Honest talk from a French American man living in America for over 30 years. Here's where you will find my honest take on issues, political, economical, social, LGBT, current events. Uncensored and sometimes scathing. Read, respond, comment but beware you might not like my answer. I do not take prisoners. Free speech is your right, use it, I WILL. Finally this is MY blog, and I will only respond to intelligent comments, if your comments are hateful, mean or plain stupid, they will go to spam. My Blog, My Rules. Marc St Jacques


I am tired to grieve. It seems that it is all we do now. Grieving for the 49 innocent victims of the hate crime in Orlando. Grieving for the dozen of transgender killed already this year in the USofA. Grieving for the young gay and lesbians who took their life because they were rejected, bullied to make them feel their life was worthless. Tired to grieve for our brothers and sisters of any race still dying of AIDS. Tired to grieve.

I am angry, very angry and it is time to do something about it.

Let’s kick the Republican scumbags out of office, let’s retake House and Senate. Let’s send Trump back to Maar Largo .

Let’s pass serious gun control laws. It is insane that in this country you need a license to drive a car,  a safety permit to be a cook or a waiter . But can buy a gun freely with no license or any kind of safety permit.

Let’s march on Washington DC headquarters of the NRA and surround the building with red handprints; representing those who died at the hand of the NRA. Let’s tell that this is the United State of America. Not a bannana republic that the NRA can control. In Europe terrorists smuggled arms thru borders to commit their crimes. No need here, thanks to the NRA and to Republicans Congressmen and Senators, you can buy them freely. That is called being an accomplice of a crime.

Let’s make sure that hate crime laws are passed at the Federal level and in each of the 50 States and dependancies. Let’s make sexual orientation a protected class. Sexual orientation is : Gay, straight, bisexual, transgender.

Let’s fund the V.A and our military but at the same times we do not need billions dollars military airplanes. Make sure that military, policemen (women) firefighters are paid coorectly and given the tools to do theirs jobs with efficiency.

Finally make sure that someone with mental illness can’t be President of the United States

As Conchita Wurst sang it so well “We will rise like a Phoenix” because SILENCE=DEATH.

We will not be SILENT. Our voices will be the voices of the 49 innocents victims of Orlando Pulse.




The new American Airlines

I recently flew on American Airlines, and read in their inflight magazine an article  by Thomas w. Horton the chairman & CEO of A.A..
In that article, he brag about all the new things coming to AA. And he mentioned the fact that AA flying the flag of the USA, AA has the responsibility to represent the best of America and the values people think represent the best of Modern America : freedom, progress, innovation and opportunity, but strangely forgetting the new value embrace by the entire US airline industry : GREED.

Have disappears from the cabin, the pillows, blankets, food services and most of all the smiles of the flight attendants turned into nothing less than “Wal-Mart” sales persons, selling anything they can from the liquors to the sandwiches highly priced and surprisingly missing are the dates of fabrication and expiration dates. Any stores in the US carrying that kind of unlabeled food, would have been shut down by the local health department.
Have you tried to complain to a flight attendant or an airlines airport customer “service”, the answer is always the same : “you are interfering with an airlines employee and if you don’t stop I will have you remove by the airport police” what a way to take care of your customers and take responsibilities.
Consequently people travel like cattle from point A to point B , without much complaining and waiting for the day of another mode of transport or another airline, more friendly appears,

That day, AA, United, Delta, etc etc, you can be assure that the skies will not be “Friendly”anymore

Religious Marriage has no legal standing in France since 1789

How “Le marriage pour tous” (marriage for all) is an attack on religious marriage? Since 1789 Religious Marriage has no legal value in France, only marriage performed at city hall in front of a mayor or his representatives has legal standing in France. France is a laic country with no state religion. So the opponents to the for marriage for all , are just attacking the core value of the French Republic, the French Constitution and the “Declarations des Droits de l’Homme.”

Jesus Christ and his apostles fight to end the oppression the Romans against mankind. Unfortunately the successors of Jesus and the Apostles, known as the Popes have instated their own kind of oppression on mankind and when one Pope stood up to remind the World of Jesus Christ words, the Catholic establishment did make sure that he lived only 33 days (do you remember the murdering of John Paul I). Everyone should read the book “In God Name.”

And to conclude, a little word about th, e teaching of the Bible. The Bible is a collection of hearsay, and as you know, hearsay have no value  in a court of law.

Do we need to bring back the “guillotine” and teach another 1789 lessons to the Religion.

STOP Anthem Blue Cross Revenge

Early this year, Anthem Blue Cross of California wanted to create a 4th tier for some speciality drug,  with a higher deductible and co-pay. After an online campaign to stop Anthem, they finally rescind their decision because of the outcry created.

