at the UK Daily Mail which talked about a Dale Primary schools deciding to serve only halal meat to the students whether they’re Muslim or not to avoid cross-contamination.  They reported that for meat to be considered “halal” the animal must be slaughtered by a Muslim by a single cut to the throat without stunning it first.  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1076248/Primary-school-serve-pupils-halal-meat-theyre-Muslim-not.html

3.   Jews are fleeing France in record numbers, on the run for the worst wave of anti-Semitism since World War II. French is now commonly spoken on the streets of Tel Aviv and Netanya, Israel.
INFO:  There is an article at CBSNews by David Hancock called “Fearful Jews Fleeing France” and it says that Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon urged a group of 200 French Jews to leave and come to Israel.  One immigrant told a CBS reporter, “You wear something to say you are Jewish and you have difficulty.  We are afraid.  It’s simply that we are afraid”.  http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/07/28/world/main632610.shtml

Over at the Jewish Federation of Charleston, SC, there was a quote by an 81 year old Robert Sebbane.  It said, “They chased us from Algeria and they followed us here,” Robert Sebbane, 81, says for the North African Muslims responsible for much of France’s anti-Jewish crime.” http://www.jewishcharleston.org/page.aspx?id=171014

4.  In England sharia courts are now officially part of the British legal system.
INFO:  At the UK Times, there was an article written on September 14, 2008 by Abul Taher entitled, “Revealed: UK’s first official sharia courts”.  It says that the British government has quietly o.k’d the powers of sharia courts to judge over Muslim cases involving divorce, financial disputes and even domestic violence disputes.  These courts are enforceable with the full power of the judicial system and they have been established in London, Birmingham, Bradford, Manchester and more are being considered.  http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article4749183.ece

Throughout my researching in this topic of Islamization, I kept coming across the fact that the worst part of this is the lack of assimilation from the Muslim people to the countries in which they now live.  They seem to expect their new country to adapt to their culture, religion and values instead of the other way around.  Now, I’m not suggesting that people from other countries give up totally their culture and heritage, but they should not expect the new country to change their ways to accommodate them. 

According to islamicweb.com, the population of Muslims in the United States is over nine million.  http://www.islamicweb.com/begin/population.htm.  Accordingly to salatomatic’s website there are 1460 mosques in the United States and 146 Muslim schools.  http://www.salatomatic.com/b/United-States+125.  So we definitely have our share of Muslims in the United States.  So what is happening here?

Things that have recently been publicized in the U.S. about Muslims here have been troubling to me.  There were Muslim students from the Muslim Student Association who stood up for Hezbollah during a speech by David Horowitz at the University of California San Diego.  More recently, three Christians were arrested in Dearborn, Michigan for handing out the Gospel of John outside an Arab International Festival.  The video even showed how they were harassed when handing this bibles out several blocks from the festival.

I don’t mind having “legal” immigrants in the United States.  That is what makes the United States great  . . .  that people from various countries come to live here in prosperity and peace.  But I fear the tides are turning.  Will we eventually become like England and include sharia law into our court system?  Will schools start serving halal meat?  Will Jews flee here because of anti-semitism? 

I believe we do need to keep our eyes and ears open to what is happening in our country and make sure to keep our prayers going and our voices heard in order to preserve our great country.

Posted by: JD | May 25, 2010

Is Your Home Safe from the Government?

Most of us Americans rarely think about the government (city, state, or federal) taking our property away from us.  When we think about it at all, it is the other guys, somewhere far away.  I remember hearing about the case in New London, Connecticut; where the city took some ladies house and told her she had to move.  However, I wasn’t much into politics around that time, so I really didn’t give it much thought.

Recently, I’ve been reading Judge Napolitano’s book “Lies the Government Told You” and it had a section on eminent domain and how the government has taken people’s homes and businesses for no better reason than to give contracts to private companies to build factories, shopping centers, and other businesses.

Then today I watched the videos below of Brian Rainville who owns a dairy farm in Franklin Vermont.  The Department of Homeland Security wants to take five acres of his land so they can expand the current Morses Line Crossing at the Canadian border.  They plan to build an $8 million complex and multiple lanes (this is only a small two lane road). 

Now I’m all for protecting our borders and securing our land.  However, this is just another example of crazy politics and federal government running amok!

Statistics from the Customs and Border Protection agency show just over 14,800 vehicles cross at this border crossing every year.  That equates to 2 ½ cars an hour.  Brian says that the crossing is not even open 24 hours a day and when it is, the government employees sit about watching the “grass grow”. 

