From Westley at da-parish.com Fri Oct 23 08:13:09 2009 From: Westley at da-parish.com (Westley Annis) Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2009 07:13:09 -0500 Subject: [StBernard] YouTube - Is Obama Poised to Cede US Sovereignty? Message-ID: <04a601ca53da$2fa7ea30$8ef7be90$@com> Someone correct me if I'm wrong on this, but I believe a "Treaty" needs either 60 votes or two-thirds. It could depend on the kind of treaty it is, one being where the U.S. government is going to concede sovereignty over something. If I'm correct, then it will NEVER pass. The GOP members will block vote against it and there's more than enough Demos where you'll find some to oppose it. John From Westley at da-parish.com Fri Oct 23 08:40:30 2009 From: Westley at da-parish.com (Westley Annis) Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2009 07:40:30 -0500 Subject: [StBernard] Debacle in Moscow Message-ID: <04cb01ca53de$019bbff0$04d33fd0$@com> THE CONSERVATIVE REVIEW - October 23, 2009 Debacle in Moscow by Charles Krauthammer WASHINGTON - About the only thing more comical than Barack Obama's Nobel Peace Prize was the reaction of those who deemed the award "premature," as if the brilliance of Obama's foreign policy is so self-evident and its success so assured that if only the Norway Five had waited a few years, his Nobel worthiness would have been universally acknowledged. To believe this, you have to be a dreamy adolescent (preferably Scandinavian and a member of the Socialist International) or an indiscriminate imbiber of White House talking points. After all, this was precisely the spin on the president's various apology tours through Europe and the Middle East: National self-denigration -- excuse me, outreach and understanding -- is not meant to yield immediate results; it simply plants the seeds of good feeling from which foreign policy successes shall come. Chauncey Gardiner could not have said it better. Well, at nine months, let's review. What's come from Obama holding his tongue while Iranian demonstrators were being shot and from his recognizing the legitimacy of a thug regime illegitimately returned to power in a fraudulent election? Iran cracks down even more mercilessly on the opposition and races ahead with its nuclear program. What's come from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton taking human rights off the table on a visit to China and from Obama's shameful refusal to see the Dalai Lama (a postpone- ment, we are told). China hasn't moved an inch on North Korea, Iran or human rights. Indeed it's pushing with Russia to dethrone the dollar as the world's reserve currency. What's come from the new-respect-for-Muslims Cairo speech and the unprecedented pressure on Israel for a total settlement freeze? "The settlement push backfired," reports The Washington Post, and Arab-Israeli peace prospects have "arguably regressed." And what's come from Obama's single most dramatic foreign policy stroke -- the sudden abrogation of missile defense arrangements with Poland and the Czech Republic that Russia had virulently opposed? For the East Europeans it was a crushing blow, a gratuitous restoration of Russian influence over a region that thought it had regained independence under American protection. But maybe not gratuitous. Surely we got something in return for selling out our friends. Some brilliant secret trade-off to get strong Russian support for stopping Iran from going nuclear before it's too late? Just wait and see, said administration officials, who then gleefully played up an oblique statement by President Dmitry Medvedev a week later as vindication of the missile defense betrayal. The Russian statement was so equivocal that such a claim seemed a ridiculous stretch at the time. Well, Clinton went to Moscow this week to nail down the deal. What did she get? "Russia Not Budging On Iran Sanctions: Clinton Unable to Sway Counterpart." Such was The Washington Post headline's succinct summary of the debacle. Note how thoroughly Clinton was rebuffed. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov declared that "threats, sanctions and threats of pressure" are "counterproductive." Note: It's not just sanctions that are worse than useless, but even the threat of mere pressure. It gets worse. Having failed to get any movement from the Russians, Clinton herself moved -- to accommodate the Russian position! Sanctions? What sanctions? "We are not at that point yet," she averred. "That is not a conclusion we have reached ... it is our preference that Iran work with the international community." But wait a minute. Didn't Obama say in July that Iran had to show compliance by the G-20 summit in late September? And when that deadline passed, did he not then warn Iran that it would face "sanctions that have bite" and that it would have to take "a new course or face consequences"? Gone with the wind. It's the U.S. that's now retreating from its already flimsy position of just three weeks ago. We're not doing sanctions now, you see. We're back to engagement. Just as the Russians suggest. Henry Kissinger once said that the main job of Anatoly Dobrynin, the perennial Soviet ambassador to Washington, was to tell the Kremlin leadership that whenever they received a proposal from the United States that appeared disadvantageous to the United States, not to assume it was a trick. No need for a Dobrynin today. The Russian leadership, hardly believing its luck, needs no interpreter to under- stand that when the Obama team clownishly rushes in bear- ing gifts and "reset" buttons, there is nothing ulterior, diabolical, clever or