Congressman Rush: Get Real

(Edited and Expanded)


I watched with interest briefly the political demonstration one of the Congressmen from the State of Illinois, Rep. Bobby Rush, enacted before a session of Congress today supporting the media frenzy which has accompanied the Trayvon Martin case.

Mr. Rush's point seemed to be that hoodies and sunglasses did not a criminal make.

I hope he remembers that analogy the next time there is some news story in the media about a rapist that was released or found not guilty due to the fact that a woman was wearing a short skirt at the time the crime was committed.

In other words, she was "asking" for it.

It amazes me the lengths and bredth this hate crimes legislation has engendered in such a very short time since passing this questionable legislation.

Attempts to legislate human emotions and engrained or learned behavior patterns will not go away with such legislation.

Nor the motivations for some of these crimes as clear cut as the liberal media bias would have you believe.

The facts are, there ARE more property crimes committed statistically by young, black youths. There is a reason why, and maybe addressing the causes progressively might be where energies need to be directed. Why is that?

Lack of opportunity? The EEOC and non-discrimination laws have been on the books for literally decades.

There is an increase now in black on black crimes even, so just what gives?

And although I still believe the fundamental question remains as to just what actual "threat" Mr. Zimmerman believed was present is the crux of the matter (had there been a rash of crimes in this neighborhood previously?), this "cause" has taken on a life of its own without even so much as a true investigation having been undertaken.

A tape was released today showing a rather calm Mr. Zimmerman after just having shot Mr. Martin.

But if he believed it was justifiable homicide, would he not have been rather calm?

No blood was present, but then the angles were a little off on that one.

Just what would Al Sharpton and Mr. Rush have to do if the race situation was actually left to die its natural death, and crimes were investigated as to the actual crime, with motivation of clear prejudicial bias a "contributing" factor calling for a higher or longer penalty, rather than what has progressively occurred since this legislation was passed.

And surprisingly at a time when in most areas of the country, blacks have been given preferential treatment in the tax credits and such given for hiring minority workers since that Civil Rights Act was passed? And there are more POSITIVE role models for black youth than ever before?

Strange this media blitz also is coming at a time when that health care legislation was being argued, isn't it?

Or maybe it is just coincidence, once again.

Geraldo took a beating due to his comments on the hoodie commentary.

I hope he again in the future takes such a stand on the next woman who is put on trial during a rape investigation or criminal trial.

The Fox boycott by women will then be across the board, but I do think the male audience is their primary demographic anyway what with all those "legal analysts" and such and the legs on display during some of those "chat" political programs.

Geraldo seems to have changed quite a bit from his hard hitting liberal crazy period.

I wonder...just how much will the civil rights lawyers under that federal statute that affords payment by the taxpayers for their legal fees make when all the dust is cleared on this one, on the civil suits that will be eventually filed?

Unfortunately, the hate crimes legislation doesn't apply to rape, against some of those male "haters" out there and the 17 year old girl who might become the victim due to their upbringing, our overtly sexualized cultural mores in television and movies, or the length of her skirt...

ObamaCare: The White Elephant Is Still In The Room

There has been much publicized in the mainstream media this weekend about the upcoming Supreme Court review of the controversial (and much contested) bill passed by the Obama Administration during the first year of his four year term in office.

Nothing much has changed.

The white elephant is still in the room...the United States Constitution.

This legislation not only flies in the face of that historic document and beacon of freedom in America.

It desecrates it.

Somehow, I find it rather odd that this legislation was passed at all. It also seems so very strange that it would be a black, "Constitutional" lawyer who would be behind this legislation, and his party "of the people."

Almost seems like it was ordained that way before the election was even held.

What better way to attempt to fool and re-educate the public that this bill will be one which the people will benefit, by a party supposedly known to be more representative of the people, than the Republicans - the party of corporate America.

Just who will benefit from this legislation....hmmm...

The medical community. The insurance and financial sector. The lawyers. The politicians.

The big four.

Who will be the victims?

The American public.

I listened today while some of those "political analysts" spoke of just how difficult this review would be, and how both sides can see it going either way. Using every tool in their arsenal in order to back up the positive merits of this legislation.