Now the Revenge from Anthem. On November 12, 2012, I received a letter from Anthem stating:

“Our records show that you are using a speciality medicine and that you’re getting it from a retail pharmacy. Coverage for medicine will change beginning 01/01/2013 and in order for it to be covered,  you now have to use the specialty pharmacy CuraScript. If you stay with your retail pharmacy, the medicine won’t be covered and it’ll cost you more,

If you switch to CuraScript Specialty Pharmacy and get delivery to your home, your coverage will remain the same. CuraScipt is managed (and owned) by ExpressScript.

But if you stay with your retail pharmacy, you will have to pay full price for the medicine. That’s because using a retail pharmacy will be considered going out of network beginning 01/01/2013. And your plan doesn’t have coverage for that. So you’ll have to pay the full price of the drug  (my retail pharmacy will still be in network for my other medicines !!!!!!!!!!!!!)”

Several comment come to mind.

– How a retail pharmacy can be out of network and in network at the same time. Typical pick and choose what Anthem preferred without regard for the insured.

-CuraScript has the WORST records for dispensing medicine , on time, the correct one, the correct amount, and refilling on time. Then charging for delivery and requesting credit card information and charging numerously with mistake ( try to get reimbursed for wrong charges…good luck) Also your local pharmacist know you, instead of having to deal with an “uneducated phone attendants”, who could care less that your life is on the line with your medicine and which is often outsourced to country like India or the Philippines.

-The reason Anthem is making these changes is very simple, they want to make more money from us, and they were mad that we (the people) stop them earlier this year.

What Anthem Blue Cross doing is a the limit of “RACKETERING” and a violation of your freedom. and let not talk about PRICE FIXING.

I have file a complaint with the Department of Insurance, Consumer Services Division, 300 South Spring Street, South Tower, Los Angeles, CA 90013, .

Please do the same , call Anthem as well at 1.800.700.2533


Trump and religious right wing leaders calling for revolution should be very carefull

Both Donald Trump and any religious leaders calling for a revolution against the US gouvernment should be very very carefull as they are in violation of the US constitution and could ( and should ) be arrested. Read the following :

“Maintenance of National Security and the First Amendment

Preservation of the security of the Nation from its enemies, foreign and domestic, is the obligation of government and one of the foremost reasons for government to exist. Pursuit of this goal may lead government officials at times to trespass in areas protected by the guarantees of speech and press and may require the balancing away of rights which might be preserved inviolate at other times. The drawing of the line is committed, not exclusively but finally, to the Supreme Court. In this section, we consider a number of areas in which the necessity to draw lines has arisen.

  Punishment of Advocacy .–Criminal punishment for the advocacy of illegal or of merely unpopular goals and of ideas did not originate in the United States in the post-World War II concern with Communism. Enactment of and prosecutions under the Sedition Act of 1798 1 and prosecutions under the federal espionage laws 2 and state sedition and criminal syndicalism laws 3 in the 1920’s and early 1930’s have been alluded to earlier. 4 But it was in the 1950’s and the 1960’s that the Supreme Court confronted First Amendmentconcepts fully in determining the degree to which government could proceed against persons and organizations which it believed were plotting and conspiring both to advocate the overthrow of government and to accomplish that goal.

The Smith Act of 1940 5 made it a criminal offense for anyone to knowingly or willfully advocate, abet, advise, or teach the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing the Government of the United States or of any State by force or violence, or for anyone to organize any association which teaches, advises, or encourages such an overthrow, or for anyone to become a member of or to affiliate with any such association. No case involving pros ecution under this law was reviewed by the Supreme Court until in Dennis v. United States 6 it considered the convictions of eleven Communist Party leaders on charges of conspiracy to violate the advocacy and organizing sections of the statute. Chief Justice Vinson’s plurality opinion for the Court applied a revised clear and present danger test 7 and concluded that the evil sought to be prevented was serious enough to justify suppression of speech. ”If, then, this interest may be protected, the literal problem which is presented is what has been meant by the use of the phrase ‘clear and present danger’ of the utterances bringing about the evil within the power of Congress to punish. Obviously, the words cannot mean that before the Government may act, it must wait until the putsch is about to be executed, the plans have been laid and the signal is awaited. If Government is aware that a group aiming at its overthrow is attempting to indoctrinate its members and to commit them to a course whereby they will strike when the leaders feel the circumstances permit, action by the Government is required.” 8 ”The mere fact that from the period 1945 to 1948 petitioners’ activities did not result in an attempt to overthrow the Government by force and violence is of course no answer to the fact that there was a group that was ready to make the attempt. The formation by petitioners of such a highly organized conspiracy, with rigidly disciplined members subject to call when the leaders, these petitioners, felt that the time had come for action, coupled with the inflammable nature of world conditions, similar uprisings in other countries, and the touch-and-go nature of our relations with countries with whom petitioners were in the very least ideologically attuned, convince us that their convictions were justified on this score.” 9  

