WHO IS THIS GUY GEORGE ZIMMERMAN?

An unnamed former co-worker told the New York Daily News that George Zimmerman was paid under-the-table for providing security for illegal house parties between 2001 and 2005, but was let go because his anger issues “became a liability.” “Usually he was just a cool guy,” the former co-worker explained. “He liked to drink and hang with the women like the rest of us. … But it was like Jekyll and Hyde. When the dude snapped, he snapped.”

IT'S CATURDAY!

"I hope your have better luck than I do"

BEST HEALTH CARE QUOTE THIS WEEK

"The worst thing you can do is give it to an insurance company. I want to make my point. All insurance companies are controlled in their particular state. If you have a hurricane come up the east coast, the first one that’s going to leave you when they gotta pay too many claims is an insurance company. Insurance companies are the absolute worst people to handle this kind of business. I trust the government more than insurance companies. If the government wants to put forth a policy where they will pay for everything and you won’t have to go through an insurance policy, that’d be a whole lot better".

Buddy Caldwell (R)
Louisiana AG

TGIF

Take time this weekend to collect your thoughts.

WHAT IF THE COURT VOTES NO?

Total Chaos in the Land By Victor M Adamus I know the Supreme Court has wrapped up their oral arguments this week and they have 150 position papers, pro and con, to read over the next month.  But with everything on the table, what if they vote the Affordable Care Act down? Well, kids under 26 will no longer be eligible for coverage under the Act because it will have been voted unconstitutional.  2.5 million lose their insurance coverage right off the bat. Medicare costs would return to the old rate costing the taxpayers even more money because rates under the old rules would have to be re-calculated to collect what’s owed, making the system a monster for budget workers and those on Medicare.  Over 100 million claims are processed each month.  This would be some clock to unwind. What about those who took early retirement because they relied on the Act to cover them while waiting out the age to 65 when they would then be eligible for Medicare?  They would lose coverage provided by the Act and if they already left their job would have to find a plan to cover them at great expense because of their age and any pre-existing condition. States who challenged the law but accepted funding from the Act would have to pay it all back to Uncle Sam.  What would those millions leaving the state coffers do to their already frail budgets?  Be careful what you wish for.  Many of these states may have to declare bankruptcy.  They shot themselves in the foot. These are just a few issues that could backfire if the court rules against the Act.  And I wonder why the masses who voted for the Act are losing it to a one man ruling.  Justice Kennedy, who is a swing vote should both sides tie, would have the burden of forcing this nation to find a way to unwind a clock that is steeped in billions of dollars already spent. Kennedy remember, is the Chief Justice that decided Super Pac's were constitutional, giving the Republican Party a leg up on funding political campaigns.  Even al Qaeda can contribute or buy a politician.

Am I a Racist?
by Alex Hutchins

A metaphorical (dream like) preface,

Hear Ye!  Hear Ye!

All those having business before this council, step forward and be known . . .

An alarming realization just recently pushed its way into my consciousness that had been lingering far too long in the belly of my mind’s imagination that reality was more than just putting a statement of belief on paper. How annoying it is when one finds out that reality must be experienced not just written on paper as a testimony to behavior and actions. 

I am a liberal and have always been a liberal in all my thoughts and actions while in my youth my actions could have been construed as ultra liberal; however, as the aging process turns us all another shade of gray, I have come to discover that I have become more of a conservative liberal when it comes to fiscal responsibility.  Still, my liberal flag is still raised to the top of the flagpole most of the time, especially when it comes to racial equality.

I went to high school overseas and did not experience racism until moving back to America after graduation and even though I dated many “women of color” in high school and even though I dated many African Americans after graduating from College, I was still utterly amazed when this country had to impose quotas in order to ensure minority employment. 

In fact, my last place of career employment had offered me an opportunity to work for an African American that I took as an honor after he hired me and would have stayed with him for several years had I not needed to retire due to health concerns.