Which, way back when, was presented to the public with a carrot and stick.

The carrot? No insurer can refuse to insure those with pre-existing conditions (no mention of any governmental regulation on just how MUCH those insurers then can charge individuals seeking insurance after a death sentence diagnosis, or chronic illness, or on the level of profits and money those insurers will be making hand over fist if Washington can shore up the "search and seizure" portions of the bill which enforcement of that individual mandate will involve).

Many of the Democrats and Republicans keep citing the "commerce clause" as being the fundamental linchpin in whether or not this legislation will eventually be deemed Constitutional.

Using past "judge made case law" as their argument as precedence.

I've got news for those media pundits, lawyers and others who continue to murky those waters.

The Commerce clause as it was written was intended to protect the individual Americans FROM the corporate, and protect state funded industries from "foreign" (outside the U.S.) or domestic (outside the state) undue competitition across state lines.

Meaning, it is the clause that gives Washington the power to "regulate" those insurance companies, huge medical clinics, and health care networks.

Problem is, due to all the monies Washington has poured into the "tech" industry, including medical technology, unfortunately the mindset seems to be that it is now the American people that will need to pay the piper for Washington's past largesse.

Since so many Americans are living longer (although those actuarial tables have changed little the past three decades) or due to the fact that there will be a larger aging public with the baby boomers, than there was with the World War II generation (if we all don't die from starvation, or homelessness first).

The Commerce clause gives Washington the power to "mandate" that Americans (individually) must purchase health insurance OR ELSE?

Hardly.

The insurance sector is also simply another branch of Wall Street and the financial sector. And many of those national insurance companies are not even domiciled in the United States, those "free trade" agreements have become so generous to foreign countries the past thirty years.

I see that individual mandate as one included in order to gradually phase out Medicare over time and turn the entire "life and death" decisions over to insurance companies (foreign or domestic).

Without having to give any of those monies the boomers, especially, have paid into that program over the years since 1964.

Another banner year in legislation.

While then also raising the Social Security age at the same time in order to marginalize as many of the boomers under those programs as possible.

My question, though, is this...

How in the world does Washington believe or expect that Americans, especially those over 40, who are now homeless AND jobless (due to the mortgage mess, and tax credits now given for hiring younger workers to those national corporations) will be able to afford to buy health insurance, no matter what the price.

When their unemployment is running out, and the job market shrinking (except those jobs which would be created by passing this legislation in the public sector (enforcement) and private sector (a few insurance agents, since most of those "cut rate" programs will be "buy online," without involvement of a human, I assure you).

Just how can Washington justify this legislation, given that in many states throughout the nation those older workers contributed to both the building, and budgets of those hospitals through their property taxes, and the tuition for those doctors through also those same property taxes at local universities?

Except, of course, for all those foreign doctors who are being trained in U.S. medical schools from India and South America, for lower wages for those corporate health care networks.

Will Washington be putting all those homeless and jobless Americans who do not or cannot comply with the mandate in the privatized state or federal jails, in order to at least make their revolt beneficial to another corporate campaign donor.

The White Elephant lives on...still.

If this law is upheld by some legal slight of hand by those black robed arbiters of Constitutional understanding (using case law, rather than intent, as their standard) - do Americans who have contributed to Medicare since 1964 get their money back so that they can pay those cut rate premiums? Or the Social Security that won't be collected by all those boomers who are not wealthy enough after this past ten year economic tsunami given to their next of kin as suvivor's benefits?

I hope that is also deliberated this week.

The "taking" of the cash for fraudulent purposes, without refund.

Trayvon Martin: Hate Crime or HOA Paranoia?

I have recently been following the Trayvon Martin case which has been widely publicized in the media the past several days.

In fact, there have been protests as far as New York City in light of the wide publicity this case has engendered.

Ever since the passage of the "hate crimes" legislation, there has been an increase of reports of crimes which are being widely publicized as "racial" in nature.

What has been so odd to me is that prior to the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and subsequent legislation, I could understand the push for federal legislation that also addressed crimes which could reasonably be suspected to be racially motivated.

