After reading this article, I'd say that ammunition manufacturers have some of the safest jobs in the country. Right now anyway.
In the U.S., ammo sales continue to spike almost a year after the election of our new president. According to the story in Fox News, bullet makers are working around the clock, seven days a week and still fall short of the demand presented by Americans.
The reason for the demand? Many consumers are afraid that President Obama and the Democratic-controlled congress will pass antigun legislature, making it next to impossible to buy firearms and ammunition.
So far nothing has been presented to this effect. The president has even signed a law allowing people to carry loaded guns in national parks.
According the the NRA (National Rifle Association) Americans usually purchase around 7 billion rounds of ammo per year. In the last year, that number jumped to around 9 billion.
Says Al Russo, spokesman for the Remington Arms company out of North Carolina, "We are working overtime and still can't keep up with the demand. We've had to add a fourth shift and go 24-7. It's a phenomenon that I have not seen before in my 30 years in the business."
To help cope with the huge demand, many retailers are placing limits on quantities that customers can purchase at a time. With some types, the limit is as small as one box, depending on the demand for that product.
Many of these customers aren't running right out to the range though. They're stockpiling everything they can get their hands on in preparation for the antigun laws they're sure are coming someday.
When I read this article, it really came as no surprise to me that the demand is still so high and that companies are struggling to cope with shortages. I think part of that just comes from living in the Midwest.
In this part of the country especially, there are so many Americans who are really not in favor of the president and are positive that's he's going to take away their guns eventually.
It was news to me to hear that many companies have taken to working 24-7 to keep up with demand. I knew that some ammo was harder to find, but I just assumed that was because the production wasn't rising along with demand. It's interesting to me that companies have increased production significantly and still can't match the demand.
I have experienced this personally since my husband is a cop. I'll admit he's one of those who started stockpiling after the election. The closet at the top of our stairs used to be reserved just for towels and sheets. I've had to make room for a bunch of ammo in the last year. He's gotten better in recent months though. Thank goodness! Now he just gets excited if he finds something particularly scarce and he'll snatch up a few boxes.
There for a while I thought we were well on our way to being ready for World War III.
He did also purchase another gun and that was an ordeal. The demand for firearms has increased along with ammo. We ordered this gun in February of this year and it was on backorder. He finally recieved it in July.
I used to work at Academy Sports here in Joplin and I saw the change there too. When I started the job, the store always had a pretty good supply of guns and ammo and had no problem meeting customer demands. Now if you visit the gun counter, there isn't much to see. They have a very limited supply of firearms and have placed pretty strict quantity limits on certain types of ammo, if they're even in stock to begin with.
I understand the reason for all of this fuss over guns and ammo. I realize why so many people, my husband included, have stockpiles of ammo stashed away at home. I even had some of the same thoughts for months after the election. Now though, I'm rethinking some things. I didn't vote for President Obama and am not that crazy about the guy, but I don't think we're in much danger of having all gun rights taken away. I think he plays the fence a little bit and wants to keep both parties happy and that won't happen if strict gun laws are passed.
I think for now, our gun rights are pretty safe. I don't see any change in the near future.
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Once again, it's those crazy Christians making everybody else uncomfortable...
A grocery store in St. Louis has stirred up some controversy over one store manager's public expression of faith.
Tom Collora, manager of Cullinaria in downtown St. Louis, put up a crucifix behind the customer service counter in view of the checkout registers. Collora has worked for the chain for 40 years and has displayed a crucifix at 2 other Schnucks (name of the parent company) stores with no complaints from customers.
This time, though, someone is upset. Lori Weinstock,who is Jewish, said that the crucifix in the St. Louis store upset her enough to write a letter to the Jewish Light newspaper. Weinstock says, "It would have been equally startling if it had been a Star of David or an emblem of another religion. It's grocery shopping, and it should be welcoming to all and exclude none."
Collora says that the crucifix is not meant to promote his faith over another. He says, "It's just an opportunity to share a part of my faith with people I work hard to serve every day."
Lori Willis, communications director for Schnucks, says that Collora is the only manager to request to display such an object and that company leaders granted the request out of respect for Tom and his faith.
One reason for the controversy is that the crucifix, which shows Jesus nailed to a cross, is an ambiguous symbol that can mean something good to one religion and something entirely different to another. To the Jewish people, like Lori Weinstock, it can mean, "You're a Christ killer."
