Viet-Justice

Americans are finally starting to get a sense of humor.

After Comedy Central cut a portion of a South Park episode following a death threat from a radical Muslim group, Seattle cartoonist Molly Norris wanted to counter the fear. She has declared May 20th “Everybody Draw Mohammed Day.”

Time to get out the Photoshop and Illustrator.  We can all have fatwas now!

For those looking for the hottest new investment deal there are now Sharia compliant ETFs on the market to meet your investing needs.  Javelin Exchange Traded Shares launched its first fund at the beginning of July catering to the Islamic market.

The Dow Jones Islamic Market International Index Fund (JVS) seeks performance that corresponds to a benchmark index that measures investment return on “Shari’ah compliant securities. JETS notes that certain businesses are incompatible with Islamic law and therefore excluded from the fund. These sectors include alcohol, conventional financial services (banking, insurance, etc.), casinos, firearms, and pork-related products.

That last part doesn’t sound very fun.  To many people investing is not fun, so let’s get down to basics.  The JVS fund opened up on July 1, 2009.  The opening price per share was $399.99.  In less than a week the fund as fallen down to $38.85 per share.  Sharia doesn’t appear to be a good investment.

The stock market works through good old supply and demand.  Let’s take a look at the JVS fund in depth and see what it looks like.

This looks very pitiful.  There were only 100 shares of the Sharia fund traded today.  It’s not that popular compared to other picks.  Let’s take a look at the Level II screen to see how many shares are for sale.  A Level II Quote lets you see all the buyers and sellers along with their prices.

The Ask price is what a seller wants to get rid of his shares.  If you’re a buyer you typically buy from a seller at the Ask price.  Here we have someone with 800 shares of the Sharia fund and they are Asking $399.99 for each share.  If you want to buy 1000 shares, you’re out of luck because there are only 800 shares for sale right now.

The Bid or Offer price is what a Buyer is offering to take the stock off someone’s hands.  There is a buyer out there and he’s wanting to buy 800 share of the Sharia fund, but he’s only willing to pay $0.15 for each share.  He obviously doesn’t think these things are worth that much.

What this means is, if you want to buy some Sharia fund shares you can put an order in to buy at the Ask price of $399.99 per share.  You could set your Bid price lower than the Ask price to see if the seller will lower his price.  If you Bid price is higher than the currently listed $0.15 your order will appear above the one pictured.  This goes on and on until both parties enter the same price for the stock if you don’t offer the Ask price up front.  But it gets even better folks.  Let’s say that you bought 800 shares of the Sharia fund for $399.99 and now you decide you don’t want them.  There’s a buyer out there offering $0.15 per share.  You can either lose $399.84 per share and take him up on his offer price, or you can name your price and it will appear in the Ask column.  Then you hope and pray to Allah that someone will buy those shares at your Ask price.

Now let’s look at a more exciting example, the Direxion 3x Daily Financial Bear (FAZ)

This fund also has a good example in it to illustrate price moves with a volume of over 185 Million shares traded today.  There are a total of 22400 shares for sale between the NASDAQ and PACX at 5.07.  What happens if someone buys all those shares from these two sellers?  The price next price listed is 5.08 with 3500 shares.  That is what happens behind the scenes when a stock price goes up.  Unfortunately the Sharia fund is unlikely to go up since it only has one seller who will probably never close a deal at $399.99.

This fund (FAZ) is not Sharia compliant.  This is a fund that performs opposite to the traditional financial sector we all know and love to hate (Citigroup, AIG, Bank of America, etc).  This is a 3x short fund so it basically means when the stock market goes down, this thing goes up at 3x the rate.  If the banking sector is down 5%, this fund goes up 15%.  And that’s how you make money when the market is going down.  Unlike the Sharia fund.  This puppy has had over 185 million shares traded today.  The Sharia fund on the other hand only traded 100 shares today.  Finance is hot, Sharia is not.

If you aren’t feeling very Sharia, then the Vice Fund (VICEX) might be worth taking a look at.  It is a traditional mutual fund and not an ETF.  The fund managers invest in tobacco, alcohol, and casino companies.  In a recession vice companies tend to do better than regular companies . I don’t own any VICEX shares, but it may be something worth researching if you don’t find the Sharia funds to be that profitable or fun.

