The Florida "Muslim Free" Gun Store Ruling

A Florida gun store owner made headlines a while ago for declaring his store to be a "Muslim Free"

The gun store owner in all his confederate glory.
Image from nydailynews.com

 zone and refusing to sell guns to Muslims unless they took some kind of oath; something that the other, non-Muslim, patrons didn't have to go through. In doing so the gun store owner appears to be clearly violating Title II of the Civil Rights act, specifically by denying Muslims "full and equal enjoyment of goods, services" on the basis of religion. 

The Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) is a Muslim civil rights/advocacy group that does many things, including providing legal assistance to victims of discrimination. CAIR's Florida office filed suit against the gun store on the basis of violating the Civil Rights act. 

On November 24th U.S. District Judge Beth Bloom dismissed the case. 

As people are getting wind of the decision people are reading headlines and making assumptions, the key one being that a judge has ruled discrimination against Muslims is now legal. That's why I'm writing this piece. 

I'm not a legal scholar, I have never been to law school and I have no legal expertise whatsoever. With that being said I read Judge Bloom's 12 page ruling in it's entirety and those click-bait scare headlines could not be more false. Yes, Judge Bloom dismissed the case and the Florida gun store owner "won" and won't face any repercussions from this suit. And that's the key thing, this lawsuit was dismissed. 

There's an issue of standing in this case. In a nutshell, standing is what justifies you to bring the suit to court. If Mike gets into a car accident and destroys John's car in New York without having any insurance a guy named Chuck in Alaska can't sue Mike because Mike didn't do anything to him. CAIR filed this suit as an organization which means it falls under the rules of organizational standing. Which means an organization can sue if one of two things happens:

1. The organization itself is harmed.
2. The organization isn't harmed but is solely representing a member that was harmed.

Therein lies the reason for the dismissed claim. Because neither CAIR nor any of it's members (Muslims in general who would have tried to buy from the gun store) suffered actual harm. The definition Bloom cites as harm is that it must be "actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical." Because no Muslims actually tried to buy a gun and actually suffered discrimination Bloom says the harm in this case would be hypothetical and since that doesn't qualify, CAIR loses their standing to sue. Case dismissed. 

It makes sense if you think about it. If this case had gone trial the lack of actual facts would make a proper ruling extremely difficult. Clearly it wouldn't actually be this simple but the trial would go something like: 

 

"Your sign says you have a Muslim free gun store."

"So? That's just a joke, I've never denied any Muslims guns."

"But your policy and you yourself have said you will." 

"So? I didn't actually do anything...yet."

If there's one thing I'm trying to convey it's that this isn't a radical anti-Muslims ruling. It's well within the confines of the law. It isn't a damning precedent for all potential anti-Muslim establishments. All this case needs to actually go to trial would be for someone to actually try to buy a gun from the store and suffer the harm mentioned above. That would cement the issue of standing and the merits of the case could actually be discussed, which by all accounts looks like a slam dunk against the gun store. 

TLDR (Too long didn't read version): No one was actually discriminated against so they dismissed the case. If someone actually tried to buy a gun and was denied or made to do anything more than a non-Muslim then the case could actually be tried on it's merits. 

Disclaimer:

I had the pleasure of interning at CAIR's National Headquarters in DC a few a years ago and would like to make clear that the thoughts and opinions expressed in this article and mine and do not necessarily represent those of CAIR Florida or CAIR National. 

Judge Bloom's ruling can be read in it's entirety here: http://www.americanfreedomlawcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Order-Granting-Motion-to-Dismiss.pdf

Why We Need to Shut-Up About the Riots

I will not get into the gritty details of the protests that have been taking place in Baltimore over the past few days, however anyone who doesn't live under a rock knows of what's going on. Freddie Gray, a 25 year old black man, died on April 19th. He died from injuries he suffered while in police custody on April 12th. On the 19th he died from a variety of "mysterious" injuries, chiefly to his spine. A simple summary would be that Gray was another victim in a long line of police brutality killing innocent people without any sort of due process. Videos of Gray show him being dragged, unable to properly walk. He also suffered from asthma and was denied an inhaler when he was struggling to breathe. Despite all this it was his broken spine that killed him seven days later.

