Romney label by Arizona’s Russell Pearce could be damaging

Russell Pearce & AZ Gov. Jan Brewer

You remember Russell Pearce.  Arizona’s resident bigoted and racist state senator until the people of his district threw him out of office in disgrace recently for his extremist views.  Pals with the state’s best known racist and neo-Nazi, J.T. ready.  Pseudo-author of Arizona’s famous anti-immigration law.  Yes, this is the one, and now he has another notch on his gun.  He has placed GOP presidential hopeful, Mitt Romney, in his despicable category.

Russell Pearce said that he and Romney have “identical” views on immigration.  For some, most specifically Hispanics, that is the kiss of death for the candidate.  Democrats have already jumped on the bandwagon to make Romney look like an extremist in his quest to unseat President Obama.  Although I am firmly behind the President, I’m not sure Mitt Romney is that much of a fanatic, although he may eventually have to be in order to enlist Tea Party support.

Romney’s campaign website “outlines an immigration policy that calls for securing the border by completing a high-tech fence and hiring border patrol agents. He also said he supports E-Verify and opposes ‘magnets’ for illegal immigration, such as amnesty programs and in-state tuition for people in this country illegally,” according to Cronkite News. 

But Pearce does claim that “…much of his {Romney’s} policy was modeled – by people who I’ve worked with – after my legislation.”



Mitt Romney on immigration



U.S. representatives Raul Grijalva, D-Tucson, along with Charlie Gonzalez of Texas and Xavier Becerra of California comment that “Romney has allied himself with Pearce, Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, former California Gov. Pete Wilson and other backers of stringent laws against undocumented immigrants.”  This is all followed by Arizona Governor Jan Brewer’s endorsement of Romney back in February that just adds fuel to the anti-immigration fire.

Looking at President Obama’s position on immigration reform, there appears to be no change from his State of the Union speech in 2011 and 2012.  But there are also no bold moves to advance an aggressive agenda on the issue.  Lots of talk and no action.  This is what the Hispanic community is looking at, plus the fact that Obama is setting records on deportation.  However, the one real plus in the president’s corner is the mud-slinging against Hispanics by the GOP.

GOP Presidential candidate Newt Gingrich makes Obama's case:

Here are the President’s remarks on immigration in 2011:

Today, there are hundreds of thousands of students excelling in our schools who are not American citizens. Some are the children of undocumented workers, who had nothing to do with the actions of their parents. They grew up as Americans and pledge allegiance to our flag, and yet they live every day with the threat of deportation. Others come here from abroad to study in our colleges and universities. But as soon as they obtain advanced degrees, we send them back home to compete against us.

It makes no sense.

Now, I strongly believe that we should take on, once and for all, the issue of illegal immigration. And I am prepared to work with Republicans and Democrats to protect our borders, enforce our laws and address the millions of undocumented workers who are now living in the shadows. I know that debate will be difficult. I know it will take time. But tonight, let's agree to make that effort. And let's stop expelling talented, responsible young people who could be staffing our research labs or starting a new business, who could be further enriching this nation.

And then in 2012:

Let's also remember that hundreds of thousands of talented, hardworking students in this country face another challenge: The fact that they aren’t yet American citizens. Many were brought here as small children, are American through and through, yet they live every day with the threat of deportation. Others came more recently, to study business and science and engineering, but as soon as they get their degree, we send them home to invent new products and create new jobs somewhere else.

That doesn't make sense.

I believe as strongly as ever that we should take on illegal immigration. That’s why my Administration has put more boots on the border than ever before. That’s why there are fewer illegal crossings than when I took office.
The opponents of action are out of excuses. We should be working on comprehensive immigration reform right now. But if election-year politics keeps Congress from acting on a comprehensive plan, let’s at least agree to stop expelling responsible young people who want to staff our labs, start new businesses, and defend this country. Send me a law that gives them the chance to earn their citizenship. I will sign it right away.