Whatever the opinions about Tom's display may be, it continues to hang in the store. The Anti-Defamation League of St. Louis has decided not to lodge an official complaint with Schnucks, despite recieving individual complaints. Says a company spokesperson, " After some significant discussion within the Jewish and interfaith communities, we felt this was not a battle that should be pressed right now."
The first line of the article simply says that a manager of a grocery store is causing some concern after hanging a crucifix behind the customer service counter of his store. My initial reaction is of course it's going to cause concern! A religious symbol hanging in a public business? Not the best idea if you don't like to attract negative attention.
I read a little farther and discovered that this is a chain of stores, not just one store belonging solely to this guy. That's when I started to wonder how on earth he was getting away with with a stunt like this. Isn't there someone at the corporate level who wouldn't allow such a blatant display of faith in one of their chain of stores? I wasn't upset with Collora though. Far from it, in fact. I was already admiring the guy for having the guts to do something like this. But I still wondered how he managed to pull it off.
So I read the rest of the article and was pleasantly surprised to read that the company leaders had already approved this display of faith in at least 2 other stores. I had been worried about this guy losing his job over his beliefs, but the company is backing him! I think that's pretty awesome, myself. I'm happy for him that he has a job where he can express his beliefs without fear of being reprimanded or fired.
As for those who complained about the crucifix, I say shop somewhere else. If it makes you uncomfortable to see such displays, don't leave your house. What's next? Telling churches that every cross or other symbol has to be moved to the inside of the building just so no one has to feel uncomfortable while walking down the sidewalk? Sadly, ideas like that don't seem so far-fetched anymore.
We are a country that prides itself on being accepting of everyone, no matter what they believe or what lifestyle they choose. That is, unless that faith happens to be the Christian one. In that case, you'll most likely be labeled a fanatical, overbearing faith-pusher if anyone hears a peep from you.
Anyway...time to come down from soap box now. One last thing though-
I have to wonder if Ms. Weinstock really would feel the same way about any other religious symbol that didn't remind her that the Jewish people killed Jesus?
Tom Collora, manager of Cullinaria in downtown St. Louis, put up a crucifix behind the customer service counter in view of the checkout registers. Collora has worked for the chain for 40 years and has displayed a crucifix at 2 other Schnucks (name of the parent company) stores with no complaints from customers.
This time, though, someone is upset. Lori Weinstock,who is Jewish, said that the crucifix in the St. Louis store upset her enough to write a letter to the Jewish Light newspaper. Weinstock says, "It would have been equally startling if it had been a Star of David or an emblem of another religion. It's grocery shopping, and it should be welcoming to all and exclude none."
Collora says that the crucifix is not meant to promote his faith over another. He says, "It's just an opportunity to share a part of my faith with people I work hard to serve every day."
Lori Willis, communications director for Schnucks, says that Collora is the only manager to request to display such an object and that company leaders granted the request out of respect for Tom and his faith.
One reason for the controversy is that the crucifix, which shows Jesus nailed to a cross, is an ambiguous symbol that can mean something good to one religion and something entirely different to another. To the Jewish people, like Lori Weinstock, it can mean, "You're a Christ killer."
Whatever the opinions about Tom's display may be, it continues to hang in the store. The Anti-Defamation League of St. Louis has decided not to lodge an official complaint with Schnucks, despite recieving individual complaints. Says a company spokesperson, " After some significant discussion within the Jewish and interfaith communities, we felt this was not a battle that should be pressed right now."
The first line of the article simply says that a manager of a grocery store is causing some concern after hanging a crucifix behind the customer service counter of his store. My initial reaction is of course it's going to cause concern! A religious symbol hanging in a public business? Not the best idea if you don't like to attract negative attention.
I read a little farther and discovered that this is a chain of stores, not just one store belonging solely to this guy. That's when I started to wonder how on earth he was getting away with with a stunt like this. Isn't there someone at the corporate level who wouldn't allow such a blatant display of faith in one of their chain of stores? I wasn't upset with Collora though. Far from it, in fact. I was already admiring the guy for having the guts to do something like this. But I still wondered how he managed to pull it off.
So I read the rest of the article and was pleasantly surprised to read that the company leaders had already approved this display of faith in at least 2 other stores. I had been worried about this guy losing his job over his beliefs, but the company is backing him! I think that's pretty awesome, myself. I'm happy for him that he has a job where he can express his beliefs without fear of being reprimanded or fired.