Justice Frankfurter in concurrence developed a balancing test, which, however, he deferred to the congressional judgment in applying, concluding that ”there is ample justification for a legislative judgment that the conspiracy now before us is a substantial threat to national order and security.” 10 Justice Jackson’s concurrence was based on his reading of the case as involving ”a conviction of conspiracy, after a trial for conspiracy, on an indictment charging conspiracy, brought under a statute outlawing conspiracy.” Here the Government was dealing with ”permanently organized, well-financed, semi-secret, and highly disciplined organizations” plotting to overthrow the Government; under the First Amendment ”it is not forbidden to put down force and violence, it is not forbidden to punish its teaching or advocacy, and the end being punishable, there is no doubt of the power to punish conspiracy for the purpose.” 11 Justices Black and Douglas dissented separately, the former viewing the Smith Act as an invalid prior restraint and calling for reversal of the convictions for lack of a clear and present danger, the latter applying the Holmes-Brandeis formula of clear and present danger to conclude that ”[t]o believe that petitioners and their following are placed in such critical positions as to endanger the Nation is to believe the incredible.” 12  

In Yates v. United States, 13 the convictions of several second-string Communist Party leaders were set aside, a number ordered acquitted, and others remanded for retrial. The decision was based upon construction of the statute and appraisal of the evidence rather than on First Amendment claims, although each prong of the ruling seems to have been informed with First Amendment considerations. Thus, Justice Harlan for the Court wrote that the trial judge had given faulty instructions to the jury in advising that all advocacy and teaching of forcible overthrow was punishable, whether it was language of incitement or not, so long as it was done with an intent to accomplish that purpose. But the statute, the Justice continued, prohibited ”advocacy of action,” not merely ”advocacy in the realm of ideas.” ”The essential distinction is that those to whom the advocacy is addressed must be urged to do something, now or in the future, rather than merely to believe in something.” 14 Second, the Court found the evidence insufficient to establish that the Communist Party had engaged in the required advocacy of action, requiring the Government to prove such advocacy in each instance rather than presenting evidence generally about the Party. Additionally, the Court found the evidence insufficient to link five of the defendants to advocacy of action, but sufficient with regard to the other nine. 15  

  Compelled Registration of Communist Party .–The Internal Security Act of 1950 provided for a comprehensive regulatory scheme by which ”Communist-action organizations” and ”Com munist-front organizations” could be curbed. 16 Organizations found to fall within one or the other of these designations were required to register and to provide for public inspection membership lists, accountings of all money received and expended, and listings of all printing presses and duplicating machines; members of organizations which failed to register were required to register and members were subject to comprehensive restrictions and criminal sanctions. After a lengthy series of proceedings, a challenge to the registration provisions reached the Supreme Court, which sustained the constitutionality of the section under the First Amendment, only Justice Black dissenting on this ground. 17 Employing the balancing test, Justice Frankfurter for himself and four other Justices concluded that the threat to national security posed by the Communist conspiracy outweighed considerations of individual liberty, the impact of the registration provision in this area in any event being limited to whatever ”public opprobrium and obloquy” might attach. 18 Three Justices based their conclusion on the premise that the Communist Party was an anti-democratic, secret organization, subservient to a foreign power, utilizing speech-plus in attempting to achieve its ends and therefore subject to extensive governmental regulation. 19  

  Punishment for Membership in an Organization Which Engages in Proscribed Advocacy .–It was noted above that the Smith Act also contained a provision making it a crime to organize or become a member of an organization which teaches, advocates, or encourages the overthrow of government by force or violence. 20 The Government used this authority to proceed against Communist Party members. In Scales v. United States, 21 the Court affirmed a conviction under this section and held it constitutional against First Amendment attack. Advocacy such as the Communist Party engaged in, Justice Harlan wrote for the Court, was unprotected under Dennis, and he could see no reason why membership which constituted a purposeful form of complicity in a group engaging in such advocacy should be a protected form of association. Of course, ”[i]f there were a similar blanket prohibition of association with a group having both legal and illegal aims, there would indeed be a real danger that legitimate political expression or association would be impaired, but . . . [t]he clause does not make criminal all association with an organization which has been shown to engage in illegal advocacy.” Only an ”active” member of the Party–one who with knowledge of the proscribed advocacy intends to accomplish the aims of the organization–was to be punished, the Court said, not a ”nominal, passive, inactive or purely technical” member. 22  