Barack Obama speaking to latinos



Very similar, but in 2012 condescending to the fact that the upcoming election will prevent real reform while making another pitch for the Dream Act.  Giving in to election year realities is expected these days but there is no excuse for the fact that nothing was started in the last 3-plus years.  A real shocker would be for Obama to propose and push his immigration plan right up to November showing the forcefulness he needs to exhibit, in the process locking the Hispanic vote.

Hind-sight is always 20/20, but I have always thought the President should have tackled immigration reform before health care, but, then, that is probably the reason I am not a White House advisor.

The NRA’s sinister roll outside gun rights lobbying

Think the National Rifle Assn. (NRA) only concerns itself with the right for anyone to buy a gun, no matter what their background is, and carry it anywhere in the U.S. they want to?  Think again.  This duplicitous organization, in its crusade to convince a bunch of brain-washed gun worshippers the 2^nd Amendment gives them the right to do anything they choose with firearms, has an underlying reason for constantly appealing to members’ pocketbooks.

The NRA does hit up its members for donations that these gun chumps easily give up to keep them armed to the hilt, but there is a method in their madness.  The NRA wants to go big time in the lobbying of conservative causes.



Grover Norquist

 They are hooked up with one of the most ultra-conservative lobbying groups in the country, the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), who dreams up legislation that is pro-business and anti-consumer, then takes it to dim-witted, mostly GOP state legislators throughout the U.S. who often pass the legislation verbatim.  A good example is the “stand your ground” law that is responsible for the shooting death of Trayvon Martin in Florida by George Zimmerman.

The NRA actually brought this proposed law to ALEC, who first got it passed in Florida and subsequently 20+ other states.  But the bullets hit the fan this past week when four of ALEC’s corporate sponsors dumped them, no doubt over the “stand your ground” law and the Trayvon Martin killing.  The companies were Coca Cola, Pepsico, Kraft and Intuit and according to some there may be more. 

Thanks to the Center for Media and Democracy (CMD), ALEC is finally being exposed for the conspiracy it is.  You can see all the action at their site ALEC Exposed.

The CMD has also documented the NRA’s participation in other conservative legislation that has nothing to do with gun rights.  NRA lobbyist Tara Mica was instrumental in developing and coordinating the bill for voter ID that inhibits voting by the poor, ethnic groups and minorities.  Mica was also responsible for participating in the preparation of the model legislation that eventually became Arizona’s anti-immigration law, SB-1070. 

The question the NRA members might want to ask themselves at this point is just how much of their membership dues are being used for this non-gun lobbying.  Unless a majority of the enrollment are bigots who also are in favor of this same philosophy,

Karl Malone



Josh Horwitz, head of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (CSGV), says the NRA's role with ALEC cements his view that the NRA is really a base for the conservative movement.  Further, "People think the NRA is just a gun group. It's really not," he commented.  You might want to click on CSGV’s website, “Meet the NRA.org,” where you can check out the group, particularly its leadership.  People like: 

Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform, and David Keene, former chairman of the American Conservative Union, Robert Brown, creator of Soldier of Fortune magazine, rock guitarist Ted Nugent, former NBA star Karl Malone, Chuck Norris, Oliver North and Tom Selleck.



Tom Selleck

 Robert Spitzer, a political scientist at the State University of New York at Cortland and at Cornell University, who has studied and written about the NRA for decades, talks of other non-gun issues in which the NRA has become involved.  As an example, the NRA fought hard against campaign finance reform in the days of McCain-Feingold. "They were taking a very much free-enterprise, government-hands-off-the-campaign-process (approach),"

Finally, Spitzer said that the NRA has its work cut out for it, because gun ownership is on the decline in America.  Now that’s the best news we’ve had in a long time.

Corporate stampede to dump ALEC – Do your part today

Unfortunately it took the death of Trayvon Martin in Florida at the hands of George Zimmerman to convince at least some of the corporate world just how despicable the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) is.  When the National Rifle Assn. (NRA) brought the “stand your ground” law to the them, it was originally passed in 2005 in Florida, later being passed by 20-something other states.  The law’s efficacy is being questioned nationwide.

