THE PERILS OF HAITI: MASSIVE RESERVES OF GOLD, OIL AND OTHER RESOURCES, BUT NO FOOD AND WATER

Discussion is growing again now concerning the vexing perils of Haiti. New studies and investigations indicate what many have said for years: Haiti contains massive reserves of gold, oil, silver, copper, zinc and other natural resources.

But, since the enormous tragedy of the killer 7.0 earthquake on Tuesday, January 12th, 2010, that basically destroyed the Caribbean nation, the well-recognized "poorest nation on earth" continues to be starving for food and drinkable water.

Local and international politics, greed, internal and foreign ruthlessness, as well as malicious exploitation of the Haitian people appear to be contributing factors to the country's lack of progress despite its inherent riches.

["Are We Really Rolling on Gold?", Tuesday, May 22, 2012; www.haitiantreasures.com; "Massive Reserves of Gold And Oil In Haiti?", January 25, 2010, http://thisistheendoftheworldasweknowit.com]

Legal Update: The Catholics Are Coming!!!

In a cohesive pattern various Catholic groups sued the Federal government in 12 federal courts all over the country on Monday, May 21st, 2012, challenging the health-care-overhaul law's requirement that employers cover contraception in workers' health plans.

The "Catholic" lawsuits were brought by the University of Notre Dame, the Archdiocese of New York, Catholic University of America and, among 36 others, archdioceses serving Washington, D.C., Pittsburgh, St. Louis and Dallas.

The Catholic plaintiffs challenge a provision in the healthcare law that requires most employers )including religious institutions) to cover all preventative health services, including contraception as part of their insurance policies, without out-of-pocket costs for consumers. Sterilization is one of the methods of birth control included, as is the so-called "morning-after" pill. After heavy criticism, the Administration said last February (2012) it would modify the requirement to permit Catholic employers to avoid directly providing birth control in their policies. Instead, insurance companies would be required to provide contraception for participants who wanted it, without explicitly charging either the religious employer or worker. Federal officials are still working out how to implement its proposal.

But the Catholics have also expressed broader concerns, saying that even if a compromise is worked out for religiously affiliated institutions, it wouldn't address the objections of employers who are Catholic and run secular businesses.

The U.S. Health and Human Services Department adopted the rule to improve health care for women. In 2011, an advisory panel from the Institute of Medicine, which advises the Federal government, recommended including birth control on the list of covered services, in part because the rule promoted maternal and child health by allowing women to space their pregnancies.

[USA Today, May 21, 2012; WSJ, May 22, 2012]

VOTING RIGHTS UPDATE: U.S. Court of Appeals Rejects Alabama Argument

[Washington, D.C.; Friday, May 18, 2012]

In a 2-1 decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has ruled that Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 continues to be constitutional; reaffirming that the U.S. Congress acted lawfully and properly in 2006 when it reauthorized the law in order to protect minority voters.

As background, Section 5 requires sections at least, or all, of 16 states (mainly in the South) with a history of racial bias in elections to seek federal government approval, or preclearance, before altering voting procedures.

Alabama is just on of those 16 states under federal voting rights scrutiny.

This decision came as a result of a challenge to the Act by Shelby County, Alabama, and it was viewed as an important test of Section 5 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act.

It should be noted that the U.S. Supreme Court in 2009 "suggested" in an opinion that, given some changes in voting patterns, Section 5 may in "some" circumstances no longer be required.

The U.S. Court of Appeals panel stated it weighed concerns about whether Section 5 remains "congruent and proportional" to the problem it seeks to prevent. It determined that "Congress drew reasonable conclusions from the extensive evidence it gathered" and acted in accordance with the Constitution in "ensuring that the right to vote…—surely among the most important guarantees of political liberty in the Constitution—is not abridged on account of race." Congress deserved deference in making the judgment, the court said.

The county indicated it plans to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Shelby County, which includes suburbs of Birmingham, argued Section 5 places an undue burden on local governments. The provision could only be justified if there were current evidence the jurisdiction was carrying out the "unremitting and ingenious defiance" that existed in 1965 when the original law was passed, the county said.

