Cut deficit by tieing money for Libya to 1) move Gitmo to Libyan NATO base paid for by NATO and de-fund ObamaCare (now spending $150K) and two regulatory agencies, the for ever there EPA and the newly created Consumer Protection agency.
DrCameronJackson@gmail.com
Obama lauds “international support†why America must support the “no-war†effort in Libya. Let’s give Obama “internationalism†in spades using Tea Party goals.
Require that Congress tie money for Libya to: 1) Gitmo moves to a Libyan NATO base paid entirely by NATO; 2) de-fund two regulatory agencies, the newly created Consumer Protection agency and the for-ever there EPA.
Place both agencies under the authority of Agency for International Development/ Libya with goals that EPA only clean up Libyan air and water and Consumer Protection only create middle class credit mechanisms for Libya.
It is in our national interest that our democratic, pro-Western European allies get cheap electricity from Libya. And since the costs of Gitmo arise from 9/11 it is well and good that NATO pay for Gitmo. And since many of the terrorists in Gitmo are from the Middle East, it’s cheaper to house them there.
Legal Paudits to the good old boy Texas prosecutor who dumped Wille Nelson’s dope case in exchange for a song.
Barry Bonds' mistress testifies ...
But what goes on in the Bonds’ perjury case where the ex mistress gets to testify that Bonds threatened to decapitate her and dump her in a ditch? What’s next, he beat his dog. Firenze Sage
Steroid use is not a crime but lying under oath is. Do we need prosecution of Barry Bond?
Barry Bonds’ steroid use was so “out of hand” that his former business manager made a secret recording in the Giants’ clubhouse as part of a campaign to dissuade the ballplayer from using banned drugs, the ex-employee testified Wednesday.
Steve Hoskins was Bonds’ boyhood friend and his business manager until a bitter breakup in 2003. That year, he testified, he recorded weight trainer Greg Anderson describing the array of steroids that he was allegedly providing to the Giants left fielder.
The above Chronicle account of part of the Bonds trial for perjury presents some questions.
Do we really care about steroid use to the point that the feds must get into it instead of just leaving it to baseball and baseball fans? Steroid use is not a crime but lying under oath about it is. Hence, the Bond prosecution.
What will we do to convict Bonds? A surreptitious recording in Calif. is a felony but no matter as it is used against Bonds.
Is this just another crime and/or prosecution the nation can do without?
written by the Firenze sage
Dr. Jasser seeks to counter radicalization of Islamic youth with a different program.
Dear Friends and Colleagues,
We are seeking a few more young Muslims to participate in our first annual retreat. The purpose of this event is to seek answers to the challenges faced by young Muslims in the context of a rapidly modernizing world, including the separation of mosque and state, balancing an American and Muslim Identity, and opportunities for Islamic reform.
Please review the attached program flyer and application. We would appreciate your assistance in spreading the word. If you, or someone you know, are interested in attending, please fill out the application and return via email to info@aifdemocracy.org.
How best to aide Egypt? Most of Egypt’s businesses are underground — they have no title to their land and cannot raise capital or use modern methods such as creating partnerships and corporations.
So, first of all, set up a way for the Egyptian “underground” economy of 7 million to take a lawful position with the 5 million that have title, can get loans and can create corporations. That would create freedom and give people who have been “illegal” to become legal in their own country.
Second, require Mubarak to divulge half of his fortune of supposedly 700 billion in return for safe passage after elections. Use the money as a fund to encourage small businesses. Have as a goal the creation of a Silicon valley of high technology using the wealth that the Egyptian regime took form the Egyptian people over the last 30 years.
Third, change the percentage in Egypt of public to private sector employees. In Egypt, about 1 in 3 workers is a government worker. Reduce the percent of government workers to lower than 15 percent. In contrast, in Turkey — which is booming — only 13% are government workers.
The U.S. has a decrepit, expensive government post office that continually raises rates. In contrast the FED EX and other private companies that move mail are competitive and thriving. So, figure out ways to introduce competition to what government provides in Egypt with the goal to privatize services currently run by the government.
Fourth, ensure that Egyptian women have equality to run for office, borrow money, go to schools and universities, wear clothing that they choose and religious freedom and freedom of speech.
The streets of Cairo are filled with young men. No women are in the streets demonstrating. Or very few. When a country protects women and ensures that those who give birth also can demonstrate safely in the streets, get loans, vote and pray then society will have greater stability, more happiness and peace.