WNEP says it appears that the evil moron District Attorney George Skumanick has defeated is primary opponent Deborah Albert-Heise.  He will be going on to face democratic candidate Jeff Mitchell in the fall.

The rampant Talabinisation of America continues.  The zoning board of Reading, OH has told a restaurant owner he has to cover up his mannequin  mascot.  This sort of silliness is something that only goes on in Iran, well until now it only goes on in Iran.  Is the zoning commission going to require that women cover up next?  The restaurant owner claims that his sales have gone up by 40% since he put the mannequin on display.  Does this mean that the zoning board is also anti-capitalist as well as clueless?  I’ll explain for those people reading this that work for a zoning board.  When business sales go up, the amount of taxes they pay goes up as well.  This means that the city is turning down money in favor of covering up a mannequin.  With todays world of budget cuts and shortfalls it must be nice to live in a city that doesn’t need the extra revenue.

Sexy mascot can stay if curves covered.

The Talibanisation of America continues.  This time we have a Priest who thinks a statue of a female pirate at an antique store that is scantily clad is inappropriate.

“I believe that it’s indecent. I guess it would categorized as soft porn. If there is a definition of that I would call it soft porn,” said Father Edward Commolly.

The statue is more dressed than people at the beach.  Apparently Father Commolly has not been outside of his church too often or he simply thinks that there is a lot of soft porn out there.  This is where you end up creating idiots like District Attorney George Skumanick.  The misguided belief that not being covered up 100% is pornographic is another slippery slope that threatens to turn our culture into that of the Taliban.  Father Commolly and Sheik Taj Din al-Hilali have too much in common and too much against what makes America great.  Watch the video and see if you think the statue needs a burka.

The ACLU of Pennsylvania has launched a legal strike against some clueless District Attorney in Wyoming County for attempting to shake down parents and students in his district. The skinny (no pun intended) here is that a few teenage girls took had some provocative photos of themselves distributed. Great, so the DA seems to think that is distribution of child pornography, and he’s trying to extort money out of everyone involved.

According to Ars Technica, DA George Skumanick decided to protect young people by threatening to charge them with child pornography unless they submitted to reeducation programs and go on probation. So basically he’s attempting to shake down people and make money for his district by collecting probation fees and by charging $100 to attend a reeducation program. He’s also attempting to copy the Vietnamese by ripping off our reeducation camps. Sorry but nobody does reeducation like Charlie.

What is silly about the whole thing is these girls took pictures of themselves in their underwear. No full frontal nudity at all.

But the parents of Marissa Miller and Grace Kelly were less than scandalized when they saw the snapshot for which their daughters had posed: both were shown wearing opaque white bras no more revealing than a bikini top—one on the phone, the other flashing a peace sign. Skumanick averred that it was nevertheless child pornography because the girls were posed “provocatively.” The pseudonymous Nancy Roe was a bit more exposed in her photo, which showed her fresh from the shower with a towel wrapped around her torso, below her breasts. But her mother doubted whether a bit of nudity was all it took to make a picture “pornographic.”

From the ACLU complaint filed in court excerpt from the INTRODUCTION

One photo shows Marissa and Grace, from the waist up, lying side by side in their bras, with one talking on a telephone and the other making a peace sign. The other photo shows Nancy Doe standing upright, just emerged from the shower, with a white towel wrapped tightly around her body just below the breasts. The two photographs, which depict no sexual activity or display of pubic area, are not illegal under Pennsylvania’s crimes code and, indeed, are images protected by the First Amendment.

Skumanick nevertheless persists in threatening to prosecute the girls because he has deemed the photos “provocative.” Since there is no basis to prosecute the girls for posing in photographs that plainly are not child pornography, in terms of content or production, Skumanick’s threat to prosecute the girls must be considered retaliation against the plaintiffs for asserting their constitutional rights – the parents’ right to direct their children’s upbringing and the girls’ rights both to free expression and against compelled speech – in refusing Skumanick’s demands. Accordingly, plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief to enjoin Skumanick from bringing the retaliatory criminal charges against plaintiffs based on their refusal to accede to his demand that they submit to probation and participate in the re-education program.

