Wayne LaPierre, the Executive Vice President of the National Rifle Association told a CPAC gathering in Florida, “It’s all part of a massive conspiracy to deceive voters and hide his true intention to destroy the Second Amendment.”
LaPierre was talking about the Obama’s administration to take no steps to take guns away from the citizens of the United States. LaPierre thinks that Obama’s lack of action is part of a conspiracy. That his appearance of inaction is so he can say he is for gun rights, and convince voters that he is on their side.
During the last election it was feared that if elected, Obama would move to take guns from the “cold, dead hands” of true Americans, as the gun lobby followers like to say. When he took office, gun sales skyrocketed. People wanted to stock up so they would be weaponized when the black booted goons made guns illegal.
But, since the election, absolutely nothing has happen. Obama has not requested any legislation about outlawing guns. He has not given any policy speeches on how guns have made this society the most violent in history. After the slaughter in Tucson by Jared Lee Loughner, that killed 6 people and wounded another 14 including Representative Gabrielle Giffords, a perfect time to call for more gun control, nothing happen.
And, yet, LaPierre seems to think this is Obama’s grand conspiracy to remove guns from the homes of good, upstanding citizens.
LaPierre and the likes of him need a boogieman to stay alive. He needs to stir up some hate for the liberal press, the far left commie in the White House or whoever else LaPierre can point a finger at. Even if the people LaPierre points fingers at are people in position of power that have done nothing to endanger his beloved right to own guns.
We do have a right, of some kind, to bear arms. I do believe that those that signed the Constitution wanted to make sure that we could keep guns in our homes for our safety, for hunting and so that we may respond to a call to arms by our states in times of need. But, it can’t be argued that by guaranteeing the right to bear arms in the Constitution, the signers ever intended to stop congress from enacting any reasonable law about gun safety.
LaPierre would have you believing otherwise. He believes that any law that curtails the ownership or use of guns is unconstitutional. But, who would argue that crazy people, like Loughner, should be able to walk around with a gun strapped to their waist. Obama, instead of moving to place more control on people like him, has done nothing.
LaPierre, where is the grand conspiracy?
-----
Responsible Community Working Together in Shared Responsibility.
Friday, December 2, 2011
Wednesday, November 30, 2011
One way to solve the illegal immigration problem
Grigg Box Company in Detroit was raided by United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s Homeland Security Investigations a few days ago. After a long investigation by HSI, it was determined that the company had a possible 30 or more undocumented workers employed. The owner of the company will soon be charged in court with the crime.
Brian M. Moskowitz, HIS special agent in charge, said when questioned about the raid, "Employers who evade the law not only fuel the demand that is responsible for much of the country's illegal immigration, but their actions also hurt lawful workers who are seeking jobs in this challenging economy.” Moskowitz continues, "Criminal prosecutions are just one of many tools HSI is using to reduce the demand for illegal employment and protect job opportunities for the nation's lawful workforce."
In the Responsible Community’s blog post, “End illegal immigration in five steps” the second point of five to end illegal immigration was:
2) Enforce the law about employing the undocumented worker. This must be done on the national level, not the local or state level. Unless every employer understands very clearly what they need to do to make sure their work force is legal, they will make mistakes at the very least and ignore on the most flagrant level.
Employers, small and large, must also believe that I.C.E. (Immigration and Custom Enforcement) could arrive at any moment for an employee audit. Employers must be obligated to document that each employee is legally employable in this country. If they can’t, they must pay a fine that is far greater than the risk of being caught.
We can’t fence off the world. No fence can be built high enough to stop those that are driven to find a way over, around or under. What we need to do is stop the incentive illegal immigrants have for finding their way here. If they knew they would not find work, it would stop one of the biggest reasons they come. (Another is freedom, and who could blame them for that.)
While we talk about ending illegal immigration, we always point fingers at other countries and the individuals that find their way here. But, rarely have we looked at ourselves. If we continue to blame others for our problems, we will never solve the problem.
Continue with these raids at an accelerated rate.