I'm not qualified to go into detail about the oppression and racism but many feel qualified to share their views on social media, condemning the violence caused by the protests. I implore these people to answer the question: "Why?"

What pent up oppression have these people been going through, for how long, that they erupt in anger like this? What kind of actions have muzzled a group's voice, and for how long, that rioting is only way they can be heard? What must it feel like to turn on the news everyday and think another person just like me got murdered by the people who are supposed to protect me? What must it feel like to try all the "acceptable" mediums of change and get absolutely nowhere near where you should've been in fifty years? What must it feel like to read of people like me in the 1800's being lynched, and then see it happen on the news 200 years later? What must it feel like to think that you or someone you love can easily be next?

I don't know.

Which is why I'm not going to sit on my couch, safe from all the above, and tell black people how they should go about making change. And while we're on the subject let's make some straw men very clear. Nobody is saying "all policemen" are bad or engage in police brutality. However the percentage of those who do is absolutely way too high and nothing is being done to combat this. Eric Garner was killed by police over an accusation of selling single cigarettes. The officer was cleared by a grand jury. Officer Darren Wilson shot Mike Brown SIX times and wasn't indicted. Until the structures that allow murderers of innocent black men to walk free the riots won't stop. Not sure if these men were innocent? Innocent until proven guilty and unfortunately they were never given the chance to be declared anything except dead. Baltimore will die down eventually only to crop up wherever the next instance happens. Until the root of the problem is treated the riots won't stop.

The internet tells me JFK said "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." Baltimore hasn't been living in a vacuum. This extreme reaction has been brewing and brewing from decades of systematic oppression. If you can't see that, you really should do the world a favor and stick to posting about sports. Which, by the way, have caused way more violent riots recently than racism has. 

My Thoughts on Maryland's Questions 4,6 and 7

My thoughts on Maryland's biggest new acts of legislation.

1. Question 4 aka Dream Act

What it is: This bill would provide conditional permanent residency to certain undocumented residents of good moral character who graduate from U.S. high schools, arrived in the United States as minors, and lived in the country continuously for at least five years prior to the bill's enactment. (Wikipedia, unlike annoying teachers I find it quite the reliable source) 

What I think: Hells to the yeah! These kids had no choice in coming here and are trying to become productive members of society; the fact that we are giving them a boost is a great step in enhancing Maryland's workforce and keeping people off welfare. Plain and simple. 

2. Question 6 aka Maryland's Gay Marriage Bill

What it is: Redefines marriage in Maryland to the union of “any two individuals who are not otherwise prohibited from marrying.”

What I think: I'm against it. My religious views are against gay marriage and I completely believe that marriage should be defined as a union between a man and woman, as it has been for thousands of years until now. Simple biology proves my point. While I'm not particularly ecstatic about it its not that huge of a deal for me. This country is supposedly separated between church and state and is supposedly a democracy. With those two things in mind I don't care too much about the passing of Question 6. In a secular government religion shouldn't dictate laws and if the people vote for it the people vote for it. Simple as that. 

3. Question 7 aka Casino in the National Harbor
What it is: Allows a casino to be built in the harbor and allows for all Maryland Casinos to play certain table games. (Poker, blackjack, etc.) 

What I think: I hate it. Not because the money won't go where its supposed to, but because I dislike casinos and gambling in general. Gambling is addictive. The reason many Marylanders don't have that addiction is because Delaware, West Virginia and Las Vegas aren't readily accessible places. While I don't endorse it, it isn't nearly as harmful if a guy goes to Vegas for a few days, blows a $100 on Poker or something and has a good time knowing he was going to lose money. Take away the distance factor and now I can drive 20 minutes and get to a vast array of machines that will happily take my money. While proponents of Question 7 preach how it will reinvest Maryland money in Maryland the source of the money has to be taken into account. If this new money is from the pockets of irresponsible gamblers who are ruining their lives by spending paycheck after paycheck on gambling it hurts, rather than helps Maryland. Sure the gamblers could be to blame since they are the ones being irresponsible but the government shouldn't be setting up opportunities for people to ruin themselves, there are enough of them already. Its like communism in the sense you are sacrificing individual concerns for a supposed gain as a state. I don't like it and don't think it is a good thing to happen to Maryland, not to mention how casinos can be nice breeding grounds for crime.