even serious behind it. It is amateurishness, wrapped in naivete, inside credulity. In short, the very stuff of Nobels. From westley at da-parish.com Fri Oct 23 08:43:04 2009 From: westley at da-parish.com (Westley Annis) Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2009 07:43:04 -0500 Subject: [StBernard] Be judicious in St. Bernard Parish rental fight: an editorial Message-ID: <04cc01ca53de$5d5de480$1819ad80$@com> Be judicious in St. Bernard Parish rental fight: an editorial By Editorial page staff, The Times-Picayune October 23, 2009, 4:55AM For more than three years, St. Bernard Parish officials have been entangled in a costly and unsuccessful campaign to restrict who can live in the parish. A federal court has ruled parish policies to be illegal and discriminatory, and more recently that the parish's very purpose was to discriminate against minorities. Now St. Bernard officials face a decision over their latest proposal, a ballot measure to ban large apartment complexes. The Parish Council put the proposal on the Nov. 14 ballot, but parish attorneys are urging the council to withdraw it or risk more legal problems and possibly losing federal aid. The parish's stubborn campaign to get around fair housing laws has been wrong, and that should be enough for council members to stop. But if moral arguments don't sway them, officials should rescind the ballot ordinance to avoid hurting the parish's recovery. A parish attorney said this week that passage of the ballot proposal would jeopardize St. Bernard's appeals to previous adverse rulings. In addition, federal officials have made it clear to Parish President Craig Taffaro that St. Bernard is risking federal grants if it continues its illegal efforts to thwart multi-family housing. Councilman Wayne Landry said he did not want to risk federal money for a proposed hospital in the parish. Parish officials have repeatedly said their post-Katrina housing measures simply aim to encourage home ownership and that they worry about poorly-maintained rental properties. But most other communities address those goals without trampling over federal laws, by having effective code enforcement. St. Bernard refused to go after some code violators recently, tabling a proposed crackdown on owners of overgrown yards. In addition, council members and residents have said fines and liens against code violators are being arbitrarily reduced or dismissed. Correcting these code enforcement deficiencies would improve quality of life and property values -- the officials stated goals -- without violating federal laws. Parish officials should heed their lawyers' advice and rescind the ballot proposal. It will save the parish a heap of trouble, and more importantly, it's the right thing to do. From Westley at da-parish.com Fri Oct 23 22:34:23 2009 From: Westley at da-parish.com (Westley Annis) Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2009 21:34:23 -0500 Subject: [StBernard] Our Public Library Message-ID: <073201ca5452$7fcd1a80$7f674f80$@com> Public Libraries serve a multitude of basic and educational needs and are fundamental for civilized societies to grow and prosper. Supporting St Bernard's Public Library is an investment in our future; one we cannot afford not to make. http://www.stbernardupdate.com/2009/09/around-our-town.html The Library recently purchased additional land: the lot adjacent to the future site in Meraux, on the north of Judge Perez between Judy Drive and Bartolo Drive. Friends of the St Bernard Parish Library can be reach at the Library's Trailer Location, 7701 West Judge Perez. The Library Board Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month at 6pm, at the Library. There is an opening on the Library Board. Applications are available at the customer service desk on the first floor of the Government Complex Building, 8201 W. Judge Perez Drive, Chalmette, LA 70043. The hours of availability are Mondays through Fridays between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Applications also are available at the St. Bernard Parish Government website. To print an application please go to www.sbpg.net , then select the Departments tab, then select Personnel. The link to the application is found on the right side of the page. To be considered to fill an opening you must be at least 18 years of age, and you must be registered to vote in St. Bernard Parish. Please feel free to contact William McCartney with any further questions at: (504) 442-2426 or by e-mail at wmccartney at sbpg.net . ---- SJK From Westley at da-parish.com Fri Oct 23 22:37:23 2009 From: Westley at da-parish.com (Westley Annis) Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2009 21:37:23 -0500 Subject: [StBernard] Morning Bell: The Unaccountable Obama Czar State Message-ID: <073901ca5452$eacd1240$c06736c0$@com> FRIDAY, OCT 23, 2009 The Unaccountable Obama Czar State Yesterday the United States Department of the Treasury Special Master of Compensation Kenneth Feinberg announced a wage control scheme for the 175 executives of the seven companies that have received the most funds from the taxpayer funded Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). At first the Obama administration denied any involvement in Feinberg?s decision. Politico reports: In fact, sources within the administration say the decision to cap corporate pay was Kenneth Feinberg's, and his alone. A senior administration official tells POLITICO that Obama did not sign off on the pay master?s decision. Feinberg didn't even brief the White House on it, the official said, but he briefed Treasury officials instead. But