-----
Brian M. Moskowitz, HIS special agent in charge, said when questioned about the raid, "Employers who evade the law not only fuel the demand that is responsible for much of the country's illegal immigration, but their actions also hurt lawful workers who are seeking jobs in this challenging economy.” Moskowitz continues, "Criminal prosecutions are just one of many tools HSI is using to reduce the demand for illegal employment and protect job opportunities for the nation's lawful workforce."
In the Responsible Community’s blog post, “End illegal immigration in five steps” the second point of five to end illegal immigration was:
2) Enforce the law about employing the undocumented worker. This must be done on the national level, not the local or state level. Unless every employer understands very clearly what they need to do to make sure their work force is legal, they will make mistakes at the very least and ignore on the most flagrant level.
Employers, small and large, must also believe that I.C.E. (Immigration and Custom Enforcement) could arrive at any moment for an employee audit. Employers must be obligated to document that each employee is legally employable in this country. If they can’t, they must pay a fine that is far greater than the risk of being caught.
We can’t fence off the world. No fence can be built high enough to stop those that are driven to find a way over, around or under. What we need to do is stop the incentive illegal immigrants have for finding their way here. If they knew they would not find work, it would stop one of the biggest reasons they come. (Another is freedom, and who could blame them for that.)
While we talk about ending illegal immigration, we always point fingers at other countries and the individuals that find their way here. But, rarely have we looked at ourselves. If we continue to blame others for our problems, we will never solve the problem.
Continue with these raids at an accelerated rate.
-----
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
End banks that are too big to fail
Jon Huntsman, one of the many Republican presidential candidates, wants to put an end to banks that are too big to fail. His plan would not allow banks to grow beyond a predetermined percent of the economy. The real solution would be to keep banks in the community and service their own mortgages, loans and investments.
Communities operate best when the stakeholders have reasonable control over the events and issues that affect their personal and community lives. The institutions in the community that assists its citizens need to be small and local so that they can be responsive to the needs of the community. When they become too large, the interest of the institution is not tied to the community.
National and international banks are the biggest offenders. Their interests are not aligned with the interest of individual communities and the needs of its citizens. Decisions by the owners of the large banks are not made on a community by community basis. They are made in support of the corporation. Rather than provide the services that individual communities need, they force communities to confirm to their standards.
One of the issues this affects is mortgages. The amount of mortgages a bank can provide is limited. In order to be covered by the FDIC, a bank must maintain a set amount of its demand deposits on hand. If a bank wants to provide more mortgages than is allowed under law, some of its mortgages must be sold off, usually to Wall Street. This allows the banks to go well beyond their limits on lending money. They can make more profit, which is good for the bank, but not always what is best for the community.
When mortgages are serviced by the bank in the community, it is much easier for someone to approach the bank to discuss issues. Those that own and manage the bank are in their offices every day and are approachable. They care because the failure of a single mortgage means a loss to the bank and its standing in the community will be affected. If the mortgage has been sold off to Wall Street, the local bank has no say in the management of the mortgage. Also, the profit the bank makes from the loan has already been realized.
As a secondary benefit, less risky mortgages will not be made. If the bank knows that they will be servicing the mortgage, it will not want to have the expense of collecting the money. If risky mortgages are quickly packaged and sold off, the bank will be more willing to make those risky loans, knowing they won’t have to service it.
Both issues mentioned in the preceding two paragraphs caused a lot of problems over the last few years. One of the problems that mortgage owners have experienced is that the bank that services the loan would not work with them on finding solutions to avoid default. Personnel at the banks could not be contacted, would not return inquiries and generally were unresponsive to the needs of the homeowners. Also, without question, some of the mortgages should not have been made. Those risky loans were one of the reasons for the near collapse of the mortgage business.
Banks need to be community oriented and service the mortgages they provide. This insures that they will be more responsive to the community. When there is continuing personal contact between all the parties in any business relationship, the outcome is much more likely to be positive.
Note: Thank you to my daughter Lauren Hagerman for her insightful and supportive assistance for this blog post.
-----
Communities operate best when the stakeholders have reasonable control over the events and issues that affect their personal and community lives. The institutions in the community that assists its citizens need to be small and local so that they can be responsive to the needs of the community. When they become too large, the interest of the institution is not tied to the community.