Also I am happy to report congressmen Allen West and Adam Hasner lost their seats in congress. Working for CAIR, the names of racist, islamophobic bigots were driven into my mind as I saw countless acts of discrimination and hate against Muslims. Allen West and Adam Hasner are two big ones. While its probably not the entire reason they lost their seats, its good to see that the majority of voters in this country aren't supportive of racist bigots representing them. 

Comments? Agree? Disagree? Let me know in the comments! And as always, thanks for reading!

White House Retains its First Black Tenet for Four More Years

Sometime around 11:22 P.M. on election day Obama was projected to win Ohio, a crucial swing state, clinching the necessary 270 electoral votes needed to retain his presidency. More importantly, for my Maryland readers, here are the results of some important ballot questions:

Question 3 Passed: Also dubbed the Jack Johnson rule, if an elected official is convicted of a felony they can be impeached.

Question 4 Passed: Giving undocumented students instate tuition if they attend a Maryland college.

Question 5 Passed: Redistricting Maryland for its eight representatives. Also known as gerrymandering.

Question 6 Passed: Maryland's gay marriage question was put to a public vote, which has not passed in any other state.

Question 7 Passed: Allowing a casino to be built in the national harbor.

All of Maryland's representatives in the House and Senate were re-elected, minus congressman Roscoe Bartlett who was defeated by John Delaney.

Interestingly, after the 6 billion dollars spent on this election nothing changed. Democrats remained in control of the white house and senate while republicans maintained control of the house. This is solid evidence supporting a previous article I wrote called Indecision 2012: Why Campaigning is Stupid.  The money had so many other good uses but instead went to supporting a downright wasteful campaign. Just another showing of why we are where we are economically.

Why did Romney lose? To me he lost because he was out of touch with most American voters. Key things Romney said at one point or another simply lingered in the minds of voters and haunted him on election day. Lets take a look. (These are in no specific order)

1. If you can't afford college you should borrow from your parents
Really? Kids around the world are applying for financial aid, government grants, and student loans all to finance the cost of a higher education. I wouldn't be going through all the paperwork if my parents had two hundred grand laying around and neither would anyone else. Here Romney shows that his money has distanced him from the financial woes of most middle class American families.

2. 47% of Americans
In a private speech to some rather wealthy donors Romney claimed that 47% of Americans would vote for Obama regardless because they are dependent on the government and that they believe they are entitled to food, healthcare, and housing I'm no campaign manager, but insulting almost half the country's voters in order to gain some campaign dollars isn't going to win any elections. Any pre-schooler could tell you that. These people are on welfare because they can't find a job or they're disabled or they're veterans. Whatever the case may be its ridiculous to generalize half of America as a bunch of moochers. Furthermore, it makes it sound like Romney wants to get rid of those entitlements that so many people rely on which erases more votes from his side.

3. I pay a lower tax rate and its cool
In an interview with 60 minutes Romney was asked about paying a 14% tax rate while other families making less are paying 25%. He said it was fair because it encouraged business to work harder to improve their business and to hire more workers to do this since they have more money. The trickle down effect is a tried and true way of creating zero jobs. It hasn't worked in the past and won't work now; the executives just keep the savings as bonuses. And despite the fact that Romney does pay more taxes in terms of total amount paid, the percentages seem unfair to a majority of citizens, and Romney attempting to justify them makes him look like a rich fat-cat.