[WSJ, May 18-19, 2012]

MARYLAND HIGH COURT AFFIRMS LESBIAN DIVORCE: Law Update

[Columbia, Howard County, Maryland, May 18, 2012]

Maryland's Court of Appeals, the state's highest court, has decided that a lesbian couple married in a 2008 civil ceremony in San Francisco can legally file for divorce in Maryland.

The state's high court has ruled this lesbian divorce action to be permissible in Maryland even though Maryland's own very recent same-sex marriage law does not go into effect until 2013.

The key issue before the court for consideration was whether states without legalized same-sex marriage can recognize gay or lesbian weddings outside of their state borders. The appeal to Maryland's highest court here involved a Prince George's County lesbian couple, Jessica Port and Virginia Anne Cowan.

"Maryland courts will withhold recognition of a valid foreign marriage only if that marriage is 'repugnant' to state public policy. This threshold, a high bar, has not been met yet," the seven state Court of Appeals justices said in their 21-page opinion. "The present case will be treated no differently. "

The couple were married in a 2008 civil ceremony in San Francisco, during a short window when California recognized same-sex marriage.

A voter referendum in California later outlawed same-sex marriage, but a federal appeals court recently ruled against that ban. It said such a ban was unconstitutional and singled out gays and lesbians for discrimination. The case appears to be headed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The couple, who did not have children, settled in suburban Washington. They eventually separated and filed for divorce in Maryland when their relationship went sour, their attorneys have said.

But a Maryland judge denied the couple's filing, ruling in 2010 that the divorce could not be recognized under the current state constitution.

The "same sex marriage in which parties hereto participated is not valid pursuant to Maryland law," the judge said. "To recognize the alleged marriage would be contrary to public policy of Maryland."

Port and Cowan appealed, and the justices unanimously ordered the county court to grant the divorce, saying that "a valid out-of-state same-sex marriage should be treated by Maryland courts as worthy of divorce."

Gay rights group praised the ruling.

"There are many same-sex spouses who married elsewhere who now live in Maryland," said National Center for Lesbian Rights Legal Director Shannon Minter. "This ruling ensures that they have all the same rights as any other married couple in Maryland. This is a powerful decision that will provide enormous security and protection to thousands of families."

Susan Sommer, director of constitutional litigation at Lambda Legal, said, "The high court of Maryland confirmed today in this divorce case that out-of-state marriages of same-sex couples are entitled to legal recognition under longstanding principles of comity, allowing this couple the same access to a divorce as other married couples whose relationships have ended."

While the case highlights state differences in the recognition of same-sex marriages, analysts have said it will probably have little influence outside Maryland because federal law allows states to ignore how other states define marriage.

"This is simply going to be a case about the Maryland state constitution," said Mark A. Graber, a law professor at the University of Maryland School of Law.

Gay rights activists say the matter often leaves same-sex couples in legal limbo when moving between states, claiming that Maryland state courts have also inconsistently ruled on issues relating to same-sex marriages.

"Divorce is never easy, but when a couple has made the decision to end their marriage, there is no reason why the state should prevent them from ending their legal relationship and moving on with their lives," said Erik Olvera, a spokesman for the National Center for Lesbian Rights.

Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley signed into law a bill that allowed same-sex couples to wed. The law, however, isn't scheduled to take effect until January 1.

The measure's opponents have pledged to challenge it by holding a referendum during November's election.

The Maryland Marriage Alliance group says it's gathered thousands of signatures and is approaching the threshold required to put the issue on the ballot, adding further uncertainty to the Port and Cowan case.

"If anything, it shows the nuttiness of the interim period," Graber said of the unclear nature of Maryland state law in apparent transition.

A recent public opinion poll conducted by Annapolis-based firm OpinionWorks found that a slight majority of residents would vote for repealing the new law.

Of those responding, 43% "would vote to make same-sex marriage illegal in Maryland, while 40% would vote to make it legal," the poll said. The poll had a sampling error of plus or minus 4%.