Almost 2 years later, I am kicked in the mind by the realization that my liberal beliefs are not as strong as I thought they were.  Let me explain.

Recently, when I was mowing the grass, a neighbor approached me from the street with a piece of paper on which was typed, a brief statement that the City was planning on selling some land (50-100 yard below our home), to Habitat for Humanity and were going to give them permission to build 15 homes on this parcel of land.  Any concerned citizen and resident of the City could attend the council meeting and be heard.

My first thought was safety for my wife and I because those home typically went to uneducated, low income families that were also the ones who typically perpetrated crimes on the elderly.  My second thought was that this will lower property values and my third thought was that my first two thoughts were racist.

Simply put, I do not know what to think about myself anymore; but, I can tell you this, I did not attend the City Council meeting.

I CAN'T BELIEVE MY EYE BALLS

Click to enlarge.

Branches of Government and their powers

Exclusive Powers 
of  the
National Government
and
State Governments

NATIONAL GOVERNMENT

Print money
Regulate interstate (between states) and international trade
Make treaties and conduct foreign policy
Declare war
Provide an army and navy
Establish post offices
Make laws necessary and proper to carry out the these powers


STATE GOVERNMENTS

Issue licenses
Regulate intrastate (within the state) businesses
Conduct elections
Establish local governments
Ratify amendments to the Constitution
Take measures for public health and safety
May exert powers the Constitution does not delegate to the national government or prohibit the states from using

In addition to their exclusive powers, both the national government and state governments share powers. Shared powers between the national government and state governments are called concurrent powers. Current powers of the national government and state governments include the ability to:

• Collect taxes
• Build roads
• Borrow money
• Establish courts
• Make and enforce laws
• Charter banks and corporations
• Spend money for the general welfare
• Take private property for public purposes, with just compensation

READ MORE

Key Constitutional Grants

of Powers to Congress

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;          READMORE

Judicial Powers

Original Jurisdiction:
The court first authorized to recognize a case, hold trial, and render a decision is said to have original jurisdiction.

Appellate Jurisdiction:
When a court is authorized to review a prior judicial decision issued by an inferior court it is said to have appellate jurisdiction.

Redress:
Satisfaction for an injury or damages sustained. Damages or equitable relief. Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Ed., West Publishing Co., 1990

Diversity Jurisdiction:
The authority bestowed on federal courts by Article III to hear cases between citizens of different, or “diverse.” States. In order for a federal court to have diversity jurisdiction the claim must be for an amount in excess of $50,000. As opposed to subject matter jurisdiction, which is jurisdiction based on the nature of the underlying claims. Federal courts have subject matter jurisdiction over cases involving questions of federal law.  READ MORE

Landmark cases of the Supreme Court

Marbury v. Madison (1803)
Holding: Established the doctrine of judicial review.
In the Judiciary Act of 1789, Congress gave the Supreme Court the authority to issue certain judicial writs. The Constitution did not give the Court this power. Because the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, the Court held that any contradictory congressional Act is without force. The ability of federal courts to declare legislative and executive actions unconstitutional is known as judicial review.

McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)
Holding: The Constitution gives the federal government certain implied powers.
Maryland imposed a tax on the Bank of the United States and questioned the federal government's ability to grant charters without explicit constitutional sanction. The Supreme Court held that the tax unconstitutionally interfered with federal supremacy and ruled that the Constitution gives the federal government certain implied powers.

To read more Landmark cases, click here

SMEAR THE DEAD KID

Trayvon Martin

Update: Trayvon Martin

By Victor M Adamus

The latest news concerning the investigation of the murder of Trayvon Martin, a young high school student whose death has caused an international social concern is that the lead investigator Chris Serino wanted to charge George Zimmerman, the shooter, with manslaughter.  The report was released yesterday. 