[Footnote 22] Id. 228-30. In Noto v. United States, 367 U.S. 290 (1961), the Court reversed a conviction under the membership clause because the evidence was insufficient to prove that the Party had engaged in unlawful advocacy. ”[T]he mere abstract teaching of Communist theory, including the teaching of the moral propriety or even moral necessity for a resort to force and violence is not the same as preparing a group for violent action and steeling it to such action. There must be some substantial direct or circumstantial evidence of a call to violence now or in the future which is both sufficiently strong and sufficiently pervasive to lend color to the otherwise ambiguous theoretical material regarding Communist Party teaching, and to justify the inference that such a call to violence may fairly be imputed to the Party as a whole, and not merely to some narrow segment of it.” Id. at 297-98.

  Disabilities Attaching to Membership in Proscribed Organizations .–The consequences of being or becoming a member of a proscribed organization can be severe. Aliens are subject to deportation for such membership. 23 Congress made it unlawful for any member of an organization required to register as a ”Communist-action” or a ”Communist-front” organization to apply for a passport or to use a passport. 24 A now-repealed statute required as a condition of access to NLRB processes by any union that each of its officers must file affidavits that he was not a member of the Communist Party or affiliated with it. 25 The Court has sustained state bar associations in their efforts to probe into applicants’ membership in the Communist Party in order to determine whether there was knowing membership on the part of one sharing a specific intent to further the illegal goals of the organization. 26 A section of the Communist Control Act of 1954 was designed to keep the Communist Party off the ballot in all elections. 27 The most recent interpretation of this type of disability is United States v. Robel, 28 in which the Court held unconstitutional under the First Amendment a section of the Internal Security Act which made it unlawful for any member of an organization compelled to register as a ”Communist-action” or ”Communist-front” organization to work thereafter in any defense facility. For the Court, Chief Justice Warren wrote that a statute which so infringed upon freedom of association must be much more narrowly drawn to take precise account of the evils at which it permissibly could be aimed. One could be disqualified from holding sensitive positions on the basis of active, knowing membership with a specific intent to further the unlawful goals of an organization, but that membership which was passive or inactive, or by a person unaware of the organization’s unlawful aims, or by one who disagreed with those aims, could not be grounds for disqualification, certainly not for a non-sensitive position. 29  

A somewhat different matter is disqualifying a person for public benefits of some sort because of membership in a proscribed organization or because of some other basis ascribable to doubts about his loyalty. The First Amendment was raised only in dissent when in Flemming v. Nestor 30 the Court sustained a statute which required the termination of Social Security old age benefits to an alien who was deported on grounds of membership in the Communist Party. Proceeding on the basis that no one was ”entitled” to Social Security benefits, Justice Harlan for the Court concluded that a rational justification for the law might be the deportee’s inability to aid the domestic economy by spending the benefits locally, although a passage in the opinion could be read to suggest that termination was permissible because alien Communists are undeserving of benefits. 31 Of considerable significance in First Amendment jurisprudence is Speiser v. Randall, 32 in which the Court struck down a state scheme for denying veterans’ property tax exemptions to ”disloyal” persons. The system, as interpreted by the state courts, denied the exemption only to persons who engaged in speech which could be criminally punished consistent with the First Amendment, but the Court found the vice of the provision to be that after each claimant had executed an oath disclaiming his engagement in unlawful speech, the tax assessor could disbelieve the oath taker and deny the exemption, thus placing on the claimant the burden of proof of showing that he was loyal. ”The vice of the present procedure is that, where particular speech falls close to the line separating the lawful and the unlawful, the possibility of mistaken fact-finding–inherent in all litigation–will create the danger that the legitimate utterance will be penalized. The man who knows that he must bring forth proof and persuade another of the lawfulness of his conduct necessarily must steer far wider of the unlawful zone than if the State must bear these burdens . . . . In practical operation, therefore, this procedural device must necessarily produce a result which the State could not command directly. It can only result in a deterrence of speech which the Constitution makes free.” 33  

  Employment Restrictions and Loyalty Oaths .–An area in which significant First Amendment issues are often raised is the establishment of loyalty-security standards for government employees. Such programs generally take one of two forms or may com bine the two. First, government may establish a system investigating employees or prospective employees under standards relating to presumed loyalty. Second, government may require its employees or prospective employees to subscribe to a loyalty oath disclaiming belief in or advocacy of, or membership in an organization which stands for or advocates, unlawful or disloyal action. The Federal Government’s security investigation program has been tested numerous times and First Amendment issues raised, but the Supreme Court has never squarely confronted the substantive constitutional issues, and it has not dealt with the loyalty oath features of the federal program. 34 The Court has, however, had a long running encounter with state loyalty oath programs. 35  