In contrast to what Obama wants — more “change” for young Egyptians so they can become a some sort of democracy — America will do better to promote Egyptian economic freedom and the rule by law for the protection of all.
Most importantly, let’s do all we can to stop the growth of the Muslim Brotherhood and the practise of sharria law. Muslim political ideology opposes the basic tenets of any free society. Egypt cannot be free if run by Muslim extremists.
Fortunately there was an uprising against a mosque near Ground Zero in New York. Increasingly there is more opposition to Muslim extremists in Europe and Great Britain. What say you? written by DrCameronJackson@gmail.com
Limtied Conservatorships typically remove up to seven (7) powers: medical, finaincial, educational are three of them. Getting a co-conservator may be helpful. Filing without a lawyer In Pro Per can be done and Santa Cruz County provides assistance. The regional center is required by law to provide a report to the court once they receive Notice including a stamp from the clerk with PR number and Date of Hearing.
In California, most conservatorships granted are “limited” conservatorships and typically up to seven (7) powers can be removed. Control over medical decisions, over financial decisions and over educational decisions are three of the seven powers typically removed from the conservatee and given to the conservator.
Having a co-conservator to serve with the conservator who can act equally with the conservator is frequently helpful. So, think about whether it might be wise to have a co-conservator on the Petition.
In Santa Cruz County you can get assistance and file In Pro Per without the assistance of a lawyer.
Once you have a PR number assisgned and are given a Hearing Date be sure to give Notice of Hearing to the regional center closest to you.
The Hearing Date and PR number are necessary for the regional center to prepare the required report and provide it to Superior Court. The regional center is requred by law to provide a report to Superior Court once there is a stamp from the clerk of the court.
The whole process of getting a Limited Conservatorship is paper intensive and about 18 different pieces of paper may be required.
The paperwork typically provided to the regional center include: CG-020 Notice of Hearing – Guardianship or Cnservatorship GC-310 Petition for Appointment of Probate Conservator of the Person – 7 pgs
Attachment 1c: If no other assets, then no bond required Attachment 1h list of the powers (e.g., medical, educational, contract) requested under 2351.5
Attachment 1l request that the signature of either co-conservator
Attachment 3f(1) list of the only living 1st and 2nd degree relatives Attachment 3f(2) who the proposed con-conservator is
To find out about the powers that can be removed, GOOGLE California Probate Code and look at Section 2351.5 which lists the specific powers. See below:Â
2351.5. (a) Subject to subdivision (b):
(1) The limited conservator has the care, custody, and control of the limited conservatee.
(2) The limited conservator shall secure for the limited conservatee those habilitation or treatment, training, education, medical and psychological services, and social and vocational opportunity as appropriate and as will assist the limited conservatee in the development of maximum self-reliance and independence.
(b) A limited conservator does not have any of the following powers or controls over the limited conservatee unless those powers or controls are specifically requested in the petition for appointment of a limited conservator and granted by the court in its order appointing the limited conservator:
(1) To fix the residence or specific dwelling of the limited conservatee.
(2) Access to the confidential records and papers of the limited conservatee.
(3) To consent or withhold consent to the marriage of, or the entrance into a registered domestic partnership by, the limited conservatee.
(4) The right of the limited conservatee to contract.
(5) The power of the limited conservatee to give or withhold medical consent.
(6) The limited conservatee’s right to control his or her own social and sexual contacts and relationships.
(7) Decisions concerning the education of the limited conservatee.
(c)
Any limited conservator, the limited conservatee, or any relative or friend of the limited conservatee may apply by petition to the superior court of the county in which the proceedings are pending to have the limited conservatorship modified by the elimination or addition of any of the powers which must be specifically granted to the limited conservator pursuant to subdivision (b). The petition shall state the facts alleged to establish that the limited conservatorship should be modified. The granting or elimination of those powers is discretionary with the court. Notice of the hearing on the petition shall be given for the period and in the manner provided in Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 1460) of Part 1.
American Islamic Forum for Democracy exposes CAIR as a propaganda arm for the Saudi Arabia when depicting a leading cleric as supposedly anti-terrorist. In fact, the Saudi cleric blames the West for all the ills of the middle east: poverty, unemployment, disease. This is the same cleric that thinks it fine for 10 year old girls to marry old men. CAIR is the organization that was behind the firing of Juan Williams for a comment about being nervous flying with lots of Muslims. Best to keep a sharp eye on CAIR.