This is all the result of the dedicated reporting of the Center for Media and Democracy (CMD) on ALEC’s activities in an expose that finally put this reprehensible organization in the spotlight, drawing attention to its lobbying efforts on the state level that favor big business at the expense of the consumer.  The very consumer that supports these large corporations that also support ALEC.  Well the tide has turned and they are dropping like flies.

It was announced late last Thursday that Coca Cola and Pepsico had dumped ALEC, then on Friday Kraft and Intuit decided to bail.  No doubt more are on the way and this list will need to be updated regularly today.  But there were holdouts, some you deal with every day, and you should know who they are (below), and I will show you later how you can add your voice to the referendum.

Wal-Mart refused to withdraw its support of ALEC claiming, "Our membership in any organization does not affirm our agreement with each policy created by the broader group."  Not good enough and you should let the retailer know by your future shopping habits.

According to Reuters, due to “political risk,” Pfizer, Reynolds American, Altria/Philip Morris and non-board ALEC member Procter & Gamble refuse to leave ALEC.  Customers of these companies should decide whether they want to leave them.

Exxon Mobil and British alcohol firm Diageo (makers of Smirnoff products and Johnnie Walker whisky) declined to comment.



Pfizer drugs



Pfizer, the world largest drug manufacturer, said, "We don't agree with every ALEC position, but we participate in ALEC's healthcare forums because state legislators that are the members in ALEC, they make decisions that impact our business and the country's business every day."  Not added is the fact that state lawmakers pass the laws dictated by ALEC, unfavorable to drug users.

Reynolds (Camel cigarettes) said ALEC provides "a valuable forum for sharing of ideas and fostering better understanding of a broad range of both legislative and business issues."  In other words, we let them do our dirty work.

Others who weren’t talking when this was posted are Bayer, GlaxoSmithKline, Johnson & Johnson, AT&T, State Farm, plus others.

Now this may all change during the day, adding more dropouts, and you can check the progress of this issue by going to CMD’s site, ALEC Exposed.  And in case you aren’t mad enough yet to participate, here are a few priority items on ALEC’s agenda:

• Suppress voting by students, the poor and ethnic minorities through restrictive Voter ID laws.

• Push climate change denial and restrict protections for our environment.

• Undermine public schools by using tax dollars to subsidize for-profit schools.

• Limit consumers' rights and the basic right of workers to organize.

• And privatize and ration Medicare and Social Security, as well as other government services.

Get the scoop on ALEC below from a U.S. Representative:

So now that you are mad enough, here are some sites to visit where you can learn more about the antics of ALEC.  First check out the ALEC Corporations that are involved in this conspiracy and you will see a wide array of the U.S. corporate world.  It’s alphabetized for easy reference.  Next, find your state lawmakers that do just what ALEC mandates and tell them to stop this practice and start representing the people or you will vote them out of office.

Now that you are fully armed with information, you are ready to take action on your own.  Go to CMD’s Dump ALEC site and you can send your own letter to corporate America that says you are sick and tired of these underhanded methods to undermine your rights as a consumer and a customer.  You’ll feel better and it will help CMD in its fight to oust ALEC.  Do it today!

The ALEC conspiracy broadens

The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) has been called a “bill churning mill” primarily due to the fact that, of the nearly 1,000 bills it presents to state lawmakers each year, 20 percent become law.  Some of them verbatim, right out of ALEC’s factory.  Marvin Meadors writing for the Huff Post likens it to the “evil law firm” in the movie The Devil’s Advocate, a 1997 film in which a lawyer finds out his new boss is Lucifer himself.

I can see how the Koch brothers, David and Charles, would be considered the devil reincarnated by consumers because everything these two concoct ends up flying in the face of the average American citizen.  Things like the “stand your ground” laws (Castle Doctrine), voter id laws, voucher programs for private schools that dilute public education, anti environmental bills, anti-immigration legislation, anti-worker laws, and the list goes on.