I mean, there was a great deal of prejudice against the African American community in many pockets of the country which continued post the American Civil War.

But it seems whenever there is a crime which is committed by or against people of different "races," or "sexual" orientation the "hate crime" media mill begins.

In this case, it seems to me that Mr. Zimmerman, the man who shot Trayvon Martin, a black youth, appears to have had control issues from what has been leaked through the media.

He had at one time even considered entering law enforcement as a career, and had been in a few confrontations prior to the events which transpired recently.

But I just wonder if there wasn't something else at work here...

Such as the fact that this crime occurred in an HOA community - one of those gated communities in Florida.

Communities which have had their share of legal wranglings since so many have been built by those huge developers since the 1980's.

I just wonder if all those Board meetings about dues, safety issues, etc., contributed to the events which transpired which led to this young man's death.

The fact that these communities are considered "private" and any "strange" individual within the community almost immediately suspect.

The police have not undertaken any investigation due to a law in Florida cited as the "Stand Your Ground" law which, I am sure, was meant to reinforce and protect a citizens right to defend and protect his own property and person with deadly force, if necessary.

Problem was, Trayvon Martin was "suspect" from the outset in this gated community.

And Mr. Zimmerman most likely felt he had the "right" to defend and protect not simply his own property, but that of the "community," as quite clearly an active member of this community's homeowners association.

In fact, one of the Board members was interviewed on mainstream television testifying how Mr. Zimmerman "had prevented several crimes" in the community previously due to his vigiliance.

Seems to me, those "Stand Your Ground" laws need review in Florida - and quickly.

Clearly spelling out the limits of the law if it is so broadly worded or interpreted to afford these communities to act whether there is any overt act or suspicion.

With limits placed on individual members of the community from taking such action unless it is their property or person endangered, unless acting as a paid agent or private security officer for the community.

Seems to me due to the fact that this man followed this youth through the common area of this community, with this young man being a "suspect" from the moment he entered the "gated" community, race could have been a contributing factor...

But most likely, it was the entire HOA gated community paranoid mentality at work here...with him instead "profiled" as an "outsider."

But playing the race card makes for bigger ratings, and headlines.

And just maybe, a future payout if the local police are blamed once again for the legislative failings of the state (and federal government, since these gated communities are also spreading throughout the country PROGRESSIVELY).

Corporate Suicide: Employees Assets or Liabilities?

After an eye-opening experience at the hands of a big box retailer for whom I had been employed for the past two weeks assisting them with a move into larger, more spacious digs at an area strip mall, it occurred to me that there seems to be mass corporate delusion in this country insofar as why we are where we are economically.

We have large, national retail corporations which somehow have gotten the idea that their employees, the faces which serve the public in most instances, are instead of an asset, actually more of a liability...or profit generator...

Or at least one of their expenses which bears scrutiny and continual monitoring...

If you haven't heard of the TALX forms (as in "talks"), you might want to look it up, along with the FTC complaint which was filed against them and a NY Times article dedicated to their agendas when employees are terminated or laid off.

They have been retained by many Fortune 500 companies whose sole purpose is to drag out and/or deny outright employee claims for unemployment compensation.

At most companies, you are requested to fill out and "consent" to a screening by their representatives of your personal history, employment history, and each and every dollar you may be receiving for public assistance both prior to employment, or thereafter if your employment is terminated for any reason whatsoever.

A third party contractor, as it were, so that you are forced to deal with them through the unemployment offices, rather than the company directly.

Which scenario can and appears does lead to the "whose on first" game during those unemployment interviews or hearings.

So far, several states have now made moves to curtail their activities but many have not. But this is a booming industry and business in this bust economy, to be sure.

Below you will find the links.

As one who worked in the labor/employment law field for many, many years and for probably the foremost labor law attorney in the nation (who was responsible for counseling Wal-Mart stores management through his retirement, eventually sitting on the Board of Directors), I certainly can see where this might be appealing to many national chains.