Now, if the government was really interested in spending less money and using common sense, they could spend a small fraction of that amount by hiring local contractors in the area to renovate the existing structure and grounds.  Here is a picture of the station:

 For the small amount of business it does, simple renovation verses building an $8 million complex would be the responsible way to go.

This may end up being another case for the Supreme Court, but the likelihood of them voting in favor of Brian Rainville is probably small.  They have a history of siding with the government.

Here are just a few cases:

Berman v. Parker (1954)
Federal government tore down a local store so that a private company could build a redevelopment project.  The Supreme Court paid little attention to the “public use” requirement and decided that the Washington, DC area where the store was located was blighted, even though the store itself was not blighted. 

Poletown Neighborhood Council v. City of Detroit (1981)
Supreme Court of Michigan permitted the government of the City of Detroit to wipe out a community in order to let General Motors build as assembly plant.  They kicked 3468 people from their homes.  The Court justified the taking saying that the city is creating 6000 jobs by building the plant and were assured that the land would be for public use.

Kelo v. New London (2005)
Wilhelmina Dery (87) lived in her house since her birth in 1918 and was planning to stay there with her husband, Charles (86) until she died.  The Supreme Court decided 5 to 4 to let the city of New London take the home.  They took over a nine-acre residential neighborhood and gave it to a private developer called the New London Development Corp.  The city brought in Pfizer, a giant pharmaceutical company, to build headquarters in New London.  November 9, 2009, Pfizer’s announced it would leave New London in 2011, moving most of its New London employees to nearby Groton, Connecticut.  Urban village was never built and land remains barren.

Justice O’Connor dissent: “The Public Use Clause has no realistic import.  For who among us can say she already makes the most productive or attractive possible use of her property?  The specter of condemnation hangs over all property.  Nothing is to prevent the state from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory.” 

Justice Thomas dissent:  “Allowing the government to take property solely for public purposes is bad enough, but extending the concept of public purpose to encompass any economically beneficial goal guarantees that these losses will fall disproportionately on poor communities”

The 5th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says:

Nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

 From Judge Napolitano’s book, he says:

Jeffersonians take on it – eminent domain should not be permitted under any circumstance; namely, that only by mutual consent and a fair bargain, but never against your will, could the government end up owning your property. 

Hamiltonians take on it – they argued that the government could take any land it wants for free, just like the British kings at one time could and did.

Traditionally, a government taking has meant that if someone’s house stood where the government planned a roadway or a post office or a school, the person would be forced to move in order to accommodate the public project, and the government would pay the owner for the market value of the vacated property. 

The amendment came about to protect private property from the government and was drafted with the lingering memory of British soldiers taking the colonists’ property.

With more and more cases of eminent domain being upheld by the Supreme Court, any citizen of the United States could be in danger of losing their house and land or any reason the city, state, or federal government deems is in the “best interest” of the public.  I, especially, think of environmentalists with their desire to create eco-villages and urban planning.

I wish I could tell you what we, as citizens, could do to change this trend.  The only way I know of that I can get involved is to talk with my Senators and my House Representative to see if they will introduce an amendment that will make it unconstitutional for the government to take private property without the owner’s consent.  As we have seen, they cannot be trusted to only take it under very unusual and special circumstances.

Posted by: JD | May 20, 2010

The Real Reason Obama Chose Elena Kagan

I believe the key to understanding Obama’s decision is looking at Ms. Kagan’s position as Associate White House Counsel and Deputy Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy under President Bill Clinton from 1995 – 1999.    Then take some time to read her article entitled “Presidential Administration” in the 2001 Harvard Review.

In the article she addresses the President’s role in controlling the administration activities of the Executive Branch agencies such as the EPA.  She discusses this in light of the Reagan and Clinton Administrations, noting that Reagan exercised this control by creating the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) that would review all major regulations of the executive branch agencies as a means to deregulate; whereas, the Clinton OMB was sympathetic to regulatory efforts.

On page 4 of the article (p.2248 of the Review), it says:

This Article will show presidential control of administration, in critical respects, expanded dramatically during the Clinton years, making the regulatory activity of the executive branch agencies more and more an extension of the President’s own policy and political agenda.  Faced for most of his time in office with a hostile Congress but eager to show progress on domestic issues, Clinton and his White House staff turned to the bureaucracy to achieve, to the extent it could, the full panoply of his domestic policy goals.  Whether the subject was health care, welfare reform, tobacco, or guns, a self-conscious and central object of the White House was to devise, direct, and/or finally announce administrative actions – regulations, guidance, enforcement, strategies, and reports – to showcase and advance presidential policies.  In executing this strategy, the White House in large measure set the administrative agenda for key agencies, heavily influencing what they would (or would not) spend time on and what they would (or would not) generate as regulatory policy.