First encountered 36 was a loyalty oath for candidates for public office rather than one for public employees. Accepting the state court construction that the law required each candidate to ”make oath that he is not a person who is engaged ‘in one way or another in the attempt to overthrow the government by force or violence,’ and that he is not knowingly a member of an organization engaged in such an attempt,” the Court unanimously sustained the provision in a one- paragraph per curiam opinion. 37 Less than two months later, the Court did uphold a requirement that employees take an oath that they had not within a prescribed period advised, advocated, or taught the overthrow of government by unlawful means, nor been a member of an organization with similar objectives; every employee was also required to swear that he was not and had not been a member of the Communist Party. 38 For the Court, Justice Clark perceived no problem with the inquiry into Communist Party membership but cautioned that no issue had been raised whether an employee who was or had been a member could be discharged merely for that reason. 39 With regard to the oath, the Court did not discuss First Amendment considerations but stressed that it believed the appropriate authorities would not construe the oath adversely against persons who were innocent of an organization’s purpose during their affiliation, or persons who had severed their associations upon knowledge of an organization’s purposes, or persons who had been members of an organization at a time when it was not unlawfully engaged. 40 Otherwise, the oath requirement was valid as ”a reasonable regulation to protect the municipal service by establishing an employment qualification of loyalty” and as being ”reasonably designed to protect the integrity and competency of the service.” 41  

In the following Term, the Court sustained a state statute disqualifying for government employment persons who advocated the overthrow of government by force or violence or persons who were members of organizations which so advocated; the statute had been supplemented by a provision applicable to teachers calling for the drawing up of a list of organizations which advocated violent overthrow and making membership in any listed organization prima facie evidence of disqualification. 42 Justice Minton observed that everyone had a right to assemble, speak, think, and believe as he pleased, but had no right to work for the State in its public school system except upon compliance with the State’s reasonable terms. ”If they do not choose to work on such terms, they are at liberty to retain their beliefs and associations and go elsewhere. Has the State thus deprived them of any right to free speech or assembly? We think not.” 43 A State could deny employment based on a person’s advocacy of overthrow of the government by force or violence or based on unexplained membership in an organization so advocating with knowledge of the advocacy. 44 With regard to the required list, the Justice observed that the state courts had interpreted the law to provide that a person could rebut the presumption attached to his mere membership. 45  

Invalidated the same year was an oath requirement, addressed to membership in the Communist Party and other proscribed organizations, which the state courts had interpreted to disqualify from employment ”solely on the basis of organizational membership.” Stressing that membership might be innocent, that one might be unaware of an organization’s aims, or that he might have severed a relationship upon learning of its aims, the Court struck the law down; one must be or have been a member with knowledge of illegal aims. 46 But subsequent cases firmly reiterated the power of governmental agencies to inquire into the associational relationships of their employees for purposes of determining fitness and upheld dismissals for refusal to answer relevant questions. 47 In Shelton v. Tucker, 48 however, a five-to-four majority held that, while a State could inquire into the fitness and competence of its teachers, a requirement that every teacher annually list every organization to which he belonged or had belonged in the previous five years was invalid because it was too broad, bore no rational relationship to the State’s interests, and had a considerable potential for abuse.

Vagueness was then employed by the Court when loyalty oaths aimed at ”subversives” next came before it. Cramp v. Board of Public Instruction 49 unanimously held too vague an oath which required one to swear, inter alia, that ”I have not and will not lend my aid, support, advice, counsel or influence to the Communist Party.” Similarly, in Baggett v. Bullitt, 50 two oaths, one requiring teachers to swear that they ”will by precept and example promote respect for the flag and the institutions of the United States of America and the State of Washington, reverence for law and order and undivided allegiance to the government,” and the other requiring all state employees to swear, inter alia, that they would not ”aid in the commission of any act intended to overthrow, destroy, or alter or assist in the overthrow, destruction, or alteration” of government. Although couched in vagueness terms, the Court’s opinion stressed that the vagueness was compounded by its effect on First Amendment rights and seemed to emphasize that the State could not deny employment to one simply because he unintentionally lent indirect aid to the cause of violent overthrow by engaging in lawful activities that he knew might add to the power of persons supporting illegal overthrow. 51  