At the same time a group of conservatives have circulated rumors that eye witnesses saw the young 17 year old in a fight with Zimmerman and brought into the public eye his student record.  Martin was on suspension for carrying an empty bag of what looked like the type of plastic container used to distribute illegal drugs.  The smear campaign was also published in the Orlando newspaper the Sentinel and online at Drudge.  The Drudge Report is a mirror image of Fox News slanting all the news to a conservative position regardless of facts.

It was learned that Zimmerman was handcuffed and taken to the Sanford Police Station for a statement and that assistant Attorney General Norman Wolfinger said the evidence was not enough for a prosecution.  Zimmerman was released and allowed to carry his 9mm gun, the murder weapon, home with him.  He moved his wife and kids to an unknown location days after facts surrounding the murder was about to go viral.

Usually when people start a smear campaign it’s because the facts are overwhelmingly against them so they go after the previous lifestyle of the dead person in question.  In this case Martin has no way to defend himself.  His family has appealed to the public to ignore the attempts to attack their sons reputation.  Most retired judges interviewed said the smear information would never be allowed in court.  Further, the people trying to save the Stand Your Ground Law which is often used as a defense for people who act like vigilantes are heavily backed by lobby groups like the NRA. 

There is no “eye witness” that will testify she or he saw a fight between the two men.  Only that they heard shouts of help that ended with gun shots.

The city of some 20,000 residents are waiting for results from the State’s and FBI investigation in the case.  Zimmerman has not been charged.

UPDATE: THE SUPREME COURT

In the second day of the debate by Supreme Court Justices pundits on both agree it was a stalemate.  No one could clearly say either side won.  The definition of the Health Care Market in Commerce is a little muddy and could be carved out as a lonely Commerce issue since eventually everyone will use health care from cradle to grave.  Here's Eva Rodriguez's line on the days activity:

This much is clear after two hours of Supreme Court arguments over the constitutionality of the individual mandate, which I was in the room to hear: The president's health-care bill won't rise or fall on a question of law, but on how the majority of justices define the health-care market.

Losing the Future

because of education or the lack thereof.                   



A week ago today (3-20-12) on CBS This Morning, Condoleezza Rice (former Secretary of State) was their guest and she spoke about how our poor education system is jeopardizing our national security.

WASHINGTON — The nation's security and economic prosperity are at risk if America's schools don't improve, warns a task force led by former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Joel Klein, the former chancellor of New York City's school system.

The task force reported that, 75 percent of young adults don't qualify to serve in the military because they are physically unfit, have criminal records or inadequate levels of education. That's in part because 1 in 4 students fails to graduate from high school in four years, and a high school diploma or the equivalent is needed to join the military. But another 30 percent of high school graduates don't do well enough in math, science and English on an aptitude test to serve in the military. 

If this is not bad enough, the report continues with, …too many Americans are deficient in both global awareness and knowledge that is "essential for understanding America's allies and its adversaries, leaving large swaths of the population unprepared also threatens to divide Americans and undermines the country's cohesion, confidence, and ability to serve as a global leader."

"I don't think people have really thought about the national security implications and the inability to have people who speak the requisite languages who can staff a volunteer military, the kind of morale and human conviction you need to hold a country together. I don't think people have thought about it in those terms," Klein said . . . 

Click to enlarge

while Rice stated, "The rest of the world is not sitting by while we, in a rather deliberate fashion, reform the education system.”  And, if our education system continues operating as it is currently operating, it will not yield enough graduates who will have the pre-requisite knowledge to help us fight cyber crimes which robs businesses of billions of dollars annually.

 As an lifelong educator, this news is very disturbing to say the least.  Over the years, I have seen a gradual decline in adult education but also in the foundation knowledge of the adult student.  It was first brought to my attention when I moved to Greeneville, TN to work for Walters State Community College and volunteered to teach a class on quality to Junior Achievement students at one of the local high schools. 

What I heard from several of the students was appalling and while experience took place over 20 years ago, it revolved around the following: 

“. . .  just tell me what I need to know for the ‘A’ and I’ll memorize it and give it back to you . . .   ‘A’s’ will get me into the best colleges and that will get me the best jobs . . .  and all of that has nothing to do with what I’ve learned or know . . .”