4. I'd stop abortion
This is just my personal belief, abortion should be pro-circumstance. If you were a drunk teen slutting around college campus and just don't want to deal with the consequences of your actions then you shouldn't have the right to kill an unborn child. If you were a victim of rape of some other situation that was out of your control then of course you should have the right to choose whether you want the child that was forced upon you or not. While this is essentially Romney's position he didn't try to reason with anyone and essentially threw away the woman's vote. He never really explained his reasoning and just says he would stop funding for Planned Parenthood and would run as a pro-life President.

5. I'd let Detroit go bankrupt
When asked about Obama's bailout to the auto industry Romney staunchly declared he'd let them go bankrupt. The reasoning behind it makes sense, a capitalist economy means the government sits back and lets you do your thing, and if you go bankrupt its because you didn't make right decisions as a business. But the fact that the bailout did resuscitate America's motor industry Romney sounds like a tool to not make a decision that would save hundreds of thousands of jobs. That results in really bad P.R. for the Governor and essentially cost him the election.

In America policy and ideas are only 1% of the election. 29% is how good you look. 50% is how well you speak and relate to the public. And the other 20% is being able to sell your plans for the country in a way the uneducated mass of voters can understand them. Romney didn't have the last two things and he lost.

It will be interesting to see how Obama runs the country now that he doesn't have to worry about the repercussions of his decisions in another election. He gets a chance to show his true colors. Whether this is good or bad for the country is a decision to be made in four years.  

Indecision 2012. Why Campaigning is Stupid

You know what I could do with 5.3 billion dollars? Anything I damn well pleased is what. We hear billion and trillion dollars on the news so much I feel as though we've gained a numbness to the enormity of the number. Let the pictures and statistics refresh our memory.

Image from roundtree7.com

That picture shows you, in order, the size of a man, a thousand dollars, a million dollars and then a billion dollars divided into 100 million dollars crates. Mind you I didn't skimp and find pictures of 1 dollar bills. No sir these are the highest denominations of United States currency, the coveted 'benjamin'. Now that you grasped the enormity of a billion dollars add forty three more crates to that images and you have 5.3 billion dollars. 

Now being the Asian I am I want to do some math. According to the Social Security online website the average wage index for 2010 was right around forty two thousand a year. Lets say in 2012 the economy sky rocketed and that number jumped to 60 grand a year. And lets say the average size of a household is at 3 (Its currently around 2.6). Finally the life expectancy of an American according to the World Bank is 78.2 years. Now for the math, the family requires sixty thousand per year to live. Multiply that by 78.2 and you get 4.7 million dollars (roughly) for the parents to live out their lives with out working a day. Given that number approximately 1127 generations of that family could be supported with out having to work a single day of their lives. Assuming around 30 years gap per generation that comes out to enough to sustain the family for a good 33810 years. Without getting off their butts except to go shopping. Insane right? 

So whats my point? Five point three billion dollars is how much was spent on the 2008 campaign by Obama, McCain and all the various special interest groups according to Politico. Over 1 billion was spent in 2004 by Kerry and Bush and around 866 million by Bush and Gore in 2000 (Both of those stats from the F.E.C.). But its okay right? As these men were vying to be leaders of our great nation the money obviously, in some way shape or form, benefited American citizens right? No? That isn't what happened? How shocking. While obviously campaigning is not free the unregulated manner in which it is done is ridiculous. Candidates give speeches, travel expenses are expected (as a side note I had NO IDEA candidate was spelled can-did-ate I always thought it was can-id-ate. Praise the lord for spellcheck!) but what substance is behind these speeches? 

'See its voters like you who want to learn
about the issues that ruin my campaign!'

Most of the campaign speeches are vague generalities tailored to the simplistic minds of uneducated voters. Obama won 2008 by saying "Yes we can!" great, but he didn't close Guantanamo Bay, and he's been the biggest kick the pants of civil rights since the Patriot Act. Additionally Romney claims to have experience balancing budgets in Massachusetts and will balance America's budget the same way by cutting spending. I'm sorry what? Cut spending? Some one call the New York Times! Willard Romney (his real first name) has solved America's budget crisis in two words! All we needed to do was cut spending!