As for those who complained about the crucifix, I say shop somewhere else. If it makes you uncomfortable to see such displays, don't leave your house. What's next? Telling churches that every cross or other symbol has to be moved to the inside of the building just so no one has to feel uncomfortable while walking down the sidewalk? Sadly, ideas like that don't seem so far-fetched anymore.
We are a country that prides itself on being accepting of everyone, no matter what they believe or what lifestyle they choose. That is, unless that faith happens to be the Christian one. In that case, you'll most likely be labeled a fanatical, overbearing faith-pusher if anyone hears a peep from you.
Anyway...time to come down from soap box now. One last thing though-
I have to wonder if Ms. Weinstock really would feel the same way about any other religious symbol that didn't remind her that the Jewish people killed Jesus?
The Other Biggest Losers
Imagine what shape our economy could be in if everyone thought like this family. We might not be facing a housing crisis or massive unemployment, among other things.
Just 5 years ago, the Hildebrants of New Richmond, Wisconsin, were carrying more than $100,000 in credit card and personal debt. In those 5 years they have paid off everything by sheer determination along with hard work and a little frugality. These days the only debt they carry is a mortgage (it wasn't among the $106, 000 in debt that they've paid off).
Five years ago, Russell and Kelly Hildebrant had credit cards totalling about $89,000 and owed $17,000 to a family member. They were keeping current on all their payments, but their interest rates were climbing and they began to really struggle with the monthly payments.
The Hildebrant's mounting debt was not really the product of a lavish lifestyle. They just weren't as careful as they could have been. Russell worked as a chemist and Kelly stayed at home to homeschool the children. Family vacations were usually just visits to extended family and they rented a small townhome.
What contibuted to the slow decline were small things, such as always purchasing new clothes for the kids and name brand groceries over store brands. They also had some medical expenses related to Russell's diabetes and several miscarraiges that Kelly had experienced.
They knew that they had to do something but bankruptcy, the suggestion of several friends and family members, wasn't an option for Russell and Kelly. They contacted the Consumer Credit Counseling Service (CCCS) and came up with a 5 year plan to pay off their debt. To make the intense payment schedule work, they began purchasing generic grocery brands and clothing from thrift stores. They also stopped exchanging birthday and Christmas presents with family and friends and made due with one car for a long time. They still couldn't quite make the $2,000 per month payment so Russell took a second job cleaning a local grocery store at nights.
The schedule was grueling for the whole family, but it began to get better the closer they got to the end. Everything was eventually paid off and the family was able to purchase a home and Russell quit the second job. They have learned some valuable lessons and formed some good habits, such as bargain shopping. They remain debt free other than the mortgage.
Before I started reading this article, I was just expecting another story about a family living above and beyond their means because they just had to have this car or that house. I was certainly surprised when I read a little bit farther. This isn't a family who spent lavishly. I realized that a significant part of the debt were medical bills and they weren't living in a house that was too expensive for them. This family was even continuing to set aside ten percent of their income to go to their church as a tithe.
I read a little farther and discovered that it was really a slow decline and the mistakes that they did make, such as purchasing name brand groceries and brand new clothes, are mistakes any of us could make. I guess the little things really do catch up with you eventually.
I was very impressed that they decided to take the debts on and pay everything instead of declaring bankruptcy. That would have been the easy way out. I'm also impressed at the lengths they went to in order to pay $106, 000 in just five years. According to the article, when Russell took the second job his schedule went something like this: Wake up, go to job #1, work a full day, go home and catch a few hours of sleep, wake up and head to job #2, work from midnight to 4:30 a.m., head home, sleep a couple hours then head back to job #1 and start all over again. Talk about stressful! I don't know if I could handle it.
I also think it's amazing that this family was able to stick together during this process. Many couples end up divorced over money troubles that are really trivial. So, it really does make me wonder...what kind of shape would our country be in if more people had this kind of determination and willingness to take responsibility for their finances?
Just 5 years ago, the Hildebrants of New Richmond, Wisconsin, were carrying more than $100,000 in credit card and personal debt. In those 5 years they have paid off everything by sheer determination along with hard work and a little frugality. These days the only debt they carry is a mortgage (it wasn't among the $106, 000 in debt that they've paid off).
Five years ago, Russell and Kelly Hildebrant had credit cards totalling about $89,000 and owed $17,000 to a family member. They were keeping current on all their payments, but their interest rates were climbing and they began to really struggle with the monthly payments.
The Hildebrant's mounting debt was not really the product of a lavish lifestyle. They just weren't as careful as they could have been. Russell worked as a chemist and Kelly stayed at home to homeschool the children. Family vacations were usually just visits to extended family and they rented a small townhome.