It gets even more interesting on page 8 where the ACLU alleges that Skumanick did not pursue those who distributed the photographs, but only those who were in the pictures or who possessed them. That’s like saying it’s ok to traffic cocaine, but you can’t produce it or consume it. Way to go idiot Skumanick. To show what an asshat this guy really is check out page 10.

29. One parent stood up during the meeting and asked how Skumanick could be prosecuting his daughter because, according to him, she was in the photograph wearing a bathing suit. Skumanick told the assembled crowd that she was posed “provocatively,” which made her subject to a childpornography charge.

30. In response to Skumanick’s comment, Marissa’s father stood up and asked who was deciding what was provocative. Skumanick replied that he was not going to argue and that he could charge all of the minors there that night but was instead offering them a plea deal. Skumanick also told Mr. Miller

This jerk is a real winner. He doesn’t have to provide any reason or justification beyond “because I said so”. He apparently has the mentality of a 5-year old. He also rubbed it in their faces that minors are not eligible for jury trial. I would assume that the juvenile judge is a good golf buddy of his would be the sole juror, judge, and executioner in such a situation.

Does the ACLU have a good case against this guy?

48. The three plaintiff minors have committed no crime by simply having allowed themselves to be photographed, either in their underwear or topless.

49. The provisions of 18 P.S. § 6312 prohibit depicting, possessing or disseminating images of “sexual intercourse…., masturbation, sadism, masochism, bestiality, fellatio, cunnilingus, lewd exhibition of the genitals or nudity if such nudity is depicted for the purpose of sexual stimulation orgratification of any person who might view such depiction.”

50. The images of plaintiffs do not fall within the definition of the materials prohibited by § 6312.

It seems to be pretty straight forward to me. I wonder how he could have messed that up. Oh, wait. We had come to the conclusion based on evidence at hand that he has the mentality of a 5-year old. Silly us!

The other nice thing the ACLU went on to say is that :

55. Moreover, Skumanick’s decision to prosecute the subjects of the photographs, the three plaintiff minors, is unprecedented and stands anti-child-pornography laws on their head. Anti-child-pornography laws are intended to protect the children shown in the photos and videos, and plaintiffs’ counsel has found no published Pennsylvania or federal court decision sustaining such a prosecution against minors shown in such pictures.

In case you missed it earlier, Skumanick has done nothing to find out who took the pictures and who distributed them. Yes, that’s right. Based on everything in the media and the court papers I can find nothing that shows he expended any effort at all. At least the ACLU has some logic here. How can you be a perp and a victim at the same time? I guess if you appear to have the mentality of a 5-year old you don’t have logic as evidenced by Judge Munley’s smack down on Attorney Hailstone who is representing Skumanick

“It seems like the children seemed to be the victims and the perpetrators here,” the judge, James M. Munley, told a lawyer for the district attorney, George P. Skumanick of Wyoming County. “How does that make sense?”

The lawyer, A. James Hailstone, said state law “doesn’t distinguish between who took the picture and who was in it.”

Hats off to Judge Munley for detecting use of the Chewbacca Defense.  I guess this explains even more. Apparently Skumanick is a mindless automaton who only knows how to follow literal directions. So in fact our assumption that he has the mental capabilities of a 5-year old was vastly out of bounds.

Skumanick must also have some problem against free speech, swimming pools, cameras, and swimwear.

57. Skumanick’s threatened prosecution chills Plaintiffs’ First Amendment right of expression, causing them concern about whether they may photograph their daughters, or whether the girls may allow themselves to be photographed, wearing a two-piece bathing suit.

58. The plaintiff minors will in the near future want to be photographed in their bathing suits, for instance during the summer when they go to a swimming pool or the beach, to which the respective parents have no objection. They are, however, chilled in their ability to take such photographs because of concern whether Skumanick will find them “provocative.”

