Category: biz, legal, and professionalism

“If the US Government was a family, they would be making $58,000 a year, they spend $75,000 a year, & are $327,000 in credit card debt. They are currently proposing BIG spending cuts to reduce their spending to $72,000 a year. These are the actual proportions of the federal budget & debt, reduced to a level that we can understand.” – Dave Ramsey

I wouldn’t invest my hard earned dollars in that family.  Apparently, S&P wouldn’t give that family the highest possible credit rating.  Shocking …

United States of America Long-Term Rating Lowered To ‘AA+’ On Political Risks And Rising Debt Burden; Outlook Negative

We have lowered our long-term sovereign credit rating on the United States of America to ‘AA+’ from ‘AAA’ and affirmed the ‘A-1+’ short-term rating.

We have also removed both the short- and long-term ratings from CreditWatch negative.

The downgrade reflects our opinion that the fiscal consolidation plan that Congress and the Administration recently agreed to falls short of what, in our view, would be necessary to stabilize the government’s medium-term debt dynamics.

More broadly, the downgrade reflects our view that the effectiveness, stability, and predictability of American policymaking and political institutions have weakened at a time of ongoing fiscal and economic challenges to a degree more than we envisioned when we assigned a negative outlook to the rating on April 18, 2011.

Since then, we have changed our view of the difficulties in bridging the gulf between the political parties over fiscal policy, which makes us pessimistic about the capacity of Congress and the Administration to be able to leverage their agreement this week into a broader fiscal consolidation plan that stabilizes the government’s debt dynamics any time soon.

The outlook on the long-term rating is negative. We could lower the long-term rating to ‘AA’ within the next two years if we see

Continue reading “Outlook Negative – S&P Downgrade Full Text”

This past April, the U.S. Supreme Court announced a landmark decision upholding Arizona’s tuition tax credit program.  Opponents claimed it violated the “separation of church and state” because of the benefits that flow to religious schools—through several layers of  PRIVATE choice that allow more families to place their children in private schools.  Here’s how it works:

• Private individuals organize “School Tuition Organizations” to manage and
  distribute scholarship funds to families who want to place their children in
  private schools.  There’s a wide variety—some of these limit scholarships to particular religious schools (Catholic, Jewish, evangelical) while others do not.
• Taxpayers voluntarily donate to School Tuition Organizations of their choice and receive a state tax credit (up to $500)—thus directing a few of their own “tax
  dollars” according to private choice.
• Families apply to an STO of their choice for funds, and choose from among the schools that STO has chosen to support.

The opponents – who sued to have the law declared unconstitutional – lacked legal “standing.”  NONE of their tax dollars went to any of the STOs or any of the private schools, religious or otherwise.  Thus they suffered no legal “injury.”

Like so many recent Supreme Court decisions, this one was close – 5 to 4.  Justice Kennedy is the “swing vote” who made the difference.

Congratulations, Arizona families!  You have choices about where to educate your children, without having to pay twice—first through your tax dollars that support public education, and again through tuition for your choice of private schools.

And besides the benefits to families, this important decision may help to ward off other ominous litigation—for example, challenges by non-believers to the minister’s parsonage allowance, a critical tax benefit for churches and pastors.

“Separation of church and state” is a tiresome phrase that activists have twisted to eject religious expression from the public square—restricting religious liberty.  But sometimes church and state do need separation: When churches select the persons who will carry out its spiritual mission, the state has no business breaking and entering the sanctuary under the guise of “discrimination” or similar employment laws.  In that context, “separation” protects religious liberty.

The U.S. Supreme Court has taken a case with critical implications for churches and other religious organizations (Hosanna Tabor-Lutheran Church and School v. Perich).  Cheryl Perich taught parochial school after being trained in Lutheran theology and “called” by the church congregation as a “commissioned” minister.  She consented to internal dispute resolution procedures applicable to church clergy and accepted tax benefits that only clergy may receive.  Her duties included teaching religion, leading students in daily devotions and prayer, and leading school devotions in rotation with other teachers.  After developing narcolepsy, she took a leave of absence.  The school arranged for another teacher to complete the school year and would have worked with Perich for a smooth transition back to the classroom—but she showed up with a doctor’s note and demanded immediate reinstatement, threatening to sue.  The church congregation rescinded her call and she sued, based on the Americans with Disabilities Act.  