What contibuted to the slow decline were small things, such as always purchasing new clothes for the kids and name brand groceries over store brands. They also had some medical expenses related to Russell's diabetes and several miscarraiges that Kelly had experienced.
They knew that they had to do something but bankruptcy, the suggestion of several friends and family members, wasn't an option for Russell and Kelly. They contacted the Consumer Credit Counseling Service (CCCS) and came up with a 5 year plan to pay off their debt. To make the intense payment schedule work, they began purchasing generic grocery brands and clothing from thrift stores. They also stopped exchanging birthday and Christmas presents with family and friends and made due with one car for a long time. They still couldn't quite make the $2,000 per month payment so Russell took a second job cleaning a local grocery store at nights.
The schedule was grueling for the whole family, but it began to get better the closer they got to the end. Everything was eventually paid off and the family was able to purchase a home and Russell quit the second job. They have learned some valuable lessons and formed some good habits, such as bargain shopping. They remain debt free other than the mortgage.
Before I started reading this article, I was just expecting another story about a family living above and beyond their means because they just had to have this car or that house. I was certainly surprised when I read a little bit farther. This isn't a family who spent lavishly. I realized that a significant part of the debt were medical bills and they weren't living in a house that was too expensive for them. This family was even continuing to set aside ten percent of their income to go to their church as a tithe.
I read a little farther and discovered that it was really a slow decline and the mistakes that they did make, such as purchasing name brand groceries and brand new clothes, are mistakes any of us could make. I guess the little things really do catch up with you eventually.
I was very impressed that they decided to take the debts on and pay everything instead of declaring bankruptcy. That would have been the easy way out. I'm also impressed at the lengths they went to in order to pay $106, 000 in just five years. According to the article, when Russell took the second job his schedule went something like this: Wake up, go to job #1, work a full day, go home and catch a few hours of sleep, wake up and head to job #2, work from midnight to 4:30 a.m., head home, sleep a couple hours then head back to job #1 and start all over again. Talk about stressful! I don't know if I could handle it.
I also think it's amazing that this family was able to stick together during this process. Many couples end up divorced over money troubles that are really trivial. So, it really does make me wonder...what kind of shape would our country be in if more people had this kind of determination and willingness to take responsibility for their finances?
Friday, September 18, 2009
10 Marriage Truths
This is an opinion piece from Fox News and I just really like what this guy has to say about marriage. It's refreshing to hear the ideas of someone who doesn't seem totally jaded by this world and its lackluster view on marriage.
Reverend Bill Shuler is the pastor of Capital Life Church in Arlington, VA. He's compiled a list of 10 things that are absolutes where marriage is concerned, even though we've forgotten many of them, it seems. Reverend Shuler put this list together among rising divorce rates and ongoing attempts to redifine what marriage is in our country. Here's the actual list if you don't get a chance to read his piece:
I love this article. Thes things are so true. A couple that really stick out to me are 1, 2 and 10.
Marriage is a covenant, not a contract. I think we tend to forget this one for sure. Marriage is intended to be for life. We shouldn't enter into a covenant without absolute certainty that we do not intend to break it at a later date. Now, I do realize that every situation is different and there are definitely some very valid reasons for divorce, but those people aren't the ones I'm talking about. I;m really onlytalking about those of us who never really had forever in mind at the altar.
One must not redefine the original intent without consulting the author. This really says it all. God is the author of everthing, marriage included. Who are we to rewrite perfection?
The definition of marriage was not originally based in social opinion or manmade laws and should not now be reduced to either. This seems to me to go hand in hand with God being the author of marriage. God didn't consult us when he created the world and everything in it, nor should he have had to. What right do we have to redefine the will of God with our often petty and trivial manmade laws?
Sorry, I'm ranting a little I guess. I don't mean to offend anyone, but this is what I believe and I was pretty excited to find this little article. It's reassuring to remember that I'm not just old-fashioned in the way I think or in the values I hold. I'm just part of a dwindling number I suppose.
Reverend Bill Shuler is the pastor of Capital Life Church in Arlington, VA. He's compiled a list of 10 things that are absolutes where marriage is concerned, even though we've forgotten many of them, it seems. Reverend Shuler put this list together among rising divorce rates and ongoing attempts to redifine what marriage is in our country. Here's the actual list if you don't get a chance to read his piece:
- Marriage is a covenant not simply a contract.