Grand Mufti, Islamic cleric, a wolf in sheep's clothing, OK's marriage of 10 year old girls with adult menCAIR, a propaganda tool for Saudi Arabia, got Juan Williams fired from National Public Radio (NPR) for a remark Juan made that flying with Muslims makes him nervous.
Now CAIR hides an Islamic supremacist wolf — Saudi cleric Sheikh Abdhl Azia Al Sheikh – in sheep’s clothing.
Supposedly this leading cleric opposes terrorism. This is the cleric that thinks it is just fine for 10 year old girls to marry old men. And this is the Islamic cleric that promotes shariah law. The following is from the American Islamic Forum for Democracy.
“Even Breitbart.com carried yesterday’s bizarrely ‘urgent’ press release from the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), which praised the leading Saudi cleric, Sheikh Abdul Aziz Al Sheikh, on the most significant Muslim holiday of the year- Eid al-Adha (Holiday of the Sacrifice).
No previous single press release or statement by CAIR more clearly reveals its ideological ties and service to the Saudis, and their Wahhabi ideologues – and its willingness to use word games, deception and moral equivalence to avoid revealing its true objectives.
Grand Mufti Sheikh Abdul Aziz Al Sheikh
First, let us look at the substance of CAIR’s release:
CAIR today welcomed an anti-terror statement by Saudi Arabia’s top religious leader made in a sermon at the peak of the Hajj, the most important event on Islam’s spiritual calendar. In his midday sermon Monday to millions of pilgrims gathered on the plain of Arafah, Grand Mufti Sheikh Abdul Aziz Al Sheikh called for religious moderation and said Islam prohibits terrorism, extremism and injustice.
CAIR National Executive Director Nihad Awad said:
It is extremely significant that such a prominent Muslim leader would offer a clear statement condemning terrorism and religious extremism during the largest Islamic gathering in the world and on the most important day on Islam’s spiritual calendar. The importance of the Grand Mufti’s statement is made even more significant given the fact that it was delivered in the same spot as the last sermon offered by the Prophet Muhammad. This statement from Islam’s spiritual capital should put to rest once and for all the false claim that Muslim leaders do not condemn terrorism.
Awad urged Muslim leaders in America and worldwide to incorporate the Grand Mufti’s statement in Eid al-Adha prayers being offered Tuesday to mark the end of Hajj.
As a devout Muslim, I find any comparison by CAIR of the leading radical Saudi cleric, Sheikh Abdul Aziz Al Sheikh, to the Prophet Muhammad to be deeply harmful to any attempt at true modern reforms. The Saudis have exploited the world’s Muslim populations with their billions in petrodollars that have given them the fuel to metastasize the cancers of their backward Wahhabi interpretations of Islam and dominate our communities. Many reformist, modern Muslims like me believe that if the Prophet was alive today, he would reject their backward, literalist interpretations for a more moral, humanitarian, modern westernized Islam. We are unable to have this debate because of the domination of the Saudi voice among Muslims in the west and globally.
The mere condemnation of terrorism in this CAIR promoted sermon means nothing – because the sermon is otherwise chock full of inflammatory Muslim supremacism (Islamism) and anti-Western hatred.CAIR’s assertion that this should “put to rest once and for all the false claim that Muslims leaders do not condemn terrorism†demonstrates, once and for all, that CAIR is part of the Saudi propaganda machine. Further, it should rather actually ‘put to rest’ any doubts that CAIR is, in fact, part of the theo-political global Islamist movement in the West and in the United States, hatched and nurtured by Saudi Arabia, the Muslim Brotherhood, and other Islamist groups from the Middle East.
Most revealingly, CAIR ignores the rest of the Grand Mufti’s sermon. The full transcript cannot yet be found online, but a number of reports discuss the other topics of this sermon. First, the Chief Sheikh did make headlines by “rejecting terrorism as a deplorable crime†but actually went on to say that “the problem is not just terrorism, but also poverty, unemployment, and diseases stemming from global crises.†True to his Islamist and Wahhabist creed, he ignores any need for Muslim reform, modernization, or separation of mosque and state. The reference to “stemming global crises†is based on the same old, tired Islamist propaganda: blame the West for all Muslims’ problems.