Normally there are two sides to every story and a disgruntled employee like Perich is entitled to her “day in court.”  But when a church selects persons integral to its spiritual mission, the First Amendment says “hands off our hiring.”  The state has no business requiring a church to retain a “ministerial employee” who no longer satisfies the criteria for its ministry.  And when a church operates a religious school, the teachers are its lifeblood, carrying out the school’s spiritual mission.

See Death of a Christian Nation, Chapter 13 – “Behind Church Doors.”

You’ve been hearing about it in the news for over a year now—since Congress rushed to enact the 2,700-page “Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act” over the strong objections of the American people.  Never before has the federal government required every American to purchase a product or service—merely for existing, rather than for voluntarily participating in an activity the government may regulate. 

Congress knew there were constitutional questions.  Congress knew that legal challenges were on the horizon.  But they rushed forward, ignoring the will of the people and the Constitution.  Just minutes after the Act was passed, the lawsuits began.  Cases are now winding their way through the federal appellate courts.  Recently, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, in Richmond, VA, is hearing oral arguments in two cases.   Other circuits will soon weigh in.  Eventually the U.S. Supreme Court will have to weigh in.

Deborah, author of Death of a Christian Nation, has written briefs for the Fourth and Eleventh Circuits about the constitutional deficiencies in the new law.  Congress asserts power under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, which allows it to regulate interstate commerce.  But the decision not to purchase health insurance is inactivity—not the sort of economic or commercial activity Congress may regulate.  The federal government is a government of limited, specifically enumerated powers.  The health care law stretches the elastic too far and threatens to destroy any limits on congressional power. 

America is a land of liberty and freedom—not a land where the government compels every citizen to purchase a particular product or service.  Americans pay taxes but law-abiding citizens decide where to live, what to eat, what to wear, what to drive, what to buy.  The implications of the health care law are frightening.  It is important to care for the poor and sick, but not at the expense of basic freedoms Americans cherish.

Sometimes it costs money to speak, particularly in the context of a campaign or heated political debate.  Candidates and their supporters must raise and spend funds in order to get their message to the people.  But what if—every time you spent a dollar—the government cut a check to your opponent?

That’s the essence of Arizona’s “Matching Funds” provision, an integral part of its state campaign finance law.  Some candidates choose to finance their own campaigns privately, while others opt for public funding.  Suppose you are a privately financed candidate.  When you—or a supporting independent group—spend money for your campaign, the government disburses an equal amount to each of your opposing publicly financed opponents.

This scheme discourages political speech, one of our core First Amendment rights in America.  It is especially unfair to independent groups formed to advocate for particular issues—pro-life groups, for example.  Justice and Freedom Fund filed an amicus brief in the Supreme Court, focused on how the law burdens these groups.  Arizona’s scheme allegedly guards against political corruption—a goal not applicable to independent advocacy groups.  It also attempts to “level the playing field”—a purpose the Supreme Court has held to be unconstitutional in our free country.

On March 28, 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in a case challenging Arizona’s law.  Deborah Dewart, Senior Legal Counsel for Justice and Freedom Fund, was there to listen.  Based on the lively questions the Justices posed to attorneys, it looks like a victory for free speech.  Stay tuned!

Check out:  http://justiceandfreedom.org for more information on Justice and Freedom Fund.

I previously wrote about efforts to stop the North Carolina State Bar leadership from passing and implementing “ethics” guidelines against taking a person’s sexual orientation or “gender identity” into consideration when working as a licensed attorney in North Carolina.  See Orwellian Sexual Ethics in NC Bar.  Those efforts failed.  The legal elite in NC, in a fit of tolerance and enlightenment, passed the resolutions, though with some healthy dissent from the ranks.

If passed, this amendment would prevent attorneys from taking “sexual orientation” or “gender identity” into consideration when hiring and choosing to represent clients.  It would be unethical to note that your legal candidate Bobbie used to be Bob and is the president for the local NAMBLA chapter.  Even though this post-modern moral garbage paraded as “ethics” would trample on the Constitutional rights of Christian attorneys, even though there’s no evidence of any need for such regulation or that it would promote a legitimate public purpose, and even though this “ethics” guideline would protect “sexual orientations” that are currently felonies to practice in North Carolina, the NC Bar “leadership” passed this resolution out of committee, where it was thereafter passed by the State bar counsel and leadership.  From there, the Bar leaders sent this “ethics” resolution to the North Carolina Supreme Court for final approval, where the amendment would then have the force of law.