The Article is written in five parts. 

  • Part I – is groundwork material that describes non-presidential methods of control over the administration.  It addresses efforts to rely on Congress, substantive experts, interest groups, and courts to produce appropriate administrative decisions.
  • Part II – gives a historical account of increased presidential control over administration, looking at the beginnings of the OMB oversight under President Reagan
  • Part III – describes the current (as of 2001) and near-term future of presidential administration as shaped by President Clinton.
  • Part IV – provides a sympathetic view of both the legality and the wisdom of this system of presidential control.
  • Part V – focuses on how the courts should respond to this system of presidential control and suggests ways that legal doctrine can promote and improve the new practices of presidential administration.

She acknowledges the basic separation of powers doctrine that says Congress must authorize presidential exercises of lawmaking functions and that when the President is directing agency officials as to what to do (or not to do) they are in essence performing such functions.  However, in defense of Clinton’s practices, she looks to statutory predicate (Supreme Court decision in Myers vs. The United States – 1926) underlying the conventional view.  In other words, when Congress passes laws granting discretion to executive branch agency officials, that they are, in addition, leaving ultimate decision-making authority in the hands of the President.  She says, “This rule of statutory construction appropriately derives from an effort to determine congressional intent as well as, given some uncertainty in doing so, an effort to promote good lawmaking practices.” 

As an analogy, she uses an example of a set of military regulations given to the captain of a Navy ship giving him broad authority to make decisions about the ship’s operation.  She says that people would not think that this means the captain’s direct superior would not be able to instruct the captain as to matters about the ship’s operation.

In her defense of Presidential administration, she asks that it promotes accountability in “two principal and related ways.”  First, it enhances transparency (as we have seen in Obama’s administration that is truly a joke) and it establishes an electoral link between the public and bureaucracy.  She says, “The presidentializing of the bureaucracy (executive branch agencies) is to at least some extent the publicizing of the bureaucracy, with respect alike to outcomes and processes.”

She looks to the reasoning of Jerry Mashaw in an article he wrote defending presidential control of executive branch administration.  He said that more bureaucratic, instead of legislative, decision-making “would actually improve the connection between governmental action and electoral wishes.”  He points out that Presidents are popularly elected by a national constituency rather than local constituencies thereby having “a democratic pedigree purer even than Congress’s in our system of government.”

Kagan believes the enhanced presidential control of administration is more effective in handling regulatory issues.  By more effective, she talks about cost-effectiveness, consistency, and rational priority-setting.  She believes that due to the fact that the President is a unitary actor, “he can act without the indecision and inefficiency that so often characterizes the behavior of collective entities.  And because his ‘jurisdiction’ extends throughout the administrative state (or at least, the executive branch), he can synchronize and apply general principles to agency action in a way that congressional committees, special interest groups, and bureaucratic experts cannot.”

Another reason that she feels presidential control of administration is needed is due to the ever increasing polarization between congressional parties and the decreased capacity for “concerted action to meet national needs”.  She says the system increasingly has succumbed to gridlock.  This she feels has created a need for “institutional reforms that will strengthen the President’s ability to provide energetic leadership in an inhospitable political environment.”

Though she agrees that the president should have control of administration agencies, she believes that he shouldn’t have control exclusive of Congress, bureaucratic experts and constituency groups but stresses their continued participation in various contexts and for various purposes.

In her conclusion, she says, “I have urged the modification of certain administrative law doctrines in ways that will promote presidential control of administration in its most attractive, which means it’s most public, form while still appropriately bounding the presidential role.”

I feel that in her defense of more Presidential control over administrative agencies, she walks a slippery slope to tyranny.  With someone like President Obama in the White House who clearly has a personal socialistic agenda, he will have to use some of this control to get his agenda pushed through agencies instead of Congress, especially if the balance of Congress shifts significantly to the right with the fall elections.

With her nomination to the Supreme Court, he knows he has an ally on the court, should some of his “agency” policies get challenged and make their way to the Court.  I don’t know how the other judges on the Supreme Court feel about this issue, but we do know how she feels.