No.

Its clearly not that simple, yet Romney won't go into specifics because either he has no clue where he's going to take money out of, or he thinks his idea won't go well with the public because it won't work. Either way its not good. But the point I'm making is that these campaign speeches are so broad that they prove nothing and pamper to idiot voters who are too lazy eating fritos on the couch while watching the Biggest Loser hoping they will someday lose that weight. Okay that  may be an exaggeration but the point I'm making is most voters, myself included, aren't going to be doing much research on the issues independently in an unbiased manner and therefore don't really know who they're voting for. 

The biggest individual part of a campaign budget is television advertising. Campaign ads are ubiquitous on every major station and are usually just as substance-less if not worse than the speeches. They often are mud-flinging contests showing what dirt, real or not, the candidates can dig up on one another. Some of them maybe true but others are complete and unethical atrocities. Take for example Obama's infamous "You didn't build that speech." Romney takes something blatantly out of context and then attacks him for it. Here is part of the speech that puts everything in context:

Now lets look at what Romney did with this video:

Excuse me?! At the very least we can expect the candidates to play fair but clearly all they care about is winning. In case you didn't watch the video right after Obama says you didn't build that he says "the point is that we succeed because of individual initiative but also because we do things together." Its clear that Obama is in no way "demonizing" (term used in the Romney ad) small business owners for accomplishing what they did but simply saying that the government helped them by creating the system they can thrive in, for creating the roads they drive on for providing the fire and police services on call and such. All he is saying is working together is better for the country. I'ts this type of nonsense that can sway innocent voters into thinking Obama hates small business owners for no good reason and there isn't much he can do about it. We are seeing a common theme here, a ton of generalities, non specific crowd pleasing lines that sway voters but do nothing in terms of putting out their plans for the country. 

Given that I'm 16 I already can't vote but even if I could I wouldn't vote for either...I'd vote for...Ron Paul....or maybe Elmo. Who doesn't love Elmo? Probably has the same chance of winning as Ron Paul does as it is. Its sad how difficult and expensive it is to run for president. I don't recall George Washington, Abraham Lincoln or Thomas Jefferson ever spending a pretty penny to get elected. That's because they were great individuals with a proper vision for the country and the voters knew and could easily agree with their goals. Its quite possible the next Ronald Reagan or John F. Kennedy is lurking out there in congress or in some state as a governor or what have you, unable to run simply because they don't have 4 crates of 100 dollar bills. 

Seriously! You could buy 5 of these airplanes and
still have gas money left over!

As with my usual ramblings I have a solution. Earlier I posed the question of what could I do with 5.3 billion dollars, well lets tone it down and see what I can do for 1 million. That'll buy 27 thousand gallons of gas, 4000 one way plane tickets, 1667 weeks of rental car usage, heck it'll even give you 4-5 small used Cessna airplanes. That should be enough to cover travel expenses for a few months. But if there are no more campaign speeches or t.v ads then why are they travelling? Public debates, being the debater I am I truly adore this solution. Debating brings out positives and negatives of the topic. Everything is right there on the table, unlike in speeches when campaigners just cheer like fans at a Colts game (not last year but you know...back when they had Manning) at every mindless slogan the candidate says. Every week have a debate about some specific issue plaguing the country. Let the voters and the audience share questions with the moderators, let the voters get informed of the issues without all the muck in the middle. This creates a level playing at 0.000377% of the cost of 2008's campaign. Giving 1 million to each candidate for travel expenses and the like. With the rest of that money we can feed the hungry, create jobs, fund schools, give scholarships...or we could just keep making annoying and false television ads that get in the way of episodes of The Big Bang Theory or NBC's new comedy hit Go On. 

In essence I personally think there is too much garbage and yellow tape to go around in order to lead this country. Shouldn't being a solid leader be the one and only requirement? Agree, disagree or just love Elmo? Comment! And as always thanks for reading!