After all, there are quite a few fraudulent unemployment claims; however, for every ten there is the one employee who ends up living on the street while this process works it way through the unemployment review process.

And one in which it clearly takes a lawyer in order to assist such an employee, which of course then reduces his benefit amounts considerably. Or leaves him dependent on relatives for his day to day living, or out on the street until the conclusion of the government "process."

But maybe that is the point.

Each and every government office that denies claims or benefits from unemployment, or social security, Medicare, or whatever does so with the caveat "you can always hire a lawyer."

If you can find one for those minor claims but claims that mean the difference between life and...you know...

I know that during my tenure in the field of labor/employment law, this was not the case...

In fact, my boss treated me with the utmost respect, and listened to my point of view on many matters as an employee...

He, in fact, counseled that the employees were an employers greatest asset, and that in order to develop a loyal and dedicated workforce you did need to make the effort to treat them with both respect, and compensate them adequately for time worked - whether in the form of direct compensation, or "shares" of the profits of the company - for those lower paying positions also.

Reducing the "golden parachutes" as it were for top level management, and instead using those sums to compensate the "boots on the ground" at the store levels.

And All the way to the lowly janitor (or sanitation superintendent).

Profit sharing has gone the way of the dinosaur, although in order to feel any type of "ownership" of your job and the company, that clearly is the route that develops the best workforce.

401(k) plans and pensions don't have a direct impact on performance, or "ownership" status.

Sam Walton understood that, at least during those early years.

Before the banks and politicians got involved.

In fact, most of those early Wal-Mart employees became multi-millionaires as Wal-Mart grew and expanded throughout the country from its roots as a rather small, family run business in Bentonville, Arkansas.

And this entire debate over health insurance also has its spins with employers begging for "relief" from those huge health care costs.

Funny, though, in all my years of employment it really was I, not the employer, that paid those premiums for the most part. If not for my own, definitely for any dependent or spousal coverage I might need.

I got a better rate due to the "group" plans I was under, but still paid nonetheless.

So there was little out of pocket expense to those employers.

It really is the small businessmen that need that relief, those with few employees, and I just wonder why the small business administration or private sector isn't offering low cost health insurance to small business owners as part of their coverages and "mission."

That certainly would be one solution to the amount of uninsured we now have.

Along with bringing back those charity hospitals that were built with donations, (many of which have progressively been "privatized" after being built with donations or taxpayer grant monies and sums) or those community health hospitals built with all those property taxes back in the 60's and 70's.

There were earmarked sums on my property tax bills for those hospital costs, believe me, for over twenty years at the county level.

It seems to me that the corporate mentality is that employees are just another "fixture" or method in which to up corporate profits, with all the company tshirts that are sold (at their cost) or those covered parking fees...or gym memberships...

At least for the low to mid level employees.

I wonder, do they even consider just why it is that employee unions came into being to begin with?

Could it be that those sweatshops of the past which have disappeared for the most part here, are being used by modern day corporate America in China and Mexico instead as a thumb in the nose to the American workers?

Surely, that cannot be the case...

Or could it?

No wonder those ballyhooed reports on the number of unemployment claims are now hitting the papers and getting lower (artificially, of course)...this is, after all, a BOOM industry - outsourcing "managing" unemployment claims defense to third party (corporate) subcontractors.

By the way, all these articles are easily searchable and in the public domain, but I have included the links just to educate yourself while looking for those few, very few, jobs that are around in most states throughout the nation at this time....

The workplace certainly HAS changed....but is this a positive change, I wonder?

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/04/us/04talx.html?pagewanted=2
http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2009/07/talx.shtm


And here is an article on a Chinese manufacturing plant that highlights some of the points made in this article about just how this outsourcing is killing both the U.S. economy, and undermining the American workforce...at the cost of the many, for the benefit of the few...there IS a middle ground, and Constitutional remedies if Washington would only "rewind."

http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/apple-sweatshop-problem-16-hour-days-70-cents-172800495.html

Obama, Cameron and The Game

The British are here! The British are here!

Last night Barack Obama and British Prime Minister David Cameron attended a basketball game...and then today the games continued.