"Although this result is within the poll's margin of error, it is the intensity of feeling among same-sex marriage opponents that causes the overall result to lean slightly towards repeal," said Steve Raabe, OpinionWorks president.

Currently, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, New Hampshire, New York and the District of Columbia issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

In February, Washington Gov. Christine Gregoire signed a bill into law that legalizes same-sex marriage, but it does not take effect until June. Opponents there have pledged to block the bill, also calling for a referendum.

Five states -- Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey and Rhode Island -- allow civil unions that provide rights similar to marriage.

North Carolina residents voted this month to outlaw same-sex marriage, which was already prohibited in the state.

A 1996 federal law known as the Defense of Marriage Act would not force states to recognize same-sex marriages allowed in other states. That law -- now being challenged in federal court -- was not the case in the current dispute, the Maryland high court said.

"Some states have elected not to recognize valid foreign same-sex marriages for purposes of domestic divorce proceedings," the court said. "Those states, unlike Maryland, expressed clear public policies."

[CNN, Washington Wire Staff, May 18, 2012; www.wfmz.com/news/LesbianCoupleDivorce]

PANAMA CANAL UPDATE: The New "BIG DIG"

[Panama City, Panama, March 30th, 2012, Report by Attorney Charles Jerome Ware]

The multi-billion dollar shipping industry has outgrown the almost 100-year-old Panama Canal, which was started by the French in 1880 and completed by the United States in 1914. Therefore, the Panama Canal Authority is adding a much larger 3rd canal lane with wider, deeper, and longer locks to accommodate much larger ships.

The 51-mile long canal in the country of Panama connects the Atlantic Ocean (by way of the Caribbean Sea) to the Pacific Ocean. Considered to be one of the largest, most dangerous, and most difficult engineering projects ever undertaken, the Panama Canal makes it possible for ships to travel between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans more safely and in half the time previously needed before its completion by the Americans in 1914.

The new, ongoing 8-year, $5.25 billion third-lane construction project will eventually add three 1,400-foot-long, 60-foot-deep chambers to each end of the 51-mile route, and substantially increase lucrative and key commercial passages between Asia (principally China with its new giant ships) and the Eastern United States.

[also see, Fortune Magazine, April 30th, 2012, page 13]

RELATIONSHIPS: 5 Rules To Improve Your Daily Interaction With Others

[Columbia, Howard County, Maryland, May 17, 2012]

(1) Get Along with Yourself--The one relationship you will have until you die is with yourself. Treat yourself with the respect and love you deserve.

(2) Value People--You cannot make another person feel important if you secretly feel that he or she is a nobody. Recognize that everyone has innate value and treat them accordingly.

(3) Make the Effort to Form Relationships--The result of a person who has never served others? Loneliness. Chuck Swindoll said, "It's like they say in the Army, when you dig a foxhole, make enough room for two." Reach out, make room and enjoy new relationships.

(4) Understand the Reciprocity Rule--What you put into the lives of others comes back into your own. Give generously, love unfailingly and show respect to everyone.

(5) Follow the Golden Rule--Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. If every person made more decisions based on the Golden Rule, we would all make more right decisions.
If you're not doing something with your life, it doesn't matter how long it is. If you're doing something with your life, it doesn't matter how long it is. Life does not consist of years lived, but of its usefulness. If you are giving, loving, serving, helping, encouraging and adding value to others, you have a useful life!

[John C. Maxwell, Success Magazine, August 2010]

Unreconstructed and Unapologetic Southern Conservative Jesse Helms is Alive: NORTH CAROLINA BANS SAME-SEX MARRIAGE

Deceased former North Carolina U.S. Senator Jesse Helms would be proud of North Carolina today --- if he were alive. The racial segregationist and unreconstructed southern conservative died in 2008 after serving a record 5 terms as Republican U.S. Senator for North Carolina.

On Tuesday, May 8th, 2012, the obdurate North Carolina voters approved a constitutional amendment defining marriage as strictly between a male and a female.

North Carolina joins 30 other states in approving this constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. Polls, however, show that the nation's mood is softening on the issue.

[WSJ, Wednesday, May 8th, 2012]