During this sermon, the Grand Mufti also “condemned Western occupation of foreign lands,†and went on to say:
Islam forbids the occupation of a country, and the unlawful shedding of civilian blood, and the destruction of crops and cattle…the rights of people in Third World nations is not as it is in other countries, and it is unacceptable that nations occupy these lands and rape them of their riches.
To a genuine American Muslim, this sounds more like a testimony toward radicalization and militancy, rather than any supposedly clear promotion of moderation and condemnation of terrorism, as CAIR would have us believe. Therein, lies a major indicator that the Grand Mufti is anything but moderate. CAIR not only voices no disagreement with this toxic anti-western narrative, but they use this sermon’s few lines condemning terrorism as a statement to “put to rest the claim that Muslims do not condemn terrorism.†Any wonder we are making no headway against radical Islam with these kind of vacuous Islamist condemnations of the tactic of terrorism couched in an anti-western, anti-American narrative?
On the subject of violence, his duplicity is also revealed in another statement the Grand Mufti made in the sermon:
Violence cannot be cured with violence and neither can terrorism be cured with force, but by lifting injustices levied on oppressed peoples.
This is again hardly a morally-clear condemnation of terrorism. Rather, it is a demagogic moral equivalency of barbaric acts committed by Al Qaeda, Hamas, and other radical Islamists, which this radical sheikh insinuates are understandable by the acts of America and the West.
According to Geo News, the Grand Mufti also said in his sermon:
“God sent the last and final Prophet with the complete code of conduct (Shariah), which, is in complete harmony with human nature, owing to the fact that it caters to all natural and material needs.†He also added that, “the human inner being (nafs) drives man to do evil.â€
CAIR voices no disagreement on their part with the Mufti, about his interpretation of shariah here or anywhere. In fact, CAIR is now also suing the state of Oklahoma to protect their fellow Islamists’ “right†to use that same shariah, without interference from the state. To the contrary, Oklahoma voters by 70 percent voted last week to prohibit shariah law from taking precedence over state or federal law. That would seem quite prescient, in light of an organization like CAIR that, this week, uses the Grand Mufti’s sermon – which elevates the most extreme, repressive form of shariah – which dictates all aspects of life and society – as an exemplar for moderation.
For example, CAIR apparently thought that Americans are unaware of, or would not remember that less than two years ago, this “moderate†Grand Mufti expressed his grand approval of marriage of adult men to 10 year old girls. In a lecture at the mosque of Imam Mohamed bin Saud Islamic University in Riyadh, he stated:
A girl becomes ready for marriage at 10 or 12 according to Islam and stressed that Islamic law is not by any means oppressive to women…Our mothers and grandmothers got married when they were barely 12. Good upbringing makes a girl ready to perform all marital duties at that age. (Al-Arabiya)
A girl aged 10 or 12 can be married. Those who think she’s too young are wrong and they are being unfair to her.†(CNN)
This “moderate†Grand Mufti also disgracefully rebuked women for attending a conference without a veil stating, “I severely condemn this matter and warn of grave consequences,†and told Muslims at the Green Lane (U.K.) mosque that, “Muslim children should be hit if they don’t pray: ‘When he is seven, tell him to go and pray, and start hitting them when they are 10.’â€
The Grand Mufti is one of the leading Wahhabi purveyors of Muslim supremacism (Islamism) around the world. Whether or not he condemns violence and the tactic of terrorism is of little consequence. Clearly, he believes in the Islamic state, and the domination of shariah law in governments where Muslims are a majority. As Alex Alexiev has noted, “the Saudi funding program is the largest worldwide propaganda campaign ever mounted-dwarfing the Soviets’ propaganda efforts at the height of the cold War.â€
In fact, the Saudi’s own so-called “de-radicalization campaign†(Al-Sakeenah) has been prominently critiqued. For example Col. Jonathan Figuel writes:
It seems that the Sakeenah campaign is convenient to be presented by the Saudis as an external non-governmental independent initiative, rather than a governmental led operation. From past experience and analysis of the Saudi’s double game policy and conduct, one can assume that the Saudis on one hand use the campaign for propaganda purposes encouraging its existence for internal real threats, while on the other hand the campaign can be presented to the international political and the public opinion for political benefits without any formal or direct responsibility to the global aspects of the their radicalization influence and actions…The Saudi de radicalization campaign to “dry out the sources of terrorism thoughts†as declared by the minister of Islamic Affairs, corroborates the fact that the campaign is totally aimed to deal with domestic security threats on Islamic Wahhabi doctrine.