Here is the article if you want to read it:
http://www.harvardlawreview.org/media/pdf/vol114_kagan.pdf

Posted by: JD | May 17, 2010

Socialism Is Evil

Posted by: JD | May 13, 2010

Who is Elena Kagan? Some of Her Actual Words

 As soon as I finished posting my article yesterday morning, I continued my search for writings on the internet directly from Elena Kagan herself.  Here are the results of my search:

 Harvard Law Review  2001
Presidential Administration

http://www.harvardlawreview.org/media/pdf/vol114_kagan.pdf

The Daily Princetonian
Several articles written in 1980

http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/section/elenakagan/

University of Chicago Law Review, 1995
Confirmation Messes, Old and New

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/Confirmation-Messes.pdf

Catalog of Princeton University Senior Theses
However to order a copy of it will cost $54.60 (.35 cents a page) + 6.00 postage.

http://libweb5.princeton.edu/theses/index.htm

She wrote the foreward for “Transformations in American Legal History:  Essays in Honor of Professor Morton J. Horwitz” by David Hamilton & Alfred Brophy. 
I could not find an on-line copy to read, but here is the link for it at Amazon.com.  Or you could see if the library or your local book store has it and read it right in the store.

 http://www.amazon.com/Transformations-American-Legal-History-Professor/dp/0674033469

I also saved all the free articles to my hard drive just in case they mysteriously disappear somewhere.  I’m still looking for a free copy of her thesis on-line.  If someone finds one before me, please let me know.  I’m not in a position to buy the last two items on the list.  But I would really love to read them.  It has been interesting to me that out of a 156 page thesis, all the papers and blogs have only been quoting two paragraphs.  I’m sorry, but for me, that alone is not enough evidence to say she is a committed socialist, though I do believe she is a committed liberal.

I have not read all of these yet so if I learn anything interesting, I’ll let you know.

For other info on Ms. Kagan, click here

Posted by: JD | May 12, 2010

Who is Elena Kagan?

As a biography for her, here are the following points:

  • 1960 – Born April 28 in New York City
  • 1981 – Earned her Bachelor’s Degree from Princeton University, summa cum laude.
  • 1983 – Earned her Master of Philosophy degree from Oxford University
  • 1986 – Received her Juris Doctor at Harvard Law School
  • 1987 – Served as judicial clerk for Abner Mikva, U.S. Court of Appeals in the D.C. circuit.
  • 1988 – Served as judicial clear for Justice Thurgood Marshall of the Supreme Court.
  • 1995 – Began as Associate White House Counsel and Deputy Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy under President Bill Clinton
  • 1999 – Nominated to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
  • 2003 – Appointed as first female dean at Harvard Law School
  • 2005 – Began service as a member of the Research Advisory Council of the Goldman Sachs Global Markets Institute.
  • 2009 – Became the first woman to hold the position of Solicitor General of the U.S.

Another area of controversy is her senior thesis, “To the Final Conflict: Socialism in New York City, 1900-1933.  The Weekly Standard obtained a copy of it and here are a couple of excerpts from it:

“In our own times, a coherent socialist movement is nowhere to be found in the United States. Americans are more likely to speak of a golden past than of a golden future, of capitalism’s glories than of socialism’s greatness. Conformity overrides dissent; the desire to conserve has overwhelmed the urge to alter. Such a state of affairs cries out for explanation. Why, in a society by no means perfect, has a radical party never attained the status of a major political force? Why, in particular, did the socialist movement never become an alternative to the nation’s established parties?”(pp. 127)

“Through its own internal feuding, then, the SP exhausted itself forever and further reduced labor radicalism in New York to the position of marginality and insignificance from which it has never recovered. The story is a sad but also a chastening one for those who, more than half a century after socialism’s decline, still wish to change America. Radicals have often succumbed to the devastating bane of sectarianism; it is easier, after all, to fight one’s fellows than it is to battle an entrenched and powerful foe. Yet if the history of Local New York shows anything, it is that American radicals cannot afford to become their own worst enemies. In unity lies their only hope.” (pp. 129-130)

Now I have no clue if she is a socialist.  Some websites have said that just because she wrote this in her thesis that it doesn’t mean she supports it.  They cite that she wrote from an entirely historical perspective.  It was in fact a history thesis.  Given Obama’s radical agenda, I would not be surprised to learn that she at least has sympathies in that direction.

However, I would like to read the whole thesis before I make a judgment there.  I would love to read other things she has written down through the years, but those documents are also impossible to find.  One other red flag that comes for me is her affiliation with Goldman Sachs in their Global Market Institute, yet I cannot find any articles attributable to her. 

The biggest thing so far that I fear about the nomination of Elena Kagan is the lack of information about her and as a scholar and intellectual that seems a bit suspicious.

Since this article, I have found some of Ms. Kagan’s writings.  Click here

Older Posts »

Categories

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.