But the Koch brothers aren’t in this alone; their cronies are some of the largest corporations in the U.S., all of which depend on the very consumers ALEC laws are designed to oppose.  Companies like Wal-Mart, Kraft, State Farm, Exxon/Mobil, Verizon, AT&T, Bayer, GlaxoSmithKline, not to mention Koch Industries and there are more.  These back-stabbers are joined by over 2,000 of your state legislators who pretty much do just what ALEC tells them to.

And then there is the National Rifle Assn., which brought the “stand your ground” law to ALEC, who along with the NRA got it passed in Florida in 2005, which then went on to another twenty-something states.  It is the basis on which George Zimmerman shot and killed black teen ager Trayvon Martin in Florida recently, and the possible answer to why justifiable homicides are increasing at an alarming rate in the states that have passed this law.    

ALEC was actually founded by conservative Paul Weyrich, also the founder of the Heritage Foundation to defy liberal think tanks.  He was one of the earliest to marry conservatives to evangelicals, joining Jerry Falwell to found the Moral Majority.  Weyrich actually said: “I don't want everybody to vote. Elections are not won by a majority of the people.”  He continues, “As a matter of fact, our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down.”

His underlying meaning, above, becomes quite clear when you consider the voter-id laws that ALEC is proposing under the guise of stopping voter fraud that are actually meant to discourage voting by the poor and ethnic minorities. 

But there is probably nothing more profound in ALEC’s privatization efforts than its crusade to turn America’s prisons into private enterprise.  Its model legislation has been responsible for an explosion in prison population.  Laws like “three strikes,” mandatory minimum sentencing laws, and “truth in sentencing” that does away with or limits parole.  As crime fell dramatically in the 1990s, the prison population grew by a half-million inmates, as just one example.     



Gov. Brewer fills private prisons



And where do we go for the most glaring examples of ALEC’s privatization of prisons?  Why Arizona of course.  I did a post on this in February, “Private prisons another example of big business exploiting states,” which related the conspiracy going on between Gov. Jan Brewer’s office, Sheriff Joe Arpaio and the Republican state legislators to bring in companies like Corrections Corp. of America (CCA), and guarantee to keep their cells filled for profit.

But there is a darker side that the state doesn’t talk about because it completely refutes Arizona’s original reason for going this route.  It was to save money, which it hasn’t.  A report released in February reveals that the state overpaid its private prisons by $10 million between 2008 and 2010.  And what they received in return was unacceptable including malfunctioning alarm systems, fences with holes in them, inept staffs plus other problems.

In total there were 157 serious security failings across five facilities.  There were some 28 riots, a figure that cannot be confirmed since the prison administration attempted to hide the evidence.  And just this past Tuesday, Arizona’s Dept. of Corrections awarded a $349 million three-year contract to privatize health care for inmates, costing $5 million more than the state paid in 2011.

These are your tax-paying dollars folks, and ALEC makes the U.S. Congress’ pork barrel politics look like kids stuff.  The question is not if, but rather when, ALEC will come up with a new state program to privatize.  How about parks?  Now that’s a possibility.  Fence them all in and charge admission.  But the state must find ways to force more people into the parks for maximum profit of let’s say a company like “Private Parks of America.”

Absurd?  Not at all.  And if progressives don’t get busy on both the national and state levels and dump these conservative lawmakers that worship big business, this country is in for a shock some day when corporations will occupy the White House and the Congress, not individuals.

BREAKING NEWS: Just announced that Coca Cola and Pepsico have severed their ties with ALEC due to pressure from special interest groups.  More on this later. 

“Stand your ground” gun laws have to go



Fla legislators love the NRA



Two good questions arise in a Wall Street Journal article that seem to challenge the “stand your ground laws in those states where it has been passed.  “For instance, does a rise in justifiable homicides reflect killings that otherwise wouldn't have happened? Or does it reflect the fact that more killings might naturally fall into the "justifiable" category, if a new law broadens that category?”  Tough questions and without more study will no doubt remain unanswered.

Up until the killing of Trayvon Martin by neighborhood watch captain George Zimmerman, the primary battle between gun control advocates and those for more gun rights has been to just let anyone who wants to own a weapon of their choice take it anywhere they wanted to.  So far, the gun worshippers have gotten their way.  Now it would seem that the NRA-backed gun bubbas would like to add an amendment: “If I kill someone, let me call it self defense.”