National and international banks are the biggest offenders. Their interests are not aligned with the interest of individual communities and the needs of its citizens. Decisions by the owners of the large banks are not made on a community by community basis. They are made in support of the corporation. Rather than provide the services that individual communities need, they force communities to confirm to their standards.
One of the issues this affects is mortgages. The amount of mortgages a bank can provide is limited. In order to be covered by the FDIC, a bank must maintain a set amount of its demand deposits on hand. If a bank wants to provide more mortgages than is allowed under law, some of its mortgages must be sold off, usually to Wall Street. This allows the banks to go well beyond their limits on lending money. They can make more profit, which is good for the bank, but not always what is best for the community.
When mortgages are serviced by the bank in the community, it is much easier for someone to approach the bank to discuss issues. Those that own and manage the bank are in their offices every day and are approachable. They care because the failure of a single mortgage means a loss to the bank and its standing in the community will be affected. If the mortgage has been sold off to Wall Street, the local bank has no say in the management of the mortgage. Also, the profit the bank makes from the loan has already been realized.
As a secondary benefit, less risky mortgages will not be made. If the bank knows that they will be servicing the mortgage, it will not want to have the expense of collecting the money. If risky mortgages are quickly packaged and sold off, the bank will be more willing to make those risky loans, knowing they won’t have to service it.
Both issues mentioned in the preceding two paragraphs caused a lot of problems over the last few years. One of the problems that mortgage owners have experienced is that the bank that services the loan would not work with them on finding solutions to avoid default. Personnel at the banks could not be contacted, would not return inquiries and generally were unresponsive to the needs of the homeowners. Also, without question, some of the mortgages should not have been made. Those risky loans were one of the reasons for the near collapse of the mortgage business.
Banks need to be community oriented and service the mortgages they provide. This insures that they will be more responsive to the community. When there is continuing personal contact between all the parties in any business relationship, the outcome is much more likely to be positive.
Note: Thank you to my daughter Lauren Hagerman for her insightful and supportive assistance for this blog post.
-----
Wednesday, November 23, 2011
No religious test for illegal immigrants
In Tuesday night’s debate of the Republican Presidential candidates, Newt Gingrich said he would give amnesty to immigrants that are currently living in the United States with some conditions. In part, he said:
"If you've been here 25 years and you've got three kids and two grandkids, you've been paying taxes and obeying the law, you belong to a local church, I don't think we're going to separate you from your family, uproot you forcefully and kick you out," he said.
The part of the answer that says, “…you belong to a local church…” is the most troubling. The United States has offered amnesty to illegal immigrants since the early 1800s. The latest offer from Gingrich to provide amnesty to those living here in good standing is nothing new. I also, don’t believe, like Gingrich, that we should tear apart families and the lives of others by booting them out of the country.
But, by adding the local church part, Gingrich is appling a religious test that clearly shouldn't be a part of the conditions. In the Constitution it states in very clear words that there should be no religious test given to anyone that will hold office or a position of public trust. Why, then, should a religious test to be applied to illegal immigrants that would be allowed to stay in the country for all other reasons? Church of course, means a Christian religion. Why shouldn’t it apply to Jews that join a synagogue, Muslims that join a mosque or, how about atheists that join a humanist temple? The religious affiliation, or lack of, should not be part of the selection criteria for people that would be allowed to stay.
Gingrich is wrong to think that a religious test of any kind should be given. That applies illegal immigrants that will be granted amnesty or anyone else that will arrive at our shores.
-----
"If you've been here 25 years and you've got three kids and two grandkids, you've been paying taxes and obeying the law, you belong to a local church, I don't think we're going to separate you from your family, uproot you forcefully and kick you out," he said.
The part of the answer that says, “…you belong to a local church…” is the most troubling. The United States has offered amnesty to illegal immigrants since the early 1800s. The latest offer from Gingrich to provide amnesty to those living here in good standing is nothing new. I also, don’t believe, like Gingrich, that we should tear apart families and the lives of others by booting them out of the country.