- One must not redefine original intent without the permission of the author.
- All indicators point toward the emotional, social and economic benefits of marriage.
- The virtues of commitment and faithfulness must be reclaimed in America.
- The state of the union is no stronger than the union of our marriages.
- The marriage penalty tax is contrary to the values we claim to embrace.
- There is no greater weapon against child poverty and crime than healthy marriages.
- Strengthen marriage and you strengthen the family.
- Strengthen families and you strengthen a nation.
- The definition of marriage was not originally based in social opinion or manmade laws and should not now be reduced to either.
I love this article. Thes things are so true. A couple that really stick out to me are 1, 2 and 10.
Marriage is a covenant, not a contract. I think we tend to forget this one for sure. Marriage is intended to be for life. We shouldn't enter into a covenant without absolute certainty that we do not intend to break it at a later date. Now, I do realize that every situation is different and there are definitely some very valid reasons for divorce, but those people aren't the ones I'm talking about. I;m really onlytalking about those of us who never really had forever in mind at the altar.
One must not redefine the original intent without consulting the author. This really says it all. God is the author of everthing, marriage included. Who are we to rewrite perfection?
The definition of marriage was not originally based in social opinion or manmade laws and should not now be reduced to either. This seems to me to go hand in hand with God being the author of marriage. God didn't consult us when he created the world and everything in it, nor should he have had to. What right do we have to redefine the will of God with our often petty and trivial manmade laws?
Sorry, I'm ranting a little I guess. I don't mean to offend anyone, but this is what I believe and I was pretty excited to find this little article. It's reassuring to remember that I'm not just old-fashioned in the way I think or in the values I hold. I'm just part of a dwindling number I suppose.
What to do with my easy bake oven now?
How many of you have held a yard sale? Helped your parents set up for one? Tried to keep them from selling your massive collection of Barbies and/or Hot Wheels? We all have. But now it might cost you a lot more than you bargained for. According to an article at FoxNews.com, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, or CMSC, has come up with some pretty rigid regulations on what we can and can't resell.
These rules were set up in the 2008 Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act after a series of toy recalls that made big news. The rules originally applied only to new products, but now the CPSC is enforcing these rules when it comes to used toys.
This is directly from the article and explains the reason for these new rules:
"Those who resell recalled children's products are not only breaking the law, they are putting children's lives at risk,” said CPSC Chairman Inez Tenenbaum. "Resale stores should make safety their business and check for recalled products and hazards to children."
So what this means for resale stores, flea-markets and individuals selling used goods is many tedious hours consulting the CPSC's often-updated website and handbook for what they can and can't sell.
The consequences if your yard sale is targeted and you get caught selling an Easy Bake Oven that was recalled 15 years ago? Up to $100,000 in fines for one infraction and up to $15 million for a series of related incidents. Seriously.
The CPSC says that they are enfocing these regulations for the protection of children who might come into possesion of a second-hand toy that was recalled at one time.
While I do see the point of view of the CPSC in this matter, I definitely don't agree with it. I encourage them to monitor the sales and recalls of new toys but I don't think that they have any place policing yard sales and flea markets for toys that were recalled years ago.
When you purchase something secondhand, you purchase with the knowledge that it is just that- used. I think it's up to the parents in these situations to decide whether a used toy is still safe for their child. I would hope than any parent with common sense is going to ensure that a toy is safe before giving it to their child.
I think it's unfair to slap these fines on individuals and small resale shops when many of them don't even know these regulations exist. It's ridiculous to me that they are expected to track every product recall and search through the sometimes cluttered and unorganized inventory of a flea market to find these things. Especially a business that might only be run by 2 or 3 people. They'd need another full time person just to search for recalled products.
After reading this article, I will say that I fully understand the position of the CPSC and I realize why they're doing this, but I think they should stick to regulating products being sold new. Leave the yard sales to the parents.
These rules were set up in the 2008 Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act after a series of toy recalls that made big news. The rules originally applied only to new products, but now the CPSC is enforcing these rules when it comes to used toys.
This is directly from the article and explains the reason for these new rules:
"Those who resell recalled children's products are not only breaking the law, they are putting children's lives at risk,” said CPSC Chairman Inez Tenenbaum. "Resale stores should make safety their business and check for recalled products and hazards to children."
So what this means for resale stores, flea-markets and individuals selling used goods is many tedious hours consulting the CPSC's often-updated website and handbook for what they can and can't sell.