The alleged justifiable homicides almost doubled between 2000 and 2010, but distinguishing these events are some interesting factors.  Around 60 percent were strangers.  Firearms were used in 80 percent of the cases compared to 65 percent in non-justifiable cases.  The average age of victims in justifiable versus non-justifiable are about the same. 

Re. the race issue, in 75 percent of each type the victim and the killer were the same race.  On the other side, in these quasi justifiable cases, when the races are different, the victim is more often black.

So far there is only one common denominator in all the chaos of these laws and statistics and that is the fact that there is a proliferation of guns in the hands of literally anyone who wants them and these gun nuts are able to walk around with their firearms just about anywhere.  And that is not right.  George Zimmerman’s judgment was proven inadequate to own a handgun when he defied law enforcement by following Trayvon Martin, resulting in the black teen’s death.



Where the 2nd Amend. was designed for



In my opinion, the 2^nd Amendment was meant by its drafters to protect individuals in their homes.  Conversely, as a militia then, or for today’s law enforcement and military, the purpose was to arm them for anywhere they were needed to protect the citizenry.  Protection of the homestead was the definition of the “Castle Doctrine” for several years until the gun-crazy gang decided they wanted to play Wyatt Earp.  Retreat was the law before this “stand your ground” crap.

Fla. legislator on his "stand your ground" law

According to the WSJ, one of the reasons reports of the U.S. homicide rate is in decline is the fact that it is voluntary for states to report the data, and police agencies across the country aren’t consistent in their reporting.  I did a post earlier this week, “48 dead from 49 shootings across U. S. in March alone,” where the title speaks for itself.  Actually, there was a slight increase in homicides from 2000-2010, but slight decline when adjusted for population.



GOP delivers for the NRA



Now when you look at justified killings over the same period, justifiable rose by 85 percent.  And most of these occurred after 2005 when Florida and 16 other states passed their first “stand your ground law.”  Coincidence?  The NRA would argue yes.  Sane individuals would see the figures as representing a law that all of a sudden provided these gun addicts a legal excuse to blast away.  And they would have probably continued to get away with it if not for George Zimmerman.

I am not suggesting that gun owners use the “stand your ground” law for a reason to either shoot or actually kill someone.  These people have been so brain-washed by the National Rifle Assn. that they are convinced they must push for the right to display their weapons before the world, fighting for literally any way to do this, and to stand firm against any move to control the violence caused by all these loose weapons on the street.  Pathetic!

How do you get rid of conservatives in government? The Hispanic vote

A lot of political attention will be turned toward Arizona in the next few months leading up to the November election, but it’s not because of its paltry number of electoral votes that resulted from Republicans screwing with the primary date.  It’s because of its growing Hispanic voting population that is becoming stronger and more vocal by the day.  It is also due to the country’s fascination and ridicule of the farcical antics of the state’s inept GOP politicians.

To start, the only way Jan Brewer, a Republican, became Arizona’s Governor is her support and signing of the anti-immigration law, SB-1070, and few if any Latinos will forget that.  The author of that bill was state Sen. Russell Pearce, also a Republican, who was the first state senator ever to be recalled.  All this taken into consideration, a new Fox News Latino poll had some interesting results that should scare the hell out of Republicans.

• President Obama is the overwhelming choice among likely Hispanic voters.  Head to head, the best any of the GOP candidates could do is get 14 percent of their vote.
• This is a nationwide trend resulting in a rejection of the Republican candidates the more they learn about them.
• 80 percent of the Hispanics voting for Obama in 2008 would vote for him again in November.

There are five top states where Hispanics represent a sizeable portion of the eligible voting population and they are New Mexico, 42.5%, Texas, 33.7%, California, 27.1%, Arizona, 21.3%, Florida, 19.2%,  There are a number of eligible voters in New Mexico through Florida who are not registered, as follows: 202,650, 2,154,600, 2,026,500, 405,300 and 638,400, respectively.  That’s 5,427,450 potential voters for the progressive side…in just 5 states.