after yesterday?s announcement that the Federal Reserve released its own plan to control how banks compensate their employees, the New York Times reported : The announcement was choreographed to coincide with the decision by the Obama administration this week to cut the pay of many high earners at the seven companies that received the most taxpayer help. Both decisions were announced amid growing public outrage over large pay packages at many of those companies. So which is it? Are the new wage control schemes launched by the Pay Czar and the Fed the acts of independent experts, or are they the closely controlled policy decisions of the Obama White House? The answer to that question goes to the core of the very real constitutional problems that the proliferation of czars in the Obama administration creates. Obama appointed Feinberg to be his Pay Czar without any input from the American people and without any approval from Congress. Heritage fellow Matthew Spalding explained the problem in his recent testimony to Congress: The issue is not whether the proliferation of ?czars? amounts to a usurpation of power by the executive branch. Rather, the fundamental issue is how the rise of modern administrative government has put us in an unsolvable dilemma: whether policy should be made by technical experts, insulated from public accountability and control, or whether policy should be made by our elected representatives in Congress and the executive branch. The rise of government by bureaucrats?due to the delegation of power from Congress to administrative agencies, combined with the removal of those agencies from the President?s control?has given rise to efforts by Presidents from both parties to get the bureaucratic state under control through various mechanisms. The rise of ?czars? in the current administration is just another manifestation?albeit, an unfortunate one?of this phenomenon. If the American people did want hold the Fed and the Pay Czar accountable for their wage control decisions, right now there is no way for them to do so. From Westley at da-parish.com Fri Oct 23 22:39:37 2009 From: Westley at da-parish.com (Westley Annis) Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2009 21:39:37 -0500 Subject: [StBernard] Full Text Recent Attorney General Opinion RE: Public Library Message-ID: <073a01ca5453$3aeeaea0$b0cc0be0$@com> St Bernard Parish Library Board - State of Louisiana Attorney General Opinion 08 0057 OCT 15 2009. We conclude that the subject tax proceeds may not be used for permanently maintaining office space for the St Bernard Parish Department Public Works. Alternatively, if the Parish intends to continue using this library property of for the Department of Public Works, the Parish must request that the voters rededicate the proceeds of the tax so as to include the Parish's current intended use..... Full Text State of Louisiana Attorney General Opinion 08 0057 OCT 15 2009 http://www.scribd.com/doc/21518021/St-Bernard-Parish-Library-Board-State-of- Louisiana-Attorney-General-Opinion-08-0057-OCT-15-2009 --- SJK From Westley at da-parish.com Fri Oct 23 22:40:07 2009 From: Westley at da-parish.com (Westley Annis) Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2009 21:40:07 -0500 Subject: [StBernard] submission - Celebration Church Fall Festival Sat Oct 31 Halloween Message-ID: <073b01ca5453$4cbd3ed0$e637bc70$@com> All Celebration Church will hold a Fall Family Festival on Saturday, Oct 31 (Halloween). It is free to all and will have games, inflatables, prizes and candy for the kids. Time 5:30 to 8pm. Location: Judge Perez Dr in Arabi (that big dome church). Come in costume if you like. This is a great safe way for kids to enjoy Halloween even if they are going trick or treating later in the evening. This is a community event regardless of your religion. FYI - This church is Christian, basically non-denominational and a very modern way to come back to worship (10am on Sunday - lasts about 1hr 15 min). There is a great Christian band, large video screen presentation and welcomes ALL. You'll find no judgments there. Dress is come as you are. God loves us no matter what we look like and what we wear. PS - There are also divorce and recovery groups and assistance - free. DEBORAH L & STEPHEN A ROSENBERGER From westley at da-parish.com Fri Oct 23 22:44:29 2009 From: westley at da-parish.com (Westley Annis) Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2009 21:44:29 -0500 Subject: [StBernard] Suing Energy Companies for Hurricane Katrina Message-ID: <073c01ca5453$e8cd0710$ba671530$@com> Suing Energy Companies for Hurricane Katrina Written by Ann Shibler Friday, 23 October 2009 08:00 A new skirmish in the global warming/climate change debate is playing out in U.S. courts with a lawsuit filed by victims of Hurricane Katrina against oil, gas, and coal companies for their alleged contribution - via greenhouse gas emissions - toward increasing the severity of the hurricane, thereby causing more damage to property. Comer v. Murphy Oil USA is a class action suit filed by 14 victims of the great hurricane that the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has seen fit to advance. A previous court, the Second Circuit, reversed an earlier trial court decision that had thrown out the lawsuit saying it was a nonjusticiable political question that could not be settled in the courts because of an absence of regulatory federal legislation in the matter of greenhouse gas emissions. Specifically, the plaintiffs in Comer are suing because greenhouse gas emissions contributed, they insist, to an increase in air and water