Mr. Skumanick is now our personal nanny. YAY! I’m sure he’s going to go far under John Ashcroft with the Bush Administration’s PATRIOT ACT to help him. Oh wait!

60. Skumanick’s demand that the girls participate in the re-education program, which requires them to write a homework paper explaining “how [their] actions were wrong,” violates the plaintiff minors’ right to be free from compelled speech.

65. Skumanick’s threat to file felony charges against the plaintiff minors, charges for which there is absolutely no evidence or cause, unless the girls participate in a program that requires them to write a paper explaining “how [their] actions were wrong,” constitutes retaliation against the girls for exercising their right to be free from compelled speech, a right protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Can’t argue with any of the First Amendment points the ACLU is making here. But it gets even better

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (RETALIATION AGAINST PLAINTIFF PARENTS FOR EXERCISING THEIR FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS RIGHT AS PARENTS TO DIRECT THEIR CHILDREN’S UPBRINGING)

66. Skumanick’s illegitimate use of government authority to coerce the plaintiff parents to send their daughters to a re-education course that, among other things, would direct the girls to “[g]ain an understanding of how [their] actions were wrong,” “gain an understanding of what it means to be a girl in today’s society,” and “[i]dentify non-traditional societal and job roles,”
infringes on the plaintiff parents’ Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process right to direct and control their children’s upbringing.

Skumanick must have some strange male inferiority issues, which makes him a prime candidate for a job with the Ministry for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice in Afghanistan. From reading the entire ACLU complaint this guy seems to have a problem with freedom and liberty and he abuses his authority in a way that allows him to become moral dictator.

From the not so bright department comes this statement from Skumanick

On the other hand, Skumanick stated he will fight the lawsuit. He said, “Frankly, we just wanted to protect these kids, and say, ‘Doing this is not right.’ We wanted to offer this course to educate them, and make them understand the long-term ramifications of having photos like this out there.”

And another

Skumanick, however, remains unfazed. The New York Times quotes the campaigning crusader as saying: “I’m simply giving them an option. We’re not forcing anybody to do anything. Frankly, it’s sad to me that their parents don’t realize this is wrong and they should be encouraging them to take the classes.”

Much like the idiot PIG in Dallas Texas who killed Ryan Moats mother this moron believes that putting teenage girls in jail for 20 years on child pornography unless they agree to be coerced into a reeducation camp is the right thing to do. If his intentions were genuine he would have made attendance at the reeducation camp an option rather than forcing it at the point of a gun.

According to the records from Wyoming County this idiot makes $157,127.88 a year. The detective makes $39,862 and the Assistant DA makes $71,294.28. The parts that don’t look right are the fact that the line item titled Secretaries is $30,667 and Paralegal is $22770.00. Since I could only turn up one Assistant DA on the website, one would assume that you only need one secretary and one paralegal. So why is the secretary making more money than the paralegal? The second largest item is Ins. Fraud Tsk. Force (REIMB) at $92,000. What expenses does the Insurance Fraud Task Force have that need reimbursing that costs more than the Assistant DA’s salary? His entire budget is $467,253.22. He doesn’t have a lot to spend on prosecuting violent criminals so he’s aiming for low hanging fruit by targeting teenagers. This brings into question what is really going on in the Wyoming County DA’s Office and since he was going to pawn off 3 girls to the prison system for a minimum of 20 years each at an estimated $50,000 per year that comes to $3,000,000 that he would inflict on the taxpayers because he wants to make a point. All things considered I would think he has failed in his fiduciary duty to the taxpayers of Pennsylvania.

The good news is that he has opposition in the 2009 election. So head on over to Deborah Albert-Heise’s website and make a campaign contribution. I have chipped in to make sure this ass hat doesn’t have a job and to make sure that Paralegals get fair pay in the future.

The ND Legislature has voted to give a fertalized egg the rights of a person.

The bill declares that “any organism with the genome of homo sapiens” is a person protected by rights granted by the North Dakota Constitution and state laws.

The bill passed 51-41 and is sponsored  Republican Dan Ruby.  Like many Republicans he attempts to get votes from “the core” of the party, unfortunately he has opened up a can of worms that doesn’t help out the Republican party.