In this same report, Hispanic News evaluates the Latino population in relation to how it might cast its vote.  New Mexico is rated “open/tossup” for the Senate, “very competitive” for President.  Texas, “open/Rep,” no comment for Pres.,  California is considered a Democratic state, Arizona is “open/tossup for Senate,” no comment for Pres., and Florida is “tossup” for Senate and “very competitive” for Pres. 

In other projections, HN says, “By the 2012 election, Latinos will account for over 10% of the citizen adult population - potential voters - in 11 states.  In another 13 states, Latinos account for 5-10% of the citizen adult population. All told, that's 24 states where Latinos have the capacity to influence electoral outcomes…”  There are others with recent significant Hispanic growth.   In Connecticut, Georgia, Penn., Wisconsin and Massachusetts they represent 5% of potential voters.

HN estimates that 21.5 million Latino citizen adults will be eligible to vote in November 2012. That’s up from 19.5 million in 2008, a sizeable increase of almost 10 percent.  I can only speak personally for Arizona, where the anti-immigration rhetoric is much worse than the rest of the country; a fact I believe will have a big effect on the election.  The hate in Arizona shared by white conservatives for illegal immigrants also extends to Barack Obama.

It is too late for the GOP to reverse their tough stand on immigration and this stance has probably already made up the minds of many if not most Hispanics on how they will vote.  Because we live and die on polls, although on occasion they can be completely wrong, it will be interesting to see the first study after Republicans have an official nominee.  If it heavily favors the President, I look for some robust campaigning by the left on immigration reform.

48 dead from 49 shootings across U. S. in March alone…See timeline below

When will the American public understand that guns do kill people and that it is the proliferation of these weapons throughout the country that is causing the deaths of our family, friends and neighbors?  Not until these same people say no to the National Rifle Assn. (NRA) and similar gun rights groups and put them in their place.  And that would be as provocateurs of the death and violence that has taken place since these organizations have diluted gun laws nationwide.

It is that simple.  Looking back at Columbine, then Virginia Tech, followed by the Loughner massacre in Tucson, AZ that almost took former Rep. Gabby Giffords life and left her with years of rehabilitation, the T.J. Lane mass shooting in Chardon, OH, it isn’t hard to see how we have easily arrived at the point where no one seems to know just what to do about the recent shooting of the black Florida teenager Trayvon Martin. 

We don’t know whether to blame it on George Zimmerman, the lax gun laws of Florida and other states like it, the NRA, the U.S. Congress, or an apathetic public that has allowed congressional and state legislators, who are gun worshippers, to give the NRA and their cronies a free-reign.

NRA "gun control"

Well, it’s all of the above.  Nobody listens to the gun control advocates who have been predicting increased violence for years if gun laws continue to loosen.  As an example, 29 states have the ‘Stand Your Ground” law and 4 more are considering it.  Yes, statistics do indicate some violence is going down across the country, but you can’t prove it by the above figures.  One of these reported deaths was a 3-year-old who shot himself with a family gun he found in their car.

If you have the patience, and the guts, to learn more about what is going on in gun-crazy America, take the time to read the following documentation of the 49 shootings that left 48 dead in just this past March.