Praise God for sanity from the North Carolina Supreme Court Justices.  Without comment, the Court rejected the proposed amendment.  The CAL’s article on this reprinted with permission:

N.C. Supreme Court Nixes Plan by State Bar to Add ‘Sexual Orientation’ and ‘Gender Identity’ to its Preamble

By L.A. Williams, Correspondent
Christian Action League

 RALEIGH — The N.C. Supreme Court has nixed a plan by the State Bar Council to add controversial language to the Preamble of its Rules of Professional Conduct that would have obliged attorneys not to consider “sexual orientation” or “gender identity” when deciding whom they represent or hire.

“The High Court’s decision not to approve the change is a victory for Tar Heel attorneys’ freedom of speech, freedom of religion and freedom of association,” said the Rev. Mark Creech, executive director of the Christian Action League. “Had they endorsed this misguided proposal, attorneys with Judeo-Christian beliefs would be caught in a no-win situation. Plus, the Bar would have set a bad precedent for other professional groups and given added momentum to the push to get this language introduced into state laws.”

The proposed amendment to the preamble, endorsed by the North Carolina State Bar in January, stated: “While employed or engaged in a professional capacity, a lawyer should not discriminate on the basis of a person’s race, gender, national origin, religion, age, disability, sexual orientation or gender identity. This responsibility of non-discrimination does not prohibit a lawyer’s advocacy on any issue.”

Many lawyers may not have paid much attention to the suggested change and still others who support the homosexual agenda may have felt it was needed, but Anthony Biller, an intellectual property attorney from Cary, points out that the proposed amendment went well beyond homosexuality.

“By extending the ethical guideline to ‘sexual orientation’ the authors draw a circle of protection … to include all forms of sexual orientation, which includes pedophilia, polygamy, bestiality, sadomasochism, necrophilia and every other form of sexual deviancy,” Biller wrote in a Feb. 10 letter to the Supreme Court justices reminding them that many of those forms of sexual orientation are in fact felonies under North Carolina law.” Since this draft was promulgated by a committee of intelligent and experienced attorneys, one can presume this broad classification was intentional and that these few attorneys intend the Bar to impose radical social philosophy regarding human sexuality on all practicing attorneys in North Carolina.”

In urging the justices to reject the proposal, Biller wrote that “gender identity is an anathema to the Biblical concept that God intentionally created men and women unique from each other and that God chose each person’s gender.” He said the amended preamble would mean that attorneys could not refuse to associate, hire or represent based on someone’s philosophy of gender and that it would certainly protect “cross dressers, transsexuals and men who would prefer to use the ladies latrine in my office.”

Biller was far from alone in his concern over the proposal. Jere Royall, counsel for the North Carolina Family Policy Council also submitted a letter to the justices asserting that not only would the change create a protected status for behaviors that “many understand to be harmful physically, psychologically and spiritually,” but that the addition of the terms “sexual orientation” and “gender identity,” neither of which are defined in North Carolina law, “would violate the United States’ and North Carolina’s Constitutionally protected freedoms of speech and religion, whether now as part of an ‘aspirational’ statement, or later when they may be included in a different part of the rules, and become the basis for disciplinary action against the attorney.”

 The Alliance Defense Fund had weighed in on the issue as early as 2009, pointing out the problems in a very similar rules revision that was proposed but then withdrawn in July of that year by a subcommittee of the N.C. State Bar Ethics Committee. The withdrawal came after hundreds of attorneys from across the state expressed their opposition, many mailing their own letters of protest and others signing onto the ADF letter.

 Still, the Bar brought the issue back to the table and gave its approval early this year sending it on to the High Court. And even though Lawyers Weekly reported in a March 16 article that the justices’ rejection of the proposed amendment “means the issue is dead,” Biller said he wouldn’t be surprised to see it pop up again.

“I would anticipate this issue or some variation thereof resurfacing at some point in the future within the state bar, though it could be in another form, such as from another committee opining on a substantive area of law,” he said.

In his letter to the N.C. Supreme Court he called the push to amend the preamble “a transparent attempt to obtain the credibility of a state bar organization to endorse one side in a disputed political and moral debate while suppressing the other side.”

The Rev. Creech agreed and urged Christian attorneys across the state to be vigilant in their efforts to keep the North Carolina Bar from being used as a vehicle for the homosexual agenda. He also suggested that residents from all walks of life keep an eye on this and other professional groups that are embracing this radical social agenda.

I believe that USA has the best legal system in the world, seriously, and that the rule of law is essential to preserving freedom and having efficient free markets.  I also believe the law is a calling and a blessing from God.  With that said …

Houston lawyer threatens lawsuit for losing his jacket, here. 