We must not be fooled by the “condemnation†of terrorism by the Saudi Wahhabi clerics and their tribal protectors in the Saudi royals. In reality, this further reveals the dangerous synergy and propaganda role of American Islamist groups like CAIR for Saudi Wahhabi fundamentalists like the Grand Mufti. Their ‘double game’ is manifested from their pulpits at the Grand Mosque in Mecca and from the press releases of their advocates like CAIR in the United States.
CAIR’s rush to highlight the radical Saudi cleric’s “condemnation†of terrorism was clearly based on its expectation, not without merit, that most Americans would not research how immoderate this cleric really is. A brief review of that sermon – in context, and in view of the Grand Mufti’s ‘other’ prominent radical ideas – reveals a dangerous, influential Islamist who uses Wahhabi interpretations of Islam and shariah to impose misogyny, child marriage, child abuse, Muslim supremacy, and spread hate-filled anti-American propaganda.
Shamefully, CAIR chose Islam’s holiest day of the year to spread this type of propaganda. We, modern reform-minded American Muslims and non-Muslims alike, must unite and speak with one voice against it.
How to immediately cut 16+ BILLION dollars from the federal government? The new, Republican controlled Congress passes a bill that cuts out all pork — no more “ear marks”. Time to permanently stop the exchange of favors, the wink and the nod, the backroom deals.
Many people would like to win the lottery. The winner gets 1-12 million dollars. A million dollars is a lot of money to most people. How many millions does it take to make one billion?
From my perspective saving ONE billion dollars would be terrific. Cutting out pork will save 16 billion dollars.
The double whammy to no more pork is that the 16+ BILLION not spent on pork stays home in local communities. We the People decide – not the government making decisions for us.
The growth of pork has been enormous and it’s time to stop all pork. In 1987 President Reagen vetoed a spending bill because there were 121 earmarks in the bill. Last year there were 90,000 earmarks passed by Congress.
Earmark Myths and Realities
November 10, 2010
By Sen. Tom Coburn
As Senate Republicans prepare to vote on an earmark moratorium, I would encourage my colleagues to consider four myths and four realities of the debate.
Myths of the earmark debate:
1. Eliminating earmarks does not actually save any money
This argument has serious logical inconsistencies. The fact is earmarks do spend real money. If they didn’t spend money, why defend them? Stopping an activity that spends money does result in less spending. It’s that simple. For instance, Congress spent $16.1 billion on pork in Fiscal Year 2010. If Congress does not do earmarks in 2011, we could save $16.1 billion. In no way is Congress locked into to shifting that $16.1 billion to other programs unless it wants to.
2. Earmarks represent a very tiny portion of the federal budget and eliminating them would do little to reduce the deficit
It’s true that earmarks themselves represent a tiny portion of the budget, but a small rudder can help steer a big ship, which is why I’ve long described earmarks as the gateway drug to spending addiction in Washington. No one can deny that earmarks like the Cornhusker Kickback have been used to push through extremely costly and onerous bills. Plus, senators know that as the number of earmarks has exploded so has overall spending. In the past decade, the size of government has doubled while Congress approved more than 90,000 earmarks.
Earmarks were rare until recently. In 1987, President Reagan vetoed a spending bill because it contained 121 earmarks. Eliminating earmarks will not balance the budget overnight, but it is an important step toward getting spending under control.
3. Earmarking is about whose discretion it is to make spending decisions. Do elected members of Congress decide how taxes are spent, or do unelected bureaucrats and Obama administration officials?
It’s true that this is a debate about discretion, but some in Congress are confused about discretion among whom. This is not a struggle between the executive branch and Congress but between the American people and Washington. Do the American people have the right to spend their own money and keep local decisions at the local level or does the federal government know best? Earmarks are a Washington-knows-best solution. An earmark ban would tell the American people that Congress gets it. After all, it’s their money, not ours.
An earmark moratorium would not result in Congress giving up one iota of its spending power. In any event, Republicans should be fighting over how to cut government spending, not how to divide it up.