• March 6, Jacksonville, FL, 2 dead when fired teacher kills school head, then himself.
• March 7, Tulsa County, OK, 3 hospitalized after being shot in Courthouse Plaza.
• March 8, Pittsburgh, PA, 2 dead, 7 hurt at psychiatric hospital.
• March 9, Montesano, WA, Officer shot, Judge stabbed at Grays Harbor County Courthouse.
• March 12, Las Vegas, NV, 5 shot at a resort casino parking structure which was thought to be gsng-related.
• March 12, Lamoine, ME, 1 dead, 3 injured in weekend shooting.
• March 13, Sanford, FL, Trayvon Martin is shot and killed by watch captain George Zimmerman, supposedly in self-defense.
• March 13, Gallup, NM, 2 killed, a father and son, 2 wounded, in total of 4 shootings within two hours.
• March 14, Little Rock, AR, 1 dead, shot by 9-year-old sister while parents away from their apartment.  The girl was autistic.
• March 14, Phoenix, AZ, 1 dead, 1 wounded at an apartment complex.
• March 14, Tacoma, WA, 3-year-old dead after shooting himself with gun he found in family car.
• March 14, Jefferson County, TX, 1 dead, at least two injured at Texas courthouse.
• March 14, Houston, TX, 1 killed at rave party where from 300 to 600 teens were crowded into a house.
• March 16, Glendale, AZ, 3 dead in apparent murder/suicide, two were man’s young sons.
• March 18, Fayetteville, NC, 1 highschooler dead in nightclub gang fight.
• March 18, Fayetteville, NC, less than an hour from above, 1 dead at another club shooting in the parking lot.
• March 18, Chicago, IL, 5 dead, 12 wounded, in attacks across the Chicago metro-area.
• March 18, Indianapolis, IN, 5 teens shot in downtown Indianapolis, some injuries believed to be life-threatening.
• March 18, Bourbon, MO, 4 dead including woman and three children at a campground resort.  Could be murder/suicide.
• March 18, Oak Hill, WV, 3 dead including two women found in a home.  Shooter was 83-year-old man.
• March 19, Lacey, WA, 1 dead, 2 wounded in Seattle suburb, requiring eight schools to go on lockdown.
• March 20, Gilbert, AZ, 1 wounded, a 12-year-old girl shot by her 10-year-old brother.  Father a police officer, but gun owner unknown.
• March 20, Newport, RI, 1 dead 1 injured, in shooting and stabbing, an assault according to police.
• March 21, Avondale, OH, 4-year-old wounded when walking home from a cookout.
• March 21, Avondale, OH, 1 wounded in aggravated robbery.
• March 23, Ypsilanti, MI, 3 wounded during apparent attempted narcotics sale resulting from argument over price of pills.
• March 23, Burlington, IA, 1 man dead, 1 woman wounded in head who then shot boyfriend in the head several times in a fight killing him, all over their relationship.
• March 24, Oakland, CA, 1 boy dead in shooting going to a house party.
• March 24, Oakland, CA, 1 man dead, 1 woman seriously wounded.
• March 24, Rogue Valley, OR, 1 dead, wife murdered by her husband with 10-year-old son at home.
• March 24, Rogue Valley, OR, 1 dead in White City shooting.
• March 25, Starkville, MS, 1 dead at Mississippi State U. in his campus room.
• March 26, Decatur, GA, 1 teen shot to death by apartment security guards.  The investigation is on-going.
• March 30, Lake Charles, LA, 1 dead, 1 wounded in shooting where drugs were involved.
• March 30, Lake Charles, LA, 1 wounded in another drug deal gone bad.
• March 30, Batesville, MS, 2 dead, at least 3 wounded in an apartment complex, apparently gang-related.
• March 30, Phoenix, AZ, 1 dead at apartment complex.
• March 30, Chicago, IL, 1 dead, 5 wounded at a convenience store.
• March 31, Chicago, IL, 2 dead, 11 wounded, including the nephew (wounded) of Miami heat star Dwyane Wade.
• March 31, Prince Georges County, VA, 3 wounded in Hyattsville in residential area.
• March 31, Miami, FL, 2 dead, 12 injured in mass shooting during a funeral.  Wounded included a 5-year-old girl.

If you have survived this far, I won’t keep you any longer except to say, I’ve been telling you so.   

Social Security Law mirrors Health Care Mandate so is it unconstitutional?



Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg



Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg made the point in the Tuesday, March 27, arguments over President Obama’s Health Care Reform Law.  She drew a parallel between the 1930s Social Security Act in its financing of senior retirement, which uses the input of revenue from donors who will not take advantage of its benefits until a later date, to fund the program.  She said:

"If Congress could see this as a problem when we need to have a group that will subsidize the ones who are going to get the benefits, it seems to me you are saying the only way that could be done is if the government does it itself; it can't involve the private market, it can't involve the private insurers."