SMOKING CURES CANCER?

So Does a Good Diet

By Victor M Adamus

I guess you can say “nothing surprises me” but an article in a UK Journal did just that.  It claimed that tests of cancer patients with tumors were given cigarettes to smoke and the reduction of their lung tumors was significant.  Tobacco has formaldehyde in it, a main cause of cancer, so says the experts of Western medicine.  The Journal article showed that victims with tumors who had a history of smoking or none at all, both groups saw a reduction in tumor size over a six month study.  Smoking for existing cancer victims with spots on their lungs, liver or other organs also showed a reduction in cancer cells progressing.  It doesn’t cure cancer but it slows it down without the harmful effects of Chemo therapy.

In Indonesia, where half the populations smokes, a device which blows toxic tobacco chemicals into the patients’ lungs is a lead remedy for all types of cancers. 

 If someone is suffering from emphysema or lung cancer after decades of smoking, the last thing you want to give them is a cigarette, right? Well, in Indonesia, smoking is openly touted as a cancer cure, Agence-France Presse reported.

These remarkable studies would never be tested here in the U.S.  Most people, who have cancer, when searching for an alternative cure, stop smoking and change their diet.

The old saying goes "you are what you eat" and it has been widely speculated that our modern diet has contributed directly to the rise in cancer cases in recent years. It further goes to reason that by correcting the diet, we can reverse the damaging effects of unhealthy eating habits.

The enemy is fats, salt and refined sugars. Today's processed foods contain high levels of each. The solution is to completely eliminate all unhealthy foods from your diet in favor of natural raw foods.

Why are fruits and vegetables essential? Recent research has discovered phytochemicals in many fruits and vegetables. These chemicals, also known as phytonutrients are believed to not only prevent cancerous growths but to also be able to reverse existing cases of cancer.

One would think that if a person has cancer, now is the time to get that daily dose of formaldehyde and dramatically change one’s diet.  Of course this promotes more study by individuals with cancer.  The choice to take a worst poison than tobacco, Chemo cocktails as they are called, is inviting if it works.  But in all the stories I’ve read these changes in diet combined with smoking only extend life another year at most.  None can state medically or scientifically it is a cancer cure.  In some cancers the Chemo Therapies can extend life five years or more.  And there are discoveries every year for specific cancers that are being introduced to the cancer society, those victims of this vicious disease.

BEST QUOTE THIS WEEK

From Guy Cecil

In 2010, Republicans sold voters a bill of goods. Their message was simple: "Send us to Washington and we will focus on creating jobs." But as soon as the election ended, they have set out to end Medicare as we know it while preserving tax loopholes for oil companies and the richest American. Even worse, they want seniors, college students, and middle class families to pay for their extreme agenda. That is not a jobs plan--that is a recipe for disaster.

FIVE to four

What is it that the US Supreme Court is supposed to do?  Basically, their job is: to interpret and ensure proper application of the laws written by the legislative branch and enforced by the executive branch.

Republican Justices

Scalia, Antonin 

President Reagan named him to the federal Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, and four years later he was nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court, taking the seat vacated when William Rehnquist ascended to the position of chief justice. An outspoken conservative, Scalia is a prominent proponent of “textualism,” the idea that one should focus on the text of the U.S. constitution or a law and its original meaning when seeking to interpret it.

Kennedy, Anthony McLeod

In 1988, after the highly contested and unsuccessful nominations of Robert Bork and Douglas Ginsburg, President Reagan nominated Kennedy to the U.S. Supreme Court, replacing Lewis F. Powell. On the court, Kennedy has demonstrated a fairly conservative voting pattern, but by the mid-1990s he had come to be regarded as part of a centrist bloc.