Depressed firefighters sue furniture manufacturers because their products burned too quickly when funiture store burned down, here.

“Celebrity” Lindsay Lohan sues for $100M for E-Trade’s use of Lindsay in a commercial, claiming her name as the same name recognition as “Oprah” or “Madonna.”  See here.  Two thoughts.  First, I know a number of Lindsays.  It’s a popular, nice name.  In contrast, I have never met an “Oprah” and only ever met one other person named Madonna (incidently, the Madonna I know is a truly good and decent person that is not a disgrace to the name and who was named well before the celebrity status of the name).  Second, Ms. Lohan is no Oprah or even a Madonna.  While I’m proudly un-hip when it comes to pop-culture, I think I still know who is “famous.”  I had to check IMDb to figure out which plastic face actress Ms. Lohan is.  Oh yeah, her.

Story here.  Another chapter in the book on judicial arrogance. 

While there may be deficiencies in this advice, inter alia whether this analysis is based on a statistically significant sampling of people involved in relationships with legal professionals or whether the researchers used recognized, peer reviewed methodology, however, it’s still a good read.   

Apparently, we’ll soon have the capability for 24-7 legal research at no charge to the client.  So now the client can contact you anywhere, anytime and you can research the answer, on the spot. Splendid! Technology makes life so much easier at times …

I had the opportunity this morning to listen to Don Yaeger talk about the attributes of “Greatness.”  It was an exceptional presentation.  If you ever have the opportunity, I recommend listening to him.  He explained, primarily through stories, how greatness is a process, not a birthright.  According to Yaeger, greatness is available to all through mental, emotional, and spiritual discipline and “nourishment.”  Yaeger uses sports for his teaching points and as a former writer for Sports Illustrated, he’s made good use of his access to the greatest sports figures of our time to compile his materials. 

He presented what he found to be “Sixteen Consistent Characteristics of Greatness” that he’s seen in great sports figures. During his presentation, he expounded upon four of the sixteen points.   His first point is that “Great” people take failure or even coming in second quite personally. In explaining, “It’s personal”, he told of how he “scored” against Michael Jordan in a one-on-one fund raiser in Vegas.  Yaeger is one of only a handful of men who have scored against Jordan in this venue, though hundreds have tried.  Yaeger is no natural athlete.  For Jordan, defeat is unacceptable and Jordan truly hated the fact Yaeger scored.  The story is hilarious and the accompanying photo shows Jordan thoroughly disgusted at himself while Yaeger looks like a little kid on Christmas morning (see photo 18).  Yaeger also repeated Coach Krzyzewski’s explanation as to how this characteristic and Duke’s 40 point tournament loss to Virginia early in Coach K’s career was the beginning of greatness for him.   

To illustrate “Inner Fire,” Yaeger told the story of 5’7” Warrick Dunn.  He was raised by a single mother, who was shot and killed in the line of duty during Dunn’s senior year of high school, days after Dunn accepted a scholarship to play for Florida State.  Dunn became responsible for raising his younger siblings.  Yaeger tells the story of how Dunn went on to become one of most successful running backs in NFL history, despite his limited stature and despite being shattered by his mother’s murder.  Yaeger accompanied Dunn to the death row facility where Dunn confronted his mother’s killer on death row, and forgave him.  There was hardly a dry eye in the place after the story of how Dunn dealt with adversity.

Yaeger also talked about the final months of Walter Payton’s life as Yaeger hastily assisted with the writing of Payton’s autobiography when Payton was diagnosed with having at best a few months left to live. Payton devoted the end of his life to promoting organ transplants. Yaeger explained how in matters big and small Payton (and Dunn) lived the “Do Unto Others” characteristic, which truly made him Great. 

Coach Wooden mentors Yaeger, and from that relationship and teachings, from a Coach who won 10 NCAA Div I basketball titles in 12 years, Yaeger explained the importance of the value of associating with others and deciding with whom you will “Rub Elbows.”  This was probably the most challenging component of the talk. 

Regarding “nourishment,” Yaeger explained the importance of starting each day with a routine that focuses upon the positive, as opposed to starting the day ingesting a steady stream of negative newscasts.  Another encouraging point for starting the day in prayer and supplication before Christ and meditating on scripture.  Faith is one of the consistent characteristics of “great” men and woman.  “Belief” in a higher power ranks 3rd on the list.

Yaeger is on the speaking circuit and has a number of published books, to include a 2009 publication with Coach Wooden.  He’s worth checking out if you have the chance. http://www.donyaeger.com/