More precisely drawn oaths survived vagueness attacks but fell before First Amendment objections in the next three cases. Elfbrandt v. Russell 52 involved an oath that as supplemented would have been violated by one who ”knowingly and willfully becomes or remains a member of the communist party . . . or any other organization having for its purposes the overthrow by force or violence of the government” with ”knowledge of said unlawful purpose of said organization.” The law’s blanketing in of ”knowing but guiltless” membership was invalid, wrote Justice Douglas for the Court, because one could be a knowing member but not subscribe to the illegal goals of the organization; moreover, it appeared that one must also have participated in the unlawful activities of the organization before public employment could be denied. 53 Next, in Keyishian v. Board of Regents, 54 the oath provisions sustained in Adler 55 were declared unconstitutional. A number of provisions were voided as vague, 56 but the Court held invalid a new provision making Communist Party membership prima facie evidence of disqualification for employment because the opportunity to rebut the presumption was too limited. It could be rebutted only by denying membership, denying knowledge of advocacy of illegal overthrow, or denying that the organization advocates illegal overthrow. But ”legislation which sanctions membership unaccompanied by specific intent to further the unlawful goals of the organization or which is not active membership violates constitutional limitations.” 57 Similarly, in Whitehill v. Elkins, 58 the oath, revised, upheld in Gerende, 59 was voided because the Court thought it might include within its proscription innocent membership in an organization which advocated illegal overthrow of government.

More recent cases do not illuminate whether membership changes in the Court presage a change in view with regard to the loyalty-oath question. In Connell v. Higginbotham 60 an oath provision reading ”that I do not believe in the overthrow of the Government of the United States or of the State of Florida by force or violence” was invalidated because the statute provided for summary dismissal of an employee refusing to take the oath, with no opportunity to explain that refusal. Cole v. Richardson 61 upheld a clause in an oath ”that I will oppose the overthrow of the government of the United States of America or of this Commonwealth by force, violence, or by any illegal or unconstitutional method” upon the construction that this clause was mere ”repetition, whether for emphasis or cadence,” of the first part of the oath, which was a valid ”uphold and defend” positive oath.

  Legislative Investigations and the First Amendment .–The power of inquiry by congressional and state legislative committees in order to develop information as a basis for legislation 62 is subject to some uncertain limitation when the power as exercised results in deterrence or penalization of protected beliefs, associations and conduct. While the Court initially indicated that it would scrutinize closely such inquiries in order to curb First Amendment infringement, 63 later cases balanced the interests of the legislative bodies in inquiring about both protected and unprotected associations and conduct against what were perceived to be limited restraints upon the speech and association rights of witnesses, and upheld wide-ranging committee investigations. 64 More recently, the Court has placed the balance somewhat differently and required that the investigating agency show ”a subordinating interest which is compelling” to justify the restraint on First Amendment rights which the Court found would result from the inquiry. 65 The issues in this field, thus, must be considered to be unsettled pending further judicial consideration.

  Interference With War Effort .–Unlike the dissent to United States participation in World War I, which provoked several prosecutions, 66 the dissent to United States action in Vietnam was subjected to little legal attack. Possibly the most celebrated governmental action, the prosecution of Dr. Spock and four others for conspiring to counsel, aid, and abet persons to evade or to refuse obligations under the Selective Service System, failed to reach the Supreme Court. 67 Aside from a comparatively minor case, 68 the Court’s sole encounter with a Vietnam War protest allegedly involving protected ”symbolic conduct” was United States v. O’Brien. 69 That case affirmed a conviction and upheld a congressional prohibition against destruction of draft registration certificates; O’Brien had publicly burned his card. ”We cannot accept the view that an apparently limitless variety of conduct can be labeled ‘speech’ whenever the person engaging in the conduct intends thereby to express an idea. However, even on the assumption that the alleged communicative element in O’Brien’s conduct is sufficient to bring into play the First Amendment, it does not necessarily follow that the destruction of a registration certificate is constitutionally protected activity. This Court has held that when ‘speech’ and ‘nonspeech’ elements are combined in the same course of conduct, a sufficiently important governmental interest in regulating the nonspeech element can justify incidental limitations on First Amendment freedoms.” 70 Finding that the Government’s interest in having registrants retain their cards at all times was an important one and that the prohibition of destruction of the cards worked no restriction of First Amendment freedoms broader than that needed to serve the interest, the Court upheld the statute. More recently, the Court upheld a ”passive enforcement” policy singling out for prosecution for failure to register for the draft those young men who notified authorities of an intention not to register for the draft and those reported by others. 71  

  Suppression of Communist Propaganda in the Mails .–A 1962 statute authorizing the Post Office Department to retain all mail from abroad which was determined to be ”communist political propaganda” and to forward it to an addressee only upon his request was held unconstitutional in Lamont v. Postmaster General. 72 The Court held that to require anyone to request receipt of mail determined to be undesirable by the Government was certain to deter and inhibit the exercise of First Amendment rights to receive information. 73 Distinguishing Lamont, the Court in 1987 upheld statutory classification as ”political propaganda” of communications or expressions by or on behalf of foreign governments, foreign ”principals,” or their agents, and reasonably adapted or intended to influence United States foreign policy. 74 ”The physical detention of materials, not their mere designation as ‘communist political propaganda,’ was the offending element of the statutory scheme [in Lamont].” 75  

