Tuesday, November 15, 2011

Oh, one other thing.

I found it very distrubing to realize some of the "#Occupy Wall Street" protesters may have contracted multi-resistant tuberculosis at a New York City shelter when they took refuge from the cold.


Drug Resistant Tuberculosis airborne in New York City Homeless Shelters? 

Well, there is nothing like being homeless and getting more than one bargained for.


The confiscation of tents and sleeping bags is FISCAL OPPRESSION of the protesters IF they are not returned to their rightful owners.  This is something like the second time police have taken away tents and sleeping bags that provide protection and comfort.  That is a financial loss to people that cannot afford the loss while asserting their First Amendment Rights.  If Oakland and New York keep this up they'll simply use up the half million in donations.  Soemthing the "#Occupy" movement cannot afford.  THAT is financial oppression.  Plain and simple.  The tents and sleeping bags need to be returned to their owners without delay to insure their well being.

Now, until tomorrow.

The Cities decide they can ignore citizens First Amendment Rights.

The problem now as it has been during the entire history of this movement is finding SPACE to assert their First Amendment Rights to Assemble and express their objections to the loss of their rights.  This is just more of the same.

Does Oakland and New York mayors have the same speech righter, because, both mayors stated to protestors in both cities on the same evening the exact same words.

"You can come back tomorrow, but, no overnight occupation is allowed."

Like, huh? 

The oddly interesting 'tilts' on oppression across the country is interesting.  In Wilmington, North Carolina the Occupiers were told they could not set up their tents on the lawn.  So, they set up their tents on the sidewalks and hold their General Assembly everyday on the lawn.  The "Occupy Wilmington" protesters have received their 501(c)(3) today so they can accept donations for needs of their members.

The problem facing New York City is especially interesting, because, Occupy Wall Street HAD to find a private park in order to carry out their First Amendment Rights.  There were NO, as in NONE, public parks in the area the protesters wanted to assert their rights, which happened to be exactly the geographic place where the worst grievances were propagated.  Why is that a problem at all?  Well, if a citizen / citizens' group cannot FIND a suitable place for their expression of their First Amendment Rights because all the land is privately owned, then in fact that oppression of the Plutocrats is 'sealed' and unchallengable.  There HAS TO BE places for aggreived citizens to assemble, express their protests and simply asset their rights to be heard. 

If every place that would bring attention to citizen's grievances were privately owned then the oppression of citizens is complete and the USA Constitution has been disregarded by those elected to office that never recognized the necessity of the free expression of those rights in the first place.
Additionally, we have heard Republicans state over and over and over again, even the Heritage Foundation, how important  "The Public Square" is and how important it is to be robust including displays on the public square of religious symbols during the holiday season.  Yet, in the mostly densely Plutocratic section of New York City there is absolutely no public square to be found.

I remember very clearly how the "Public Square" was vital to the nominee Alito during his Senate confirmation hearings.  The Nominee Alito stated he strongly supported a ROBUST (that was his words) Public Square of free expression.

So, it would seem as though, CASE CLOSED.  New York City and Oakland are in violation of the Frist Amerndment Rights of "#Occupy"  simultaneously.  Odd.  Very odd, indeed.

Until tomorrow.

Protesters will likely appeal ruling (click title to entry - thank you)

The Supreme Court indulges the Eleventh Circuits attack on Moral Protection of Citizens.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act at The Labor Department (click here)

The Right Wing of the Court and 'The Party' have absolutely no decorum, decency or morality governing their overt partisanship.  They disrespect the Supreme Court by never assigning their behavior as a matter of brevity.

The Right Wing Media chronically sounds as though the sky is falling and now they simply have no control over the opportunity this could make to reverse "The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act."  An over reaction is not known to the Right Wing Media, it is simply there chronic "Nervous Nelly" state.

The date for the hearing by the Court hasn't even been set yet, but the battle for political domination is being carried out as if there is actually a chance this is the doom and gloom for the Democrats of 2012.  It isn't.  It won't be.  The hearing is to take place in March, there are three topics being considered and NONE involve the Medicare provisions of "The Patient Prtoection and Affordable Care Act."  NONE.  The Medicare provisions stand.

The three provisions of The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act that will be reviewed by the Court; which is to take oral arguments on all there provisons on the same day and time requiring extended periods of time; are the individual mandate, whether an individual mandate will end the entire bill and whether there is coersion of the States by the mandate regarding the EXPANSION of Medicare. 

The individual mandate has a long history in the USA including automobile insurance and The Sixteenth Amendment that requires all Americans to pay taxes.  If the Sixteenth Amendment isn't an individual mandate than I don't know what is.  The Sixteenth Amendment requries every American to assess their payment of taxes to the federal government without exception.  So, like, what's the problem?

The individual mandate does not sink the entire law invoked about two years previous ot the proposed hearing date by the Supreme Court.  The Medicare provision alone is a deficit reducing measure that also insures the continuous care of citizens without private failings causing a bailout of companies or a hardship to participants.

As far as the coerson goes that is pure, unadultered nonsense.  The States are subject to federal laws and regulations across the board when it comes to commerce and the lives of citizens.  The entire President's Cabinet exists to provide services to States including education, health, transportation, infrastructure, and the list goes on.  If there is coersion of The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act then the entire federal government is guilty of same. 

The review of this bill is nothing more than HIGH PROFILE political horseplay and nothing more.  It has been horseplay throughout the Ninth Circuit and the State Attorney Generals that have thrown in with it.
The Los Angeles Times is reporting (click title to entry - thank you) that just hours after the United States Supreme Court huddled to decide whether it would take up the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas were honored at a dinner sponsored by the very law firm that will argue for the challengers in the case.

Among the sponsors of the fundraiser for the Federalist Society, a conservative group long favored by Scalia and Thomas, were Bancroft PLLC, the law firm that will argue that the insurance mandate provisions of the ACA is an overreach of Congress’ powers under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution and, therefore, unconstitutional. Also listed as an event sponsor was law firm Jones Day, the lead counsel in a separate case challenging the law brought by the National Federation of Independent Business....

Conservative's Flagchip Plutocratic Allegience is leaving the USA without a moral compass.


There is no reason for Leon to grant this delay.  The tobacco industry has already adapted labeling in other countries, the labeling has proven to work to bring realism to the outcomes of the use of tobacco.  There are lives at risk and the tobacco industry knows full well if a person is smoking regularly at the age of 19, they will probably continue well into adulthood.

This is a amoral stalling tactic by Leon in hopes there is a huge wind change in 2012 and the legislation will be recended.  He is an amoral judge that favors money over life and he should be impeached.  This is the worst decision a judge could have made and it directly threatens the wellness and health of Americans.

The 30 year reign of Republicans has tainted the courts and this is only one example.

...In granting tobacco companies a delay in complying with a government order to put graphic anti-smoking images on cigarette packs, Federal District Court Judge Richard Leon sought mightily to make a case for industry. His problem -- industry doesn't have a case. Decades of deceptive advertising and incriminating medical research have taught us that....