4. The Constitution gives Congress the responsibility and authority to earmark
Nowhere does the Constitution give Congress the authority to do earmarks. The concept of earmarking appears nowhere in the enumerated powers or anywhere else in the Constitution. The so-called “constitutional” argument earmarks is from the same school of constitutional interpretation that led Elena Kagan to admit that Congress had the authority to tell the American people to eat their fruits and vegetables every day. That school, which says Congress can do whatever it wants, gave us an expansive Commerce Clause, Obamacare, and a widespread belief among members of Congress that the “power of the purse” is the power to pork.
Earmark defenders are fond of quoting Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution which says, “No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law.” They also refer to James Madison’s power of the purse commentary in Federalist 58. Madison said the “power of the purse may, in fact, be the most complete and effectual weapon with which any constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the people.”
Yet, earmark proponents ignore the rest of the Constitution and our founders’ clear intent to limit the power of Congress. If the founders wanted Congress to earmark funds to specific recipients, micromanage American society, and ride roughshod over state and local government they would have given Congress that authority in the enumerated powers. They clearly did not.
Our founders anticipated earmark-style power grabs from Congress and spoke against such excess for the ages. James Madison, the father of the Constitution said, “With respect to the two words ‘general welfare,’ I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.”
Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to James Madison, spoke directly against federally-funded local projects. “[I]t will be the source of eternal scramble among the members, who can get the most money wasted in their State; and they will always get the most who are the meanest.” Jefferson understood that earmarks and coercion would go hand in hand.
Also, if earmarks were a noble constitutional tradition, how did we thrive for 200 years without an earmark favor factory in Congress?
Finally, for those worried about ceding constitutional authority to the executive branch, I would respectfully remind them that the president has zero authority to spend money outside of the authority Congress gives him. The way to hold the executive branch accountable is to spend less and conduct more aggressive oversight. Earmarks are a convoluted way for Congress to try to regain authority they have already ceded to the executive branch through bad legislation. The fact is there is nothing an earmark can do that can’t be done more equitably and openly through a competitive grant process.
Beyond these myths, I would encourage members to consider the following realities.
1. Earmarks are a major distraction
Again, earmarks not only do nothing to hold the executive branch accountable – by out-porking the president – but take Congress’ focus away from the massive amount of waste and inefficiency within federal agencies. In typical years, the number of earmark requests outnumbers oversight hearings held by the Appropriations Committee by a factor of 1,000 to 1. Instead of processing tens of thousands of earmark requests the Senate should increase the number of oversight hearings from a few dozen to hundreds. The amount of time and attention that is devoted to the earmark chase is a scandal waiting to be exposed.
2. This debate is over among the American people and the House GOP
If any policy mandate can be derived from the election it is to spend less money. Eliminating earmarks is the first step on that path. The House GOP has accepted that mandate. The Senate GOP now has to decide whether to ignore not only the American people but their colleagues in the House. The last thing Senate Republicans should be doing is legislative gymnastics to get around the House GOP earmark ban.
3. Earmarking is bad policy
In recent years the conventional wisdom that earmarks create jobs has been turned on its head. The Obama administration’s stimulus bill itself, which is arguably a collection of earmarks approved by Congress, proves this point. Neither Obama’s stimulus nor Republican stimulus – GOP earmarks – is very effective at creating jobs.
Harvard University conducted an extensive study this year of how earmarks impact states. The researchers expected to find that earmarks drive economic growth but found the opposite.
“It was an enormous surprise, at least to us, to learn that the average firm in the chairman’s state did not benefit at all from the unanticipated increase in spending,” said Joshua Coval, one of the study’s authors. The study found that as earmarks increase capital investment and expenditures by private businesses decrease, by 15 percent specifically. In other words, federal pork crowds out private investment and slows job growth. Earmarks are an odd GOP infatuation with failed Keynesian economics that hurts local economies.
Earmarks also crowd out funding for higher-priority items. Transportation earmarks are a good example. Pork projects like the Bridge to Nowhere and bike paths divert funds from higher priority projects according to a 2007 Department of Transportation inspector general report. Thousands of bridges continue to be in disrepair across America in part because Congress has taken its eye off the ball and indulged in parochial spending.