The consequences if your yard sale is targeted and you get caught selling an Easy Bake Oven that was recalled 15 years ago? Up to $100,000 in fines for one infraction and up to $15 million for a series of related incidents. Seriously.
The CPSC says that they are enfocing these regulations for the protection of children who might come into possesion of a second-hand toy that was recalled at one time.
While I do see the point of view of the CPSC in this matter, I definitely don't agree with it. I encourage them to monitor the sales and recalls of new toys but I don't think that they have any place policing yard sales and flea markets for toys that were recalled years ago.
When you purchase something secondhand, you purchase with the knowledge that it is just that- used. I think it's up to the parents in these situations to decide whether a used toy is still safe for their child. I would hope than any parent with common sense is going to ensure that a toy is safe before giving it to their child.
I think it's unfair to slap these fines on individuals and small resale shops when many of them don't even know these regulations exist. It's ridiculous to me that they are expected to track every product recall and search through the sometimes cluttered and unorganized inventory of a flea market to find these things. Especially a business that might only be run by 2 or 3 people. They'd need another full time person just to search for recalled products.
After reading this article, I will say that I fully understand the position of the CPSC and I realize why they're doing this, but I think they should stick to regulating products being sold new. Leave the yard sales to the parents.
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Immigration Limbo
Sgt. Michael Ferschke of the U.S. Marines was killed in Iraq last year, leaving behind a widow and infant son, both Japanese citizens. Michael's widow, Hotaru wants to raise their son in the Tennessee home of Michael's parents, but U.S. immigration laws are standing in the way. The United States is denying Hotaru and her son permanent residency rights, citing a 1950s legal standard that was put in place with the intention of preventing marraige fraud. The U.S. government won't recognize the marriage, but the military does.
Michael and Hotaru had been together in Japan for over a year and she was pregnant when Michael was deplyed to Iraq. After his deployment, they were married in what is called a proxy wedding. Japan does not require an actual wedding ceremony. Instead, couples sign sworn affidavits stating that they are legally free to marry and they register at a Japanese municipal government office. They don't have to both be present and together for the marriage.
The United States Military recognizes proxy marriages to make things easier for couples who are separated by war. They also pay health and survivor benefits to the spouse in a proxy marriage. Michael and Hotaru's proxy marraige took place in July while they were on separate continents. Michael was killed one month later.
Now the U.S. government is denying Hotaru residency rights based on a 57-year old immigration law that states the marraige must be consummated to be recognized. The couple were not able to meet in person again after the proxy wedding before Michael was killed.
The law preventing Hotaru from becoming an American citezen was put into place to prevent fraudulent marraiges between people who never intended to actually live together and only married to guarantee citizenship for one of them.
My intial reaction to this story is sympathy for Michael's widow and baby. It's hardy her fault that the marraige wasn't consummated after the wedding. That's just a hazard of Michael's chosen career. I don't really understand why it's totally fine for the military to pay out benefits to her as his surviving widow, but the government won't even recognize her as his wife.
The more I read about why the laws are in place, the more I understood that they do serve a purpose. I realized that without them, there would be fraudulent marriages galore.
I can see that there must be some kind of regulation enforced to prevent anyone and everyone from finding an easy way to obtain citizenship. I'm a firm believer that people should earn their citizenship to ANY country, not just the United States, so these laws make sense to an extent.
After considering that these laws might be beneficial in many circumstances, I thought about people like Hotaru who are denied entry to the country because of what really just amounts to bad timing. I think that whoever is in charge of enforcing these rules should also look at individual cases that might warrant a closer investigation. It's unfair to apply one big blanket rule to every case without looking at situations like Hotaru and Michael a little more closely.
I hope that someone does reconsider in Hotaru's situation and allow her to live in her husband's country. It would be a shame that the child, who will never meet his father, would also never get to meet his grandparents.
Michael and Hotaru had been together in Japan for over a year and she was pregnant when Michael was deplyed to Iraq. After his deployment, they were married in what is called a proxy wedding. Japan does not require an actual wedding ceremony. Instead, couples sign sworn affidavits stating that they are legally free to marry and they register at a Japanese municipal government office. They don't have to both be present and together for the marriage.
The United States Military recognizes proxy marriages to make things easier for couples who are separated by war. They also pay health and survivor benefits to the spouse in a proxy marriage. Michael and Hotaru's proxy marraige took place in July while they were on separate continents. Michael was killed one month later.