Thomas, Clarence

In July, 1991, President George H. W. Bush nominated Thomas to the Supreme Court, to replace Thurgood Marshall. In Oct., 1991, when approval was all but assured, the Senate Judiciary Committee reopened confirmation hearings to examine charges by Anita Hill, a Univ. of Oklahoma law professor, that Thomas had subjected her to sexual harassment while she was an EEOC employee in the 1980s.

Alito, Samuel Anthony, Jr.

He was appointed in 1990 to the U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, where his opinions were solidly but thoughtfully conservative and generally respectful of precedent. Alito was nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court in 2005 by President George W. Bush.

Roberts, John Glover, Jr.

His nominations to the U.S. court of appeals by President Bush in 1992 and President George W. Bush in 2001 were not voted on, but he was renominated in 2003 and confirmed. In 2005 he was nominated by President G. W. Bush to the Supreme Court and, after Rehnquist's death several months later, was then named and confirmed as chief justice. Intelligent with a sharp legal mind, Roberts was an advocate of conservative positions.

Democratic Justices

Ruth Bader Ginsburg

appointed by President Bill Clinton and took the oath of office on August 10, 1993. She is the second female justice (after Sandra Day O'Connor) and the first Jewish female justice.  She is generally viewed as belonging to the liberal wing of the Court.  Much of the impressive legal career that earned Ginsburg's appointment to the Court involved sex discrimination cases.

Stephen Breyer

President Jimmy Carter appointed him to the bench in 1980, as Judge on the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, becoming its Chief Judge in 1990. President Bill Clinton appointed Breyer to the Supreme Court in 1994. Considered by many to be an intellectual counterweight to Justice Antonin Scalia, Breyer's nomination was hailed by moderate Democrats and Republicans.

Sonia Sotomayor 

President Bill Clinton nominated her for the U.S. Court of Appeals in June of 1997, but she was not confirmed until October of the following year. Her years on the bench have not been particularly controversial or newsworthy, but Sotomayor is considered left-of-center by Republican critics and faced accusations of racism at her confirmation hearings in July of 2009.

Elena Kagan 

Elena Kagan became the 112th person to serve as a U.S. Supreme Court justice when she took office in 2010. Kagan had been nominated to the Supreme Court by President Barack Obama on 10 May 2010, after the retirement of Justice John Paul Stevens.

From The Telegraph on Monday, March 26, 2012:

"They are six men and three women, aged between 51 and 79, and two of them have been in the same job since Ronald Reagan was in the White House.

They and their predecessors have handed down decisions that have changed the course of US history, from rulings on slavery to judgements on the Florida ballot recount which confirmed George W Bush's victory in the disputed 2000 presidential election.

Now President Barack Obama's political legacy is in the hands of the nine justices sitting on the US Supreme Court as it begins to consider, tomorrow, the legality of his health care reforms."

READMORE

UPDATE: THE SUPREME COURT'S FIRST DAY

According to The Hill

The Supreme Court on Monday seemed to be leaning against a procedural ruling that would postpone a decision until after 2014 on whether the healthcare reform law is unconstitutional.

Monday’s session, which launched three days of oral arguments in the historic case, also highlighted a potential weakness in the Obama administration’s defense of the healthcare law’s mandate that people buy insurance.

Tomorrow the court will argue the merits of four parts of the Act since moving past a decision to now hear the case in its' entirety.

HEARINGS START ON OBAMA CARE

Individual Mandate on the Hook
By Victor M Adamus

Today the highest court in the land will hold hearings on the Affordable Health Care Act also known as Obamacare since the legislation approved by Congress is President Obama’s hallmark piece of law.  Republicans in most states are co-plaintiffs in a suit to find the law un-constitutional.  The complaint though and the defense will raise more far reaching questions than most critics think the high court wants to hear.  It is scheduled for three days which is one of the longest running hearings the Supreme Court has scheduled in decades.