While many in the mainstream media keep playing up the discord between British and American philosophies for the American public, these two gentlemen are about as alike as two peas in a pod.

Both with alliances to world government and British style dominion.

Although the governmental structure of the two countries are worlds apart, you wouldn't know it or at least most in this country have been progressively "re-educated" to the British mindset.

Continue the wars for dominion. That was the battle cry of Mr. Cameron during his address with Mr. Obama this afternoon, which of course in most respects Mr. Obama seconded.

Even after recent events in Afghanistan.

Mr. Obama protected BP after the Gulf Oil spill, for the most part, acting as lawyer on behalf of those U.S. businesses and lives taken in setting up that fund in order to "recompensate" the victims. Wiping out their ability to have their day in court, as it were.

Our alliances with Britain have progressively cost this country much both economically, and in lives lost in the foreign wars we have been involved in since World War II, and the establishment of the British/American alliance thereafter, the U.N.

The sun never sets on Britain, to this day, whether in fact or fealty.

Israel...a British creation...and U.S. unconditional support has also taken its toll on our national sovereignty and security.

To this day.

Our founders would be appalled.

Our country was founded on defensive wars only.

Britain, on offensive ones from its inception for dominion in the Roman-Anglo-Saxon vein.

Mr. Cameron was here to push for continued support for military involvement in Afghanistan and as a PR move, apparently, after the latest news from the front. Stretching out U.S. and British troop withdrawal into 2014, for goodness sake!

And continued with more terrorism threats with respect to Syria.

Britain has had more wars, bar none, than any country of its size throughout history. Both civil and foreign.

American interest and government is diametrically opposed to fighting wars for dominion.

Would 9-11 have ever even occurred had it not been for our continual presence in the Middle East, and support of the fears of Western Europe?

Would our country be in the economic quagmire it is now in, if not for our continued support for these "allied" causes?

We are providing military training to Canadian troops on American bases, for heaven sake. Training foreign troops on U.S. soil for the first time ever.

I think Washington just may need to take a long, hard look at who the real enemy to the American economy and our domestic security actually is.

While sitting down for those post game cups of tea.

And just why is it that almost immediately after another war horror story is reported, the British come to tea?

Gas Gouging Election Year Market Manipulation?

It has been so very interesting to listen to the mainstream news media commentaries on the horrendous increases which have occurred in the prices Americans are now forced to pay at the pump in order to get to work, run to the doctors, or take a much needed and overdue vacation.

Many of the pundits have offered up such half baked rationalizations it has been incredible, especially in the last few weeks.

A few short months ago, gasoline was at $2.60 a gallon at most stations off the interstate exits.

Less than thirty years ago, it was still at a little over a $1.00 a gallon, having made a 100% increase from ten years before.

There is no logical explanation at this point to why Americans are paying through the nose to power their automobiles.

Except greed.

Both corporate and governmental...

Even Obama's excuses seemed rather flimsy during his recent speech at the Daimler plant.

How much war related gasoline is being consumed by the government keeping all those Humvees, drones, jets, and ships in foreign ports equipped which Americans are paying for both at the pump, and through their other taxes and this mammoth ever-escalating deficit?

The higher the gas prices go, of course, the higher those state and local gasoline taxes also go.

This added tax is not tax deductible at this point even. In other words, those sales and use taxes are not deducted from the amount of discretionary income most Americans get to, say, pay the mortgage.

This is an election year, and all those election coffers need to be stuffed, after all, by most of those oil companies and their lobbyists, too.

No matter that you no longer have any income to pay for that unregulated utility bill, or that house that is now going into foreclosure.

The monster must be fed.

And fed.

Yada, Yada, Yada: Truth vs. Political Fiction

Recently I had a few moments to watch some of the prime time election coverage on two of the major broadcasting stations (Fox and MSNBC), although have attempted to insulate myself as much as possible from the coverage, such as it is.

Unfortunately, I am one of the literally millions out of steady work, or working part time or for far less than my resume would justify in this progressive, unconstitutional America we now live in.