Sort of the same conclusion Franklin D. Roosevelt and the Congress came to in 1935 when he signed Social Security into law.  As part of FDR’s “New Deal,” it was designed to help those in need, and to provide against the dangers of modern American life in the future, including old age, poverty and unemployment.  It worked, and those who want to deny the President’s health care reform should ask themselves the question: “Where would we be without it today?”

The two sides are at odds over completely different issues.  On the left, the cry is that there are people out there who need help with their health care and shouldn’t be denied this assistance.  On the right, the complaint is that it takes away the freedom of choice, infringes on their constitutional rights.  The fact of the matter is that at times people do not make the right choice and it is in these kinds of situations that the government must step in to protect the future of the majority.

All about medicine and money

They did it for the seniors by passing the Medicare law, and now the President is trying to extend health care to the rest of the population.  Some form of universal healthcare must be passed in this country, and soon, or we can expect the health care system to end up in utter chaos, including swamped emergency rooms at hospitals and more bankruptcies from medical bills that can’t be paid.  The feds reported $43 billion in uncompensated cost for the uninsured in 2008.

A CNN/ORC International poll taken recently indicates improvement in the approval rate of the health care law.  On the individual mandate, 47 percent favor and 51 percent are opposed.  The huge difference comes along partisan lines with 71 percent of Democrats in favor and 78 percent of Republicans against.  The Tea Party has been a vociferous foe of the law, and anything else that Obama has proposed, making one wonder over the substance of the opposition.

In a new Gallup poll around 60 percent said the healthcare bill would make things better for the uninsured, and 56 percent said it would benefit lower-income families.  However, 44 percent believe the bill would make things worse for the U.S. as a whole.  Gallup says “The bottom line is that Americans perceive this to be a Medicare-type bill – a welfare bill mainly aimed at helping poor people and those without insurance.”  Duh…isn’t that what caring people do?

James Morone, chair of the political science department at Brown University in Providence, R.I. says, “No one really understands it.  Healthcare is a very high-intensity, low-information issue. People respond to conflict. As conflict escalates, [people] turn against what’s being discussed, they lose confidence in it."  With the obvious conclusion that this “conflict” is coming from right wing conservatives that will do anything in their power to block the President’s legislation (my words). 

In a doctor’s appointment last week, a medical technician told me that Obama’s Health Care Law would cap physicians’ income.  I have researched this pretty thoroughly and find nothing to substantiate the claim but if it is so, the provision should be removed.  And there are other complaints from the docs that are legitimate re. their payments from insurance and Medicare that must be addressed or we stand to lose the basic foundation of our medical care system.

Every time I check my Medicare payments to my doctors, I cringe because they look like something you would expect from a bargain basement sale.  It is very embarrassing but I rarely hear a complaint unless I bring it up, which I do regularly.  Physicians also think their top concerns for cutting costs are not taken into consideration.  They are:

·       Tort reform

·       Streamlining billing

·       Fixing the flawed gov. formula for calculating their reimbursements

Up to 66 percent of doctors indicate they would consider opting out of all government-run programs.  And the possibility arises that there could even be more reductions in what they are paid from insurance and Medicare.  Priorities in the U.S. are completely out of control and this is but one example.  Others include teachers’ and law enforcement and firefighters’ pay to name only a couple. 

When you compare this to Peyton Manning’s recent salary with the Denver Broncos of $96 million over 5 years, and the fact that Magic Johnson’s group is paying over $2 billion for the Los Angeles Dodgers—a record for this kind of deal—it becomes abundantly clear that the real significance of basic human needs is not important to some.  There’s also entertainment industry and corporate salaries to name a couple more.

It is not clear from the Supreme Court Justices’ questions just how they will rule on the Health Care Law; the White House is confident but so are the law’s opponents.  What is certain is the fact that the health care system is in trouble and must be fixed.  I personally cannot believe the Court will go against Barack Obama and the Congress in this matter.  If they do, will the right attack Social Security next? 

Read more here.