What’s on top is the individual mandate, forcing those with no health care to buy health care or be charged by the government a fee for not being insured.  Before the Act people with no insurance would benefit from free health care at hospitals throughout the nation until the insurance carriers increased preminums to businesses who offererd health insurance to their employees.  The increase was met with some disdain since health profiteers were just adding more money to their coffers.  The same rules of denying coverages as pre-existing conditions, were not paid by the insurance companies, stayed in place where in the Act insurers can no longer deny the coverage.  But they can increase rates based on hospitals charging off those that use the facilities expecting their neighbors who have coverage to pay the difference in their premiums.

It’s why Governor Mitt Romney put the brakes on insurance hikes when he was Governor of Massachusetts.  The State just flat out couldn’t pay billions of dollars for people with no insurance.  No contribution to the system yet using a costly system for the same care as someone who was paying their fair share.  His health care solution became the model for Obamacare.

The individual mandate relys on the theory that it’s unconstitutional to force a person to buy insurance.  However, counter to that are laws in all 50 states that require car owners to buy car insurance before they can even register the vehicle in that state.  In the 1960’s a car owner had options to pay a smaller premium to just cover the other driver.  He would fix his/her car themselves.  Years later, the laws were amended that you had to cover both owner and the other driver and some states used the amendment to throw in an inspection clause requiring cars be inspected once a year, forcing those car owners to wait in line at state approved inspection stations and those with faults had ten days to fix the car or take it off the road.

Then there are gas taxes imposed by both State and Federal on each gallon of gas pumped which again forces the individual to pay the tax at the pump or not get gas for his or her car.  I’m sure there are many other examples. 

When the Affordable Health Care Act was passed it lacked the single payer option which would have broken the monopoly of giant health care companies controlling the health care market.  People could buy from new companies who worked for lower profits and thereby would be willing to cut the premiums, some estimate, in half.  They could buy into Medicare and help offset the losses the government faces in that plan for Seniors.  It would relieve employers from the burden of a group policy and provide a savings to smaller businesses that could take the savings and invest in expanding their businesses.  But the health care lobby was too strong to give up their million dollar bonuses based on limiting the amount of claims paid to them by tricks like “pre-existing conditions” and younger people being thrown off their parents policy when they turned 18.  Even today, the Act allows younger people to stay on their parents policies until age 26.  So it’s an enormous challenge for the court.

If the court rules down the Affordable Health Care Act does it mean that insuring your car is also un-constitutional?  I wonder.

Beyond 2012

Preface

What does the future hold, not just for selfish Americans but for the rest of the world – our global brothers and sisters that we do not seem to give a rat’s rear end about?   

Comfortably I sit on the couch in my living room dressed in PJ’s with feet (like the Progesso commercial) pondering and wondering about the various answers to the question:  What lies ahead?  Of course, when asking myself this question, I look beyond the house on the hill in which everyone wants to live and focus on mankind, regardless of where they live.

Will we have enough food?

Will we have enough water?
Will we have enough clothes?
Will we have enough healthcare?

How will our lives become controlled with and by technology?

How less will we have learned to think?
How much will we have destroyed the environment? 

What will be the body count from the countless, mindless wars we have continued to fight?

What will be the debts that our governments will owe each other?
What will be the terms by which we have all surrendered our souls?

When did we take the time to read books authored by writers from foreign countries?
When did we take the time to be profoundly or sensuously moved by foreign poets?
When did we take the time to be awed by foreign painters and sculptors?
When did we take the time to genuinely spend time with the people of a foreign land?

From the International Art Fair

For most of us, the world over, we live in our own little coffin, a prison of sorts that limits our perceptions, but in which we feel comfortable and secure as we sit in our mortgaged living rooms pointing our hand at the television like a gun when someone who we do not understand appears on the scene. 

And, before long, we smile proudly, when we see us imitated by our children helping to solidify their perceptions before the age of 5. 

What are we teaching our young, I would ask my global parents that may reflect our prejudices, biases, hatreds, fears, concerns, apprehensions, and paradigms. 

How sad we have all become and will become beyond 2012.