Now the U.S. government is denying Hotaru residency rights based on a 57-year old immigration law that states the marraige must be consummated to be recognized. The couple were not able to meet in person again after the proxy wedding before Michael was killed.
The law preventing Hotaru from becoming an American citezen was put into place to prevent fraudulent marraiges between people who never intended to actually live together and only married to guarantee citizenship for one of them.
My intial reaction to this story is sympathy for Michael's widow and baby. It's hardy her fault that the marraige wasn't consummated after the wedding. That's just a hazard of Michael's chosen career. I don't really understand why it's totally fine for the military to pay out benefits to her as his surviving widow, but the government won't even recognize her as his wife.
The more I read about why the laws are in place, the more I understood that they do serve a purpose. I realized that without them, there would be fraudulent marriages galore.
I can see that there must be some kind of regulation enforced to prevent anyone and everyone from finding an easy way to obtain citizenship. I'm a firm believer that people should earn their citizenship to ANY country, not just the United States, so these laws make sense to an extent.
After considering that these laws might be beneficial in many circumstances, I thought about people like Hotaru who are denied entry to the country because of what really just amounts to bad timing. I think that whoever is in charge of enforcing these rules should also look at individual cases that might warrant a closer investigation. It's unfair to apply one big blanket rule to every case without looking at situations like Hotaru and Michael a little more closely.
I hope that someone does reconsider in Hotaru's situation and allow her to live in her husband's country. It would be a shame that the child, who will never meet his father, would also never get to meet his grandparents.
Friday, September 11, 2009
I've always wondered what exactly ACORN really does...
This has got to be one of the more ridiculous stories I've heard in quite a while. Really absurd.
The Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, better known as ACORN, is as it's website states, "the nation's largest community organization of low- and moderate-income families, working together for social justice and stronger communities."
This article makes me wonder what some of the members have in mind when they think of social justice and strong community.
ACORN officials in Baltimore were secretly filmed giving advice to a couple posing as a prostitute and her pimp about how to lie to the IRS and set up a bogus business front for what would really be a brothel full of child prostitutes.
The video was made by 25-year old independant film maker James O'Keefe and a girl identified as "Kenya." They posed as a couple wanting to get a loan to help them secure a facility where they could continue to run a prostitution business.
They were also encouraged to lie to the IRS on tax forms and given advice on how to claim underage girls from South America as dependants to recieve government benefits. The ACORN staffer admits that the activities being discussed are illegal, specifically bringing in 13 underage girls from El Salvador, but encourages the couple to claim them as dependants anyway.
I can't possibly describe everything well enough for you to really get the gist of what was going on so here's an excerpt from the conversation between the ACORN member and the 'pimp.'
Here they are talking about the problem with claiming the girls when they are working illegaly.
"What if they are going to be making money because they are performing tricks too?" the pimp says.
"If they making money and they are underage, then you shouldn't be letting anybody know anyway," the ACORN staffer says, and laughs. "It's illegal. So I am not hearing this, I am not hearing this. You talk too much. Don't give up no information you're not asked."
The "pimp" then asks ACORN staffers to "promise" not to discriminate against his sex worker because of "who she is and what she does," according to the audiotape.
"If we don't have the information, then how are we going to discriminate?" the ACORN staffer replies. "You see what I am saying?"
If the girls are under age 16, the ACORN staffer says on the tape, then they are not legally allowed to work in the state, regardless of what they do.
"So it's like they don't even exist?" "Kenya" asks.
"Exactly," the ACORN staffer replies. "It's like they don't even exist."
You really should read the entire article. It's unbelievable.
There's a second article too, you can read it here. It's even better.
What really caught my attention in the first place was just the title of the article, "ACORN Fires More Officials For Helping 'Pimp','Prostitute' In Washington Office." It sounded like it might be a good read.
After reading the first sentence, which states that ACORN members tried to help this couple set up a brothel for underage girls, I was shocked! I find it very disturbing that this kind of thing is going on. How many more people are there that have really committed these crimes, and gotten away scot-free?
The more I read of the dialogue between ACORN and the 'pimp' the more outraged I was. How can someone be so callous when speaking of selling young girls into what amounts to slavery? That aspect bothered me more than anything, more than cheating the IRS or lying about 'Kenya's' job.
I'm a sponsor for the youth group at my church and our high school age girls have gotten really involved with something called Rapha House here in Joplin. Some of you may have heard of it, but if not you should definitely check out this website. Rapha house is an organization with 4 facilities in Asia and a home office in Joplin. They work to rescue girls are victims of the sex trafficking industry.