“Human embryo” means all human beings from the beginning of the
embryonic period of their biological development through eight weeks,
irrespective of age, health, function, physical dependency, or method of
reproduction, whether in vivo or in vitro.

So harming a “human embryo” is the same as harming a person according to this clown.  This effectively means that birth control is off the menu in North Dakota since you are bringing harm to the embryo by net letting it implant in the uterus.  It would also ban fertility treatments since some of the fertalized eggs are discarded or simply fail to implant.  The creation of a “human embryo” with the knowledge that you may not have a successful implantation may be harming that embryo.

The state shall naturalize all preborn persons and shall afford to them all the
privileges and immunities of state citizenship guaranteed in section 21 of article I of
the Constitution of North Dakota, except that the state is not required to include
preborn children in state and local censuses

Rep. Ruby should be glad North Dakota does not border Mexico.  Mention of the word “citizenship” for the preborn would bring thousands of illegals across the border who don’t get the meaning of what is being accomplished here.

The people over at Office of Strategic Influence had an interesting thought.  Since an embryo is a person, does that mean that uploading your ultrasound to Facebook to share with all your friends is Child Pornography?  You are taking a picture of a nude “person” under the age of 18 and distributing it on the Internet.  Unintended consequences and as idiotic as some prosecutors are expect someone to make a name for themselves by charging people for distribution of child pornography.

The right to life is the paramount right of a person. The right to life is a more
fundamental right of a preborn child than the mother’s right to liberty or pursuit
of happiness, which does not include the right to kill other people. In no way
does a child’s right to life interfere with a mother’s right to life.

Whoa! Here come the Christian Taliban!  The right to life of a preborn child is greater than the mother’s right to liberty or pursuit of happiness.  There is no logic in this piece of legislation.  The pursuit of liberty and happiness is paramount.  Being stuck with a parasite for 9 months then a leech for 18 years interferes with both.  Logically speaking, you can always make another which means the woman has higher priority than any preborn.  She can always make another and we would assume that she is currently contributing to society, whereas a preborn has at least 15 years before they begin doing anything useful due to silly laws.  At least we Asians start contributing at an earlier age in our home countries.

This is clearly in line with something the Taliban would say, therefore we must oppose any legislation that puts our government on a sympathetic track with the terrorists we are fighting against.  Women fought a long time for rights in this country and anything that reduces the importance of women, or those of us that are already here for that matter, is sympathizing with Islamic terrorist philosophy which treats women as less than goats.  The idea that a state representative would commit to writing the idea that freedom and the pursuit of happiness is secondary is frightening and a sign that our elected officials do not have the interests of the American people in mind.  People being those of us that contribute to society and pay the politicians salary.

According to Bill O’ Reilly the following will happen if gays are allowed to marry.

O’REILLY: So you can see the debate over gay marriage is now a full fledge national battle. As talking points said last night the election of Barack Obama has emboldened secular progressives who feel it is their time. Gay marriage just the beginning. Other cultural war issues will also be in display very shortly. These include limiting gun possession, legalizing narcotics, unrestricted abortion and the revocation of the Patriot Act.

I’m not too crazy over limiting gun possession because guns are a form of population control.  But legalizing narcotics is great since the War on Drugs is a total failure and overdosing on narcotics is an effective form of population control.  Attempting to mug people for your next fix ties population control nicely into the right to own a gun.

It is interesting that O’Reilly ties gay marriage to unrestricted abortion.  I had no idea gay men need abortions.  Unrestricted abortion is something that the whole world needs.  With 200 million more people than there are jobs it says we need to stop reproducing and get rid of some of the people we have.

Revocation of the Patriot Act.  Well, there’s a big steaming pile of shit that just needs to go away.  Idiots like O’ Reilly claim that the Patriot Act is for national security.  What he and his supporters do not realize is that any security measure must be commisurate with what it is protecting.  The Patriot Act is a waste of time and money as well as a tool to infrienge on the liberty of US citizens.  It is not possible to reduce a risk to zero, nor does it make sense to spend a large amount of money on protecting something with a lower value than the cost of those protections.