4. Earmarking is bad politics
If the Senate GOP wants to send a signal that they don’t get it and are not listening they can reject an earmark moratorium. For Republicans, earmarks are the ultimate mixed message. We’ll never be trusted to be the party of less spending while we’re rationalizing more spending through earmarks. The long process of restoring fiscal sanity in Washington begins with saying no to pork.
– Sen. Tom Coburn represents the state of Oklahoma in the U.S. Senate.
Do you have an adult child in California who substantially – very different from others his or her age — cannot do what society typically expects a young person to do?
For example, let’s say you have a son or daughter age 25 who has never held a part time job more than a couple months, who still lives with you or in a separate space you pay for, who has no real friends, who cannot cook more than microwave and who cannot make normal decisions that young persons make at that age?
Are you in effect still acting as the parent in charge although the adult child is moving along in age — but quite delayed?
What to do?
Think about a Limited Conservatorship as one vehicle that might assist.
For those who can, of course you can contact your personal attorney.
You need to know that there are free (govt paid for) or relatively low cost alternatives:
For example, SPIN in Santa Cruz County, supported by your tax dollars, offers workshops which assist families with children with developmental disabilities and delays.
Tonight SPIN (10-26-2010) in Watsonville, California held a meeting (6:30 – 8:00) with an attorney present. The meeting was to provide legal information concerning Limited Conservatorships.
I am a licensed, clinical Ph.D. psychologist. I attended the SPIN meeting because I had referred a couple families and on occasion I write reports recommending Limited Conservatorships.
As I could not stay for the entire SPIN meeting (10-26-2010) regarding Limited Conservatorships here is some info — perhaps it was not provided — concerning how to get a Limited Conservatorshp.
This is not legal advise. This is based on my experience as a licensed clinical psychologist interacting with families who need to exert control over the affairs of adult children:
There is FREE assistance for families who need to assist adult (over age 18) persons who cannot manage their life without family or other assistance.
What you can do:
Using Google:
1) type into Google” California Judicial Council Forms
go to: Browse All Forms
type in: Probate – Guardianships and Conservatorships
Download appropriate forms for Conservatorships
2) not know what forms to download?
3) go to the Law Library in Santa Cruz (in the Court House, basement, there is an attorney there to assist you).
4) With assistance from the attorney, file the forms with the County clerk of SAnta Cruz, CA
5) Get a Hearing Date stamped on your legal form by the County Clerk of Santa Cruz County.
6) Be sure to “ Notice” the Regional Center – learn what that means with assistance from the lawyer provided by Santa Cruz County
7) With a Hearing Date, Notice and what you are requesting (how many of the usual 7 powers are you requesting be removed from your adult child) in my experience the regional center near you in CA will respond to Superior Court
8) In my experience, when Superior Court requests a California regional center to provide a Limited Conservatorship that report will be provided in a timely manner.
A Limited Conservatorship is one vehicle that may assist parents who need to provide basic assistance to adult children. There are other vehicles. If you need more information or assistance, contact Dr. Cameron Jackson DrCameronJackson@gmail.com 831 688-6002 P.O.Box 1972, Aotos, CA 95002-1972
Obama-Care requires all non-profits to register with IRS & give 1099's
DrCameronJackson@gmail.com
Is there is a resemblance between President Obama and Emperor Augustus who, 2010 years ago, required everyone to register where they were born?
Because the Emperor proclaimed they must, Joseph took pregnant Mary to Bethlehem…. And now, in 2010, Obama-Care tells every non-profit organization that they must trudge over to the government and register afresh with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).
There are a million and a half non-profit organizations in the U.S. Because of Obama-Care all of them must register afresh with the IRS. And, all non-profits who do $600 of business with anyone must give that person a 1099. Did you know that failure to re-register with the IRS can result in lose of non-profit status and a huge fine?
So — if you support or know of any tiny non-profit out there be sure to tell them of President Obama’s proclamation: Go to the city of Washington and register with the government! Modern day Emperor Obama requires that you register! Or stand to lose non-profit status and pay a fine.
Only 63% of all non-profits are registered with the IRS. That means that 1/3 are not. So, because of Obama-Care, roughly 500,000 non-profits must — for the first time — journey to Washington and register with the IRS. And every non-profit must take the time — which means money — to fill out the new form.
Do you support repeal of Obama-Care? Vote out every Democrat — including Sam Farr — that voted for Obama-Care.
For some exact figures on non-profits go to: urban org