Working with the girls in the youth group, I've learned so much about the sex trafficking epidemic. It breaks my heart to hear the stories some of these girls tell.
So when I read this article, the part about those girls is what stood out to me. While the couple knew that this was a lie and there were no girls from El Salvador, the ACORN employee did not. I think it's absolutely outrageous that the only thing I've heard so far is that a couple a people got fired! Whoopee, they lost their jobs. They should lose more than that for what they were preparing to take part in.
I will say that I also feel for ACORN. I know that there is probably an honest person or two working for the organization and that someone still holds to the values that ACORN was founded on and this just makes them look bad with the rest of the bunch.
I hope that this inspires whoever has the power to take a closer look at what's going on at ACORN and maybe they can weed out any more members who would take part in something so heinous.
The Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, better known as ACORN, is as it's website states, "the nation's largest community organization of low- and moderate-income families, working together for social justice and stronger communities."
This article makes me wonder what some of the members have in mind when they think of social justice and strong community.
ACORN officials in Baltimore were secretly filmed giving advice to a couple posing as a prostitute and her pimp about how to lie to the IRS and set up a bogus business front for what would really be a brothel full of child prostitutes.
The video was made by 25-year old independant film maker James O'Keefe and a girl identified as "Kenya." They posed as a couple wanting to get a loan to help them secure a facility where they could continue to run a prostitution business.
They were also encouraged to lie to the IRS on tax forms and given advice on how to claim underage girls from South America as dependants to recieve government benefits. The ACORN staffer admits that the activities being discussed are illegal, specifically bringing in 13 underage girls from El Salvador, but encourages the couple to claim them as dependants anyway.
I can't possibly describe everything well enough for you to really get the gist of what was going on so here's an excerpt from the conversation between the ACORN member and the 'pimp.'
Here they are talking about the problem with claiming the girls when they are working illegaly.
"What if they are going to be making money because they are performing tricks too?" the pimp says.
"If they making money and they are underage, then you shouldn't be letting anybody know anyway," the ACORN staffer says, and laughs. "It's illegal. So I am not hearing this, I am not hearing this. You talk too much. Don't give up no information you're not asked."
The "pimp" then asks ACORN staffers to "promise" not to discriminate against his sex worker because of "who she is and what she does," according to the audiotape.
"If we don't have the information, then how are we going to discriminate?" the ACORN staffer replies. "You see what I am saying?"
If the girls are under age 16, the ACORN staffer says on the tape, then they are not legally allowed to work in the state, regardless of what they do.
"So it's like they don't even exist?" "Kenya" asks.
"Exactly," the ACORN staffer replies. "It's like they don't even exist."
You really should read the entire article. It's unbelievable.
There's a second article too, you can read it here. It's even better.
What really caught my attention in the first place was just the title of the article, "ACORN Fires More Officials For Helping 'Pimp','Prostitute' In Washington Office." It sounded like it might be a good read.
After reading the first sentence, which states that ACORN members tried to help this couple set up a brothel for underage girls, I was shocked! I find it very disturbing that this kind of thing is going on. How many more people are there that have really committed these crimes, and gotten away scot-free?
The more I read of the dialogue between ACORN and the 'pimp' the more outraged I was. How can someone be so callous when speaking of selling young girls into what amounts to slavery? That aspect bothered me more than anything, more than cheating the IRS or lying about 'Kenya's' job.
I'm a sponsor for the youth group at my church and our high school age girls have gotten really involved with something called Rapha House here in Joplin. Some of you may have heard of it, but if not you should definitely check out this website. Rapha house is an organization with 4 facilities in Asia and a home office in Joplin. They work to rescue girls are victims of the sex trafficking industry.
Working with the girls in the youth group, I've learned so much about the sex trafficking epidemic. It breaks my heart to hear the stories some of these girls tell.
So when I read this article, the part about those girls is what stood out to me. While the couple knew that this was a lie and there were no girls from El Salvador, the ACORN employee did not. I think it's absolutely outrageous that the only thing I've heard so far is that a couple a people got fired! Whoopee, they lost their jobs. They should lose more than that for what they were preparing to take part in.
I will say that I also feel for ACORN. I know that there is probably an honest person or two working for the organization and that someone still holds to the values that ACORN was founded on and this just makes them look bad with the rest of the bunch.
I hope that this inspires whoever has the power to take a closer look at what's going on at ACORN and maybe they can weed out any more members who would take part in something so heinous.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