But, by adding the local church part, Gingrich is appling a religious test that clearly shouldn't be a part of the conditions. In the Constitution it states in very clear words that there should be no religious test given to anyone that will hold office or a position of public trust. Why, then, should a religious test to be applied to illegal immigrants that would be allowed to stay in the country for all other reasons? Church of course, means a Christian religion. Why shouldn’t it apply to Jews that join a synagogue, Muslims that join a mosque or, how about atheists that join a humanist temple? The religious affiliation, or lack of, should not be part of the selection criteria for people that would be allowed to stay.
Gingrich is wrong to think that a religious test of any kind should be given. That applies illegal immigrants that will be granted amnesty or anyone else that will arrive at our shores.
-----
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
Failure of debt committee could start a real conversation about government
It could be that Newt Gingrich and I are in agreement with the failure of the deficit committee, if not for the same reasons.
This could be good for America.
The debt cutting committee that was put in place by congress a few months ago, with an equal amount of Republicans and Democrats, wasn’t able to come up with a plan to cut the deficient. It appears that the right used its powerful force to keep the Republicans from approving any increase in taxes despite the Democrats agreeing to make deep cuts in social spending.
Now for the part that is good for America. Congress will have to deal directly with this issue without hiding from it behind the committee. If a deal had been made, every member of congress and the president himself, could have hidden behind the outcome and not take any responsibility. Now, members of congress will have to go on the record with why they are cutting social spending and why they are raising taxes.
This will help start a sincere and honest dialogue in this country. Not about the debt as much as what we expect out of government. That government was formed not to stand on the side lines and watch people suffer, but to help all people in the community live the best lives they can.
If we could come to terms – read compromise – on the issue of government we would understand why some programs need to be temporally cut and taxes need to be raised temporality. It would keep the debt from getting too high and still help people in this country that need help.
So, let congress begin its debate. Let’s wait for them to get their party positions out of the away. Then, let’s ask them to get down to the real business of government. To come to a compromise that provides a safe and secure environment for everyone in the community.
-----
This could be good for America.
The debt cutting committee that was put in place by congress a few months ago, with an equal amount of Republicans and Democrats, wasn’t able to come up with a plan to cut the deficient. It appears that the right used its powerful force to keep the Republicans from approving any increase in taxes despite the Democrats agreeing to make deep cuts in social spending.
Now for the part that is good for America. Congress will have to deal directly with this issue without hiding from it behind the committee. If a deal had been made, every member of congress and the president himself, could have hidden behind the outcome and not take any responsibility. Now, members of congress will have to go on the record with why they are cutting social spending and why they are raising taxes.
This will help start a sincere and honest dialogue in this country. Not about the debt as much as what we expect out of government. That government was formed not to stand on the side lines and watch people suffer, but to help all people in the community live the best lives they can.
If we could come to terms – read compromise – on the issue of government we would understand why some programs need to be temporally cut and taxes need to be raised temporality. It would keep the debt from getting too high and still help people in this country that need help.
So, let congress begin its debate. Let’s wait for them to get their party positions out of the away. Then, let’s ask them to get down to the real business of government. To come to a compromise that provides a safe and secure environment for everyone in the community.
-----
Friday, November 18, 2011
Protect IP act is no protection
If the Protect IP Act becomes law, it will empower the Attorney General of the United States to blacklist websites without court review. This is like the chief of police of a local community deciding that a group of protesters should not be allowed to assemble in a local park because the local gas station asked the chief.
Many countries around the world allow their citizens to steal copyrighted material and sell it for a profit. China is the biggest abuser. Big corporations through their associations like the United States Chamber of Commerce, the Motion Picture Association of America, the American Federation of Musicians and others have petitioned congress for stricter laws preventing piracy. The act that is working it was through congress is called the Protect IP Act.
One of the provisions of the act would allow the United States Attorney General to blacklist sites that are suspected of piracy. With the big names mentioned above behind the law, the pressure on the Attorney General to block sites would be tremendous. But, he could do it without any judicial review. It would be his or her digression to block a site.
There is the possibility that sites could be blocked that may have an issue with one of the big corporations. Instead of spending their billions challenging the site in court, they could just pick up the phone and ask the Attorney General to take action. There is also a chance that sites could be blocked that are not politically aligned with the administration at the time. With no judicial review, the citizens of the community would have no way of making an informed judgment about the case.