With all the spins as one who has been majorly impacted also progressively, I'd like to add my truth as opposed to the fiction that has been the mainstay of our media low these many years, and never more so than in the past three to four decades.

The Republicans are offering up more of the same this election cycle.

More fascism in the form of corporatism.

All major contenders from that side of the two party aisle hold those beliefs when it boils right down to it in one form or another.

Even Dr. Paul with his positions of a "private" banking system in this country ala the Federal Reserve.

Which was, of course, created by Congress back in 1913 so how it could be "private" rather than publicly governmentally created, I'll never quite understand.

And this is a major position of his, and it would seem all Republicans for the total lack of accountability and control which has been exerted over the Fed's policies.

I'm experiencing a sense of deja vue this election cycle.

Even the candidates appearances look similar to the last cycle. Newt Gingrich and Calista physically could be John McCain and Cindy visually.

Mitt could be Mitt from last election.

Ron Paul could be Ron Paul from last election.

The only deviation from the script is Rick Santorum. Who could not be Mike Huckabee. But Huckabee got another gig on Fox and he isn't in reruns quite yet.

As far as the Democrats - well, let's just say that this is a rerun from last election cycle.

Mr. Obama is criss-crossing the country trying to get re-elected, and seems he is making more and more of those public news conference speeches such as the one he made at the Daimler plant in North Carolina today.

Was an interesting speech, if I do say so myself.

In it were rerun positions insofar as developing "new energy sources" and explaining away the huge spikes in gasoline prices Americans are now facing, on top of their homelessness and joblessness which was bad last election cycle, but has considerably worsened the past four years with more and more finding themselves "outsourced" or "insourced" or just plain not needed anymore.

He referenced that the United States has "2% of the world's oil, and uses 20%."

Prices are based on supply and demand, or so it was represented.

I wonder if this war actually did end, and we truly did stop our involvement in the Middle East which has gone on now for over 3 decades, if that demand would lessen.

I mean, how much oil does your average Humvee or tanker use in a week over there? Or jet fuel for those drones or fighters? Or fuel for all those ships at sea in foreign ports?

I wonder what the figures are for oil consumption for the British - the "owners" of the huge major oil company in which that billion dollar settlement for the Gulf oil spill was recently announced. Which costs of settlement, of course, will be paid by the American people once again at the pump.

Oil which is refined in Britain, and then sold back to the American people at higher prices as a result.

How much of our oil do foreign governments or foreign domiciled companies own, I wonder? How much of that precious 2%?

Also stated during this campaign stop was the huge increase in the number of cars in China now requiring fuel, and more excuses about just why we continue to remain in the Middle East for this "new" reason.

Since so many Americans have lost their jobs due to most of our manufacturing base being absorbed by China and thus raising the economies of their country's population, I guess I don't wonder much why China would need so much oil for all those new cars they are buying.

They've actually got our jobs and money, for the most part so that they can afford those cars.

But this was left out of Mr. Obama's speech.

Slams were taken at the "Republicans" who are now supporting entering another conflict in Syria, which were recently made by Mr. McCain, the senator from my former home state.

We certainly do like using that war card also each and every election.

For ones we are currently involved in, or those which we can manufacture for the future to keep all those members of the military busy for decades to come.

Somehow also tying it into protecting America from those terrorists who apparently don't like us being in their country for well on three decades and counting.

Yada, yada, yada...and so it goes...

I had been away for a few hours each day working at the only job which I could find which hardly suits my resume, but with gas now at almost $4.00 a gallon (my father remembers gas at .28 a gallon, and I when I started driving .33) I had to do what I could just to afford the gas I currently need to keep looking.

I'm helping one of those major retailers move from its old location to a new strip mall location off the interstate. It will remain nameless due to a confidentiality agreement I was requested to sign prior to being offered the job moving boxes and boxes of merchandise and stocking shelves.

My hours were recently cut, however, due to "over-scheduling."

So far I haven't seen a single item which will be sold at this particular retailer that has been American made.

All so far bear the stamp, "made in China."

And who ultimately owns this major retailer?

Bain Capital (aka Mitt Romney).

As I said...yada, yada, yada