Yes, I’ve heard the argument that we could have an entire city get nuked off the face of the earth by terrorists with a suitcase bomb. That really isn’t going to make a difference.  After 9/11 many businesses adopted guidelines to open offices and datacenters in separate geographic regions.  Many companies in New York City could have their offices destroyed tomorrow and still continue operating.  Those that chose not to implement the post 9/11 guidelines will be out of business which leaves other companies an opportunity to step in and take over their customers.  The odds of being killed in a large scale terrorist attack are very remote compared to lightning or gun shot.  Based on the numbers I can’t really justify the expense and inconvenience of keeping the Patriot Act around either.

If gay marriage is going to bring about all of the above things then we really need to fight for the rights of our gay citizens.  Even if you don’t believe in gay marriage, support the cause just to make Bill O’ Reilly cry.

A wake up call to the citizens of “Colly-Fornia”. You have just been taken over by the Christian Taliban. The Mormons were primary out of state supporters for Proposition 8, which has banned gay marriage in California. The tricky thing is that Proposition 8 bans gay marriage with a Yes vote. If you voted no to Proposition 8 you were for gay marriage. The tricky thing I heard on the radio was that a group of religious nuts went into the liberal urban areas of California and were circulating literature stating that Proposition 8 was for gay marriage. What may have happened is that some people voted against gay marriage when they were personally for it.

There are multiple things wrong with this scenario. Marriage is a private affair. Neither the state nor the church should have any say in the topic. Licensing of marriage is just another tax and is only millimeters away from a time when the King of England decided who could get married and who couldn’t. The only difference is that it’s a bunch of bureaucrats, rather than a monarch who is owned by the church. Is there a situation where it is even appropriate to divulge that you are married? What about Medical and Car insurance perhaps? No, you simply say there are two people in this household and we want to pay extra on a single policy for two people. As far as total strangers go, I don’t need to know if you’re single, married, gay married, swingers, asexual, or what. Just make me a damn soy latte so I can get the hell of out of Starbuck’s. The same goes for friends as well. If I’m hanging out to watch the game, it doesn’t mean I need to know how your household runs.

The other problem I have with the Mormons is they’re messing with another state. I’m all for them doing what they want, provided it’s within the boundaries of their home base of Salt Lake City. What your neighbor does is none of your business. If you don’t like your neighbor then pack up and move.

If the Mormons are willing to screw with California lifestyle, how safe are the rest of us? Mormons don’t smoke or drink. You can expect them, like the Taliban, to be forcing this view on the rest of the country. Mormons don’t like chocolate, coffee, tea, or Coca-Cola because they have caffeine in them. This means that carbonated beverages with your lunch are out the door, along with chocolate cake for dessert. The Mormons are on the verge of waging war on The South by trying to take down our unique institutions of iced sweet tea and Coca-Cola. Mayor Ray Naign of New Orleans should be very worried. If the Mormons succeed in banning chocolate, will New Orleans be a “chocolate city”? If you like to eat or drink what you want it is time to go stand with the gays because when the Christian Taliban finish with them, the rest of us are next.

I discovered this one via Digg and I must say that it is a really tragic story. Apparently some idiots in the Military came up with a rule that it is illegal for soldiers to befriend animals while in the field. For some reason dogs are on the shit list. Does this mean that our military has been infiltrated by Terrorists?

Baghdad Pups is a rescue organization that is dedicated to bringing the friends of our soldiers home. A cute little dog was in their care and was confiscated by the military shortly before his plane ride home. Apparently some commanding officer is busy preparing for jihad by cleansing the world of filthy dogs. Now the really scary thing is this release by the SPCA

“Soldiers can face immediate court-marshal [for befriending animals] and some even see their animals brutally murdered by a direct gunshot to the head from commanding officers who will not bend the rules.”

Now under any reasonable definition of the law shooting an animal because you can is cruelty to animals. The fact that the military targets dogs, which are unclean in Islam, is pure proof in my opinion that our military has been hijacked by terrorists of the worst kind. Whoever this commanding officer is, he needs to be detained under the PATRIOT ACT for supporting terrorism. If you act like the terrorists then you are one.