This is clearly a freedom of speech issue. If the site is on the wrong side of the law, then a simple court review would illustrate it. Our judicial system is a way of checking the power of the congress and the president. This is a bad law for our community. The prevision about block sites should have judicial review.
-----
Many countries around the world allow their citizens to steal copyrighted material and sell it for a profit. China is the biggest abuser. Big corporations through their associations like the United States Chamber of Commerce, the Motion Picture Association of America, the American Federation of Musicians and others have petitioned congress for stricter laws preventing piracy. The act that is working it was through congress is called the Protect IP Act.
One of the provisions of the act would allow the United States Attorney General to blacklist sites that are suspected of piracy. With the big names mentioned above behind the law, the pressure on the Attorney General to block sites would be tremendous. But, he could do it without any judicial review. It would be his or her digression to block a site.
There is the possibility that sites could be blocked that may have an issue with one of the big corporations. Instead of spending their billions challenging the site in court, they could just pick up the phone and ask the Attorney General to take action. There is also a chance that sites could be blocked that are not politically aligned with the administration at the time. With no judicial review, the citizens of the community would have no way of making an informed judgment about the case.
This is clearly a freedom of speech issue. If the site is on the wrong side of the law, then a simple court review would illustrate it. Our judicial system is a way of checking the power of the congress and the president. This is a bad law for our community. The prevision about block sites should have judicial review.
-----
Thursday, November 17, 2011
Supreme Court Justices should keep an open mind
I guess it gets down to just not caring about appearances. Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, Supreme Court justices, dined with some very powerful people just the other night. That, in itself is not worth a blog post. It just happens that these people will be the lead lawyers in the challenge to the Affordable Health Care Act before the Supreme Court in March. That matters.
Judges at all levels should at the very least look like they have not formed an opinion before a case is argued in their court. Judges at the federal level are nominated by the President and approved by the Senate to keep them out of politics and party positions. If they did belong to a party, it might affect their judgment on cases that come before their court. When nominated, the prospective judge comes before the Senate Judiciary committee to seek approval. At that hearing, it is expected to hear them say that they can’t comment on issues that might come before the court. That might indicate that they are not approaching each case with an open mind. There are many other situations that they should avoid that might prejudice their opinion about issues.
So why is it okay for Scalia and Thomas to have dinner with the lead challengers to the Affordable Health Care Act? This wasn’t just a dinner with some friends. It was a banquet for the Federalist Society. It is an organization that advocates for conservative ideas in government. The dinner was sponsor by two law firms, Bancroft PLLC and Jones Day. Both will be representing conservative interests in their challenge before the Supreme Court. Scalia and Thomas are the featured quests.
Scalia and Thomas have long histories of supporting conservative ideas. This is, of course, their right as citizens of the United States. But, when they are the featured quests at a dinner that wants to get rid of the Affordable Health Care Act, it is no longer just a personal opinion. It is an appearance of already forming an opinion.
This is not in the best interest of our community.
-----
Judges at all levels should at the very least look like they have not formed an opinion before a case is argued in their court. Judges at the federal level are nominated by the President and approved by the Senate to keep them out of politics and party positions. If they did belong to a party, it might affect their judgment on cases that come before their court. When nominated, the prospective judge comes before the Senate Judiciary committee to seek approval. At that hearing, it is expected to hear them say that they can’t comment on issues that might come before the court. That might indicate that they are not approaching each case with an open mind. There are many other situations that they should avoid that might prejudice their opinion about issues.
So why is it okay for Scalia and Thomas to have dinner with the lead challengers to the Affordable Health Care Act? This wasn’t just a dinner with some friends. It was a banquet for the Federalist Society. It is an organization that advocates for conservative ideas in government. The dinner was sponsor by two law firms, Bancroft PLLC and Jones Day. Both will be representing conservative interests in their challenge before the Supreme Court. Scalia and Thomas are the featured quests.
Scalia and Thomas have long histories of supporting conservative ideas. This is, of course, their right as citizens of the United States. But, when they are the featured quests at a dinner that wants to get rid of the Affordable Health Care Act, it is no longer just a personal opinion. It is an appearance of already forming an opinion.
This is not in the best interest of our community.
-----
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)