temperatures, causing a rise in sea levels, which in turn added to the fury of the hurricane and hence more destruction. They also asserted that the energy companies are guilty of: Being a public nuisance, a private nuisance, trespassers, negligent, unjust enrichment, fraudulent misrepresentation, and civil conspiracy. The Fifth Circuit has already dismissed the claims for unjust enrichment, fraudulent misrepresentation and civil conspiracy - the rest of the charges still stand. The Court said: The plaintiffs' complaint alleges that defendants' emissions caused the plaintiffs' property damage, which is redressable through monetary damages; for example, the plaintiffs allege that defendants' willful, unreasonable use of their property to emit greenhouse gasses constituted private nuisance under Mississippi law because it inflicted injury on the plaintiffs' land by causing both land loss due to sea level rise and property damage due to Hurricane Katrina. How is direct causation going to be established in cases such as this, seeing as how the whole global warming theory is under serious question as to its causes by tens of thousands of serious scientists across the globe? Even if such a causation could be established, how could companies in the United States be held liable for the damages, when third world countries and major industrial nations like China have emissions far above those in the U.S.? Looking back at the most powerful hurricanes in recorded history, the one in 1900 that hit Galveston, Texas, and Camille in 1969, which was a Category 5, we can ask: Did global warming contribute to the power of those hurricanes as well? The whole allegation is absurd. Nonetheless, the Fifth Circuit Court, whose panel members consist of two Clinton appointees and one Reagan appointee, will give this case a day in court, having stated that, upon examination, the case did not involve issues that were "constitutionally committed to another branch of government," or that "require adherence to a previously-made political decision." Therefore the plaintiffs have standing to bring federal common law nuisance claims to impose caps on certain companies' greenhouse gas emissions - this being in accord with the New York Second Circuit's decision just last month. (Not being a lawyer, this still sounds as though the Fifth Circuit is more than tempted to set a cap on CO2 emissions for starters, thereby creating laws where none exist. This doesn't fall under the category of interpreting the law, as the judicial branch was intended to do.) The Fifth Circuit Court is going to rely on the "fairly traceable" concept for its final decision in assigning possible redress, because for this, there is already a precedent. In the Massachusetts v. EPA ruling, the fairly traceable concept was said to have been met when just a contributing cause was shown, leaving the establishment of a primary cause completely out of the picture. In that case the Supreme Court accepted, says the Fifth Circuit Court, "as plausible the link between greenhouse gas emissions and global warming" along with the notion that "rising ocean temperatures may contribute to the ferocity of hurricanes." But does accepting something as plausible necessarily fit the "fairly traceable" concept? It's really no surprise that global warming/climate change policy manipulators have launched a legal assault on American industry for the supposed crime of contributing to global warming. Because, in the past, when legislative efforts have failed to achieve certain agendas, the courts have supplied the ways and means, e.g., Roe. v. Wade. Given our overly-litigious society, often directed by lawyers with a view to what could be enormous contingency fees, the promise of copycat lawsuits is only too obvious. And once a precedence is established, there will be a tsunami of lawsuits to further decimate the already over-regulated energy industries, clog the courts, and fill the pockets of greedy attorneys, so this type of litigation is a win-win for climate change activists and lawyers and global policy manipulators. Right now there is absolutely no positive proof that CO2 or any other greenhouse gas is responsible for a rise in temperatures and sea levels, nor the strength of winds, but leave it to liberal activist judges to legislate this false science. Then the courts could, after establishing standards or caps on emissions, decide which activities of yours and mine are excessive under the caps - equating such activities as a nuisance - and enforce a cease-and-desist policy by law. From Westley at da-parish.com Fri Oct 23 22:59:18 2009 From: Westley at da-parish.com (Westley Annis) Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2009 21:59:18 -0500 Subject: [StBernard] a funny Message-ID: <074101ca5455$fac77750$f05665f0$@com> How I learned to Mind My Own Business: I was walking past the mental hospital the other day, and all the patients were shouting, '13....13....13.' The fence was too high to see over, but I saw a little gap in the planks, so I looked through to see what was going on..... Some idiot poked me in the eye with a stick! Then they all started shouting '14....14....14'... From Westley at da-parish.com Fri Oct 23 22:59:54 2009 From: Westley at da-parish.com (Westley Annis) Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2009 21:59:54 -0500 Subject: [StBernard] Since it's close to halloween Message-ID: <074201ca5456$10488830$30d99890$@com> Thought I'd send this along: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9mtvRryams This thing should be labeled as anti-aircraft artillery!!