  Exclusion of Certain Aliens as a First Amendment Problem .–While a nonresident alien might be able to present no claim, based on the First Amendment or on any other constitutional provision, to overcome a governmental decision to exclude him from the country, it was arguable that United States citizens who could assert a First Amendment interest in hearing the alien and receiving information from him, such as the right recognized in Lamont, could be able to contest such exclusion. 76 But the Court declined to reach the First Amendment issue and to place it in balance when it found that a governmental refusal to waive a statutory exclusion 77 was on facially legitimate and neutral grounds; the Court’s emphasis, however, upon the ”plenary” power of Congress over admission or exclusion of aliens seemed to indicate where such a balance might be drawn. 78  ”                                   (Copyright © 2012 FindLaw, a Thomson Reuters business. All rights reserved)


In view of  the recent comments by right-wing conservatives and GOP allies about gays, trade union  etc. It come to memory a poem written in 1940’s in Nazi Germany by a protestant priest. I have adapted it to today.

” First they came for the homosexuals and I did not say anything because I was not an homosexual.

Then they came for the trade union members and I did not say anything because I was not a trade union member.

Then they came for the Jews and again I did not say anything because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me, by then no one was left to speak up for me”

We cannot let history repeat itself. The ugly head of the racist hydra is rising her head again in the GOP party, Tea Parties and under the hospices of Mitt Romney.

We have to speak up NOW, not next week, not  next year or it will be too late.

We have to stop Romney, the GOP party and Tea party allies dead in their tracks, they cannot go ahead and turn this country into another Nazi Germany

I could not find God

One of my next blog will be about the US Constitution that  I decided to read again and again and again, over 5 times this past Week End and no where could I find God mentioned. I will show you the original articles of the Constitution that Romney, the GOP and Tea parties as well as fundamentalist don’t want you to read. Stay tuned

Words from Rabbi Shmuley Boteach need to be read

Could a governmental retreat from “marriage” finally heal the deep schism that has divided and immobilized this country by an intractable values volley over gay relationships?

As many of you have read, since running for Congress I have emphasized that I want to move away from the great social-sexual battles that this country has engaged in over the past forty- odd years, which in my opinion has served to distract us from the real values challenges that confront us. The greatest threat to the future of the American family is not gay marriage but rather divorce. However, because we obsess over gay marriage, we rarely ever hear the word ‘divorce’ being uttered by political leaders. Now, with President Obama coming out to support gay marriage and Mitt Romney continuing to assert his opposition to gay marriage by continuing to define marriage as a union that can only take place between one man and one woman, I propose a truce.

What if government withdrew from the marriage business altogether, and provided only civil unions to two consenting adults wishing to unify their lives, leaving the spirituality of the union to other entities to recognize, name, sanctify and define? These civil unions would equally assure that all couples receive the legal entitlements that have previously been enjoyed by those who have been “married,” such as hospital visitation rights, end-of life decisions, insurance benefits and tax benefits. After all, what business does the government have entering a church, synagogue or mosque to legitimize or define the spiritual nature of a person’s marriage? We are supposed to have separation of church and state in America.

If the couple wishes to have their marriage consecrated to a more spiritual purpose, (e.g. “’til death do us part,” “for all eternity,” “in the name of Jesus Christ,” “according to the laws of Moses and Israel,” “in sickness and in health,” fidelity, loyalty, etc.) they will choose to have a religious ceremony in addition to the civil ceremony. This additional ceremony would extend beyond just having legal rights conferred by civil unions, and would reflect the couple’s individual spiritual or religious convictions. They would go before a rabbi, a priest, a minister or any other spiritual leader of their choice for a religious ceremony. The ceremony, and in fact the semantic definition of their union, would be defined by, and would be consistent with, that religious groups’ values.

This proposal might just allow nearly everyone to win, a “one size fits all” solution to the gay marriage narrative that has hijacked the political landscape, created ever deepening divides in the nation, and has served to be only destructive and distracting from far greater social values issues facing this country. The benefits to this proposal are, first and foremost, that no one would receive either preferential treatment or any discrimination when it comes to the government’s recognition of the legal rights of the union of any couple. Furthermore, there would be no need to redefine marriage, as each group would have the authority to define or expand the meaning of their union according to their particular religious tradition. This solution would reduce the role of government, which should not be involved in religious choices. People who want to have a spiritual component to their civil union can have whatever ceremony they desire within whatever religious context they choose, and name the union in spiritual terminology that best speaks to their religious convictions.

Far from harming religion, I believe that this change would even promote non-involved, non-religious people to entertain the concept of how religion can enhance and enrich one’s life, and be an invitation to engage in further religious learning, traditions, communities and beliefs. I think that when people are forced to confront the choice of wanting merely a government-recognized civil union before a justice of the peace, which addresses only legal status issues, or the opportunity to imbue their union with a deeper, more eternal spiritual dimension, they would see the benefit of having something with greater holiness impact their union. And they would be forced to confront the difference between a mere legal synthesis versus a spiritual orchestration of two haves into one whole. In other words, once they are forced to start thinking about their “vows,” they might just drift further into faith and religion.

The bottom line with this proposal is that we would remove the offense of those who can marry and those who cannot, the government would retreat further from our lives and one of the great battles that have raged in America could be put behind us so that we can focus, finally, on curbing divorce, keeping husbands and wives together, and keeping kids out of custody battles rather than just always fighting about gay marriage.

I recognize that for those who oppose gay civil unions this would still not be a solution. However, I vehemently disagree with their opposition. Who does it bother to have gay couples granted the decency to visit each other in hospital during serious illness, make end-of-life decisions and receive tax benefits as a couple? Is it not worthwhile for us to put behind the questions of dual insurance coverage in order to have this terribly divisive issue finally settled? By putting the gay marriage debate behind us we can finally focus on the real problem: straight people do not seem to either want to marry, and once they get married they find it difficult to remain married.

American marriage statistics tell a sad and increasingly grim story of the health of the marital institution that is at the heart of any healthy society and the national dialogue is currently unable to address the real roots of the unraveling of these unions because of the obsession of whether gay marriages are legal or legitimate. USA Today recently reported that forty percent of all American women have never been married. Something in the region of seventy percent of African-American births, 53 percent of Latino births and thirty percent of white births, are out of wedlock. And as is well known, about one out of two marriages end in divorce.

As we ruminate in this detail, we lose the bigger picture that we need to focus on healing these unions, prevent families from breaking apart, and address the impotence of romantic love in our time.

Shmuley Boteach, “America’s Rabbi,” is the international best-selling author of 27 books and has just published the highly-acclaimed Kosher Jesus. He is currently running for Congress from New Jersey’s Ninth Congressional District. Follow him on Twitter @RabbiShmuley. His website is

Written in memory of Machla Dabakarov, the mother of a dear friend of Rabbi Shmuley, who passed away last year.

A Job is a job is a Job

A job government one (federal or state)  or private industry one is in any other name is a job. Someone who has one of those, receives a salary, health benefits (most government jobs do, private don’t) thus will pay taxes and will see a doctor when needed. He or she will be less incline with health insurance to end up in emergency room at the taxpayer cost. He or she will pay taxes. He or she will also shop and spend money, which will profit and help the economy to improve. Factories and business will have to produce more and to do so will have to hire more people.

Asking the government to lay off thousand of employees and sending them to the unemployment line, where they will get unemployment benefit (so minimal that not taxable) will cost more money to the government. Also in case of medical emergency the cost will be carried by the government since unemployed mostly use emergency room because they cannot afford doctors. The risk of sick people spreading an epidemic will be multiplied by 10 fold.

If the private sectors will create enough jobs to employe  most of the unemployed and give them decent wages and health benefit (which they don’t) then yes lets reduce the government workforce. Unfortunately they don’t.

Conservatives and Republican and Tea Party want to reduce the government workforce without offering any valid alternatives (see paragraph above) Thus they will do more ill than good.

The unemployment culprit is not the government is the private sector by offering very few new jobs in this country (but do they love to outsource) with decent wages and health benefit.

Don’t be fooled by the Republicans & co rhetoric


Thank you Mr. President for coming out in support of gay marriage. Unfortunately in my mind it’s a little too late and too little. It will have been better to come out last week on saturday before the shameful vote on Amendment One in North Carolina, your voice along the one of President Clinton calling on North Carolinians to reject that amendment will have given a stronger impact on your decision, particularly in the African-American community who majority voted for the amendment. Reminding them that LGBT people have always stand along them against discrimination. Their votes were like a stab in the back. You cannot complain about discrimination against you and allow it against others.

I feel that your decision to come out was made after so many people in your administration came out in support of gay marriage and that you were having no choices others than coming out in support as well.

We, you and us, have to stand together against the forces of past ideas. If not interracial marriage ban will still be on the books in North Carolina.

Now as the head of the Democratic leadership, you must push for the move of the Democratic National Convention out of Charlotte, North Carolina to another state and city were everyone is accepted as a human being.

%d bloggers like this: