Wednesday, February 27, 2013

His family was held in secondary detention. Isn't that enough to know?

I sincerely believe it is racial profiling. I think LAX detention records need to be audited as to the frequency of their detentions and whom exactly they are detaining and if their are people refused entrance regardless of their Visas.

Everyone who travels knows the clock in detention starts before the authorities record a time in a record book. 

5:28 pm: Burnat was referred to secondary inspection (click here)
5:30 pm: Burnat was admitted to secondary inspection
5:53 pm: Burnat was released from secondary inspection

It is very scary to face those circumstances. Emad Burnat's family was detained while they held they had valid documents. It is nobody's business whether he was attending the Oscars or not attending the Oscars. The issue of the Oscars came into play because he was detained not because he was looking for fans.

So, the fact the Emad Burnat Family was detained while having valid documentation is enough. I am confident, considering the quality of his life and the oppression he and his family live under, any authority presenting themselves as some to contend with is more than frightening. He child was with him, there isn't anything else to understand. He and his family were treated less than appropriately. 

They arrived in the USA after going through all kinds of check points, what was the problem? He wasn't getting on another plane. He was not on "The No Fly List." What the heck when on that even resulted in the detaining of three people at LAX.

I have left and returned from this country and the only problem I ever ran into was the fact I had pumice rocks in my carry on. All six of them. Believe me I never did it again. It is easier and better to ship them than carry them. But, that is the only problem I had and that was because I was getting on another plane after arriving from Iceland.

What is LAX doing detaining people that have traveled that far?

Buzzfed needs to apologize to the Emad Burnat Family. Just that simple. He did nothing wrong, but, everyone including Buzzfeed seems determined to make the family's experience in the USA the worst episode of their lives.

LAX needs to apologize as well. 
Six-year-old primary school student Jesse Lewis, seen with father Neil Heslin, was one of the young victims. Picture: New York Post

Neil Heslin did his son proud today at the Senate hearings.

He is a magnificent Dad. It is completely obvious how much he and his son loved each other. I am sorry for his loss. I can only imagine.

The nation needs to act to honor those lost at Sandy Hook. It is unconscionable to believe we do not need to protect the innocent. There are no arguments that can deny the need for effective laws.

By Eric W. Dolan
Tuesday, January 29, 2013 22:30 EST

Neil Heslin, (click here) the father of a 6-year-old boy who was murdered at Sandy Hook Elementary School last month, said Tuesday night he wasn’t particularly troubled by gun advocates at a recent legislative hearing.
During the hearing on Monday, Heslin asked why Americans needed “to have one of these assault-style weapons or military weapons or high-capacity clips?” Several gun advocates shouted about the Second Amendment in response. Those who shouted were admonished by the chairman, who threatened to clear the floor.
“It didn’t really phase me,” he told CNN’s Piers Morgan. “It was no more or no less than I would have expected. It wasn’t the answer to my question.”...

"...perpetuation of racial entitlement..." Scalia

Judge Scalia should be ashamed of himself. That statement is a bigoted statement and he made it to be outrageous so he could express his own bias.

The Voting Rights Act is serious law. It provides for limits on discrimination. It removes barriers to voting. 

There is no entitlement in the law. Entitlement? That would indicate minorities and women were given a special status. The law does not provide entitlement, it provides due process of complaints about discrimination. There is no entitlement carrying card that minorities have when they vote. They vote the same as any other American. They stand in line, they vote on the same ballot. 


Judge Scalia needs to apologize to the minority citizens and women in this country.

It assists in fighting against gerrymandering.

The five Justices involved in this sledge hammer of change is assailing the USA Constitution. Their questions are political, not about equity or the rights of everyone to vote without obstruction.

by Suevon Lee
ProPublica, Aug. 30, 2012, 7:27 a.m
Aug. 30: 
A single provision of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 has been playing a key role on the election front this year. Section 5 has blocked photo voter-ID lawsprohibited reduced early-voting periods in parts of Florida and just Tuesday barred new redistricting maps in Texas....
...Not surprisingly, then, Section 5 is increasingly the target of attack by those who say it is outdated, discriminatory against Southern states and unconstitutional....

Those that seek to end the equity of all citizens to vote rely on literal language. So, the reality is today in 2013, the literacy rate in the USA is better than 1964. There may be more than 50 percent of a state registered to vote. So, in this case, the five Justices are looking to remove barriers to Voter ID, opportunities to vote early and gerrymandering. That is basically the issue here. There was a day when the words, "...whether states imposed unfair devices...," would apply to 'state of the art' obstructions, but, that is not the assignment the five Justices are applying here. They have their preferences and hence an additional measure for scrutiny of Alito and his fitness to serve.

...whether states imposed unfair devices like literacy tests in November 1964, whether less than 50 percent of the voting-age population was registered to vote as of that date, or if less than 50 percent of eligible voters voted in the November 1964 presidential election....

* Is Photo ID a state of the art barrier? 


* Is limiting the days and hours a barrier to voting?

Yes. Why? By sheer numbers. In 1964 there were 191,888,791 people in the USA. (click here) Today, the USA has 310,000,000 according to President Obama in his State of the Union address. There are many more voters today to place there votes. So, the idea there can be less days and hours for a much larger populous to vote is stacking the deck. The sheer number of voters to cast their ballot prohibits limiting the number of days and hours.

If one voting booth is set up in a city of 5000 voters on the Tuesday of any election, will all 5000 voters have the opportunity to vote? Of course not. So, the number of machines, the number of days and the number of hours have to be increased to accommodate the USA Constitution's demand of democracy.

* Is gerrymandering a problem?


We know one of the most stark examples of how gerrymandering has adversely effected the voting dynamic is the First Congressional District of Texas. Louie Gohmert. 

Since 1845 the Democratic Party dominated the elections of that district, except, three occasions: Lemuel D. Evans was considered an independent. Congressman Evans was a person unattached to a political party. He was there from 1855-57. I doubt seriously the dynamics of corrupt money played much of a role back then. So, a person could be detached from a party to achieve a majority in a national election. Congressman Evans served one term. Then again 1870, but, on for one year a Republican by the name of George W. Whitemore was Congressman. I think he was recalled or something for his term by a Democrat. No lie. He only served one year, a half of a term. From 1971 until 2005 the First Congressional District of Texas was a Democrat. That is history. 

Oral argument: March 1, 2006
After a decades-long dominance (click here) of the Texas congressional delegation by Democratic representatives, the Republican Party won a majority of seats by virtue of new Congressional district lines as reflected by the state's population growth in the 2000 Census. However, the legislature failed to redistrict the state in time for the elections, which were then governed by a district court-drawn plan. After the elections, the new Republican majority engaged in a rare mid-term redistricting plan to replace the court's map. A number of individuals and organizations sued to prevent the redistricting on a variety of grounds. The Supreme Court will decide the constitutionality of the Texas redistricting plan under analyses of due process, equal protection political, racial gerrymandering, and the Voting Rights Act.

Gerrymandering to eliminate minority representatives is the issue. It is a matter of equal protection.

The face of this district literally changed.

These were the counties of the district before gerrymandering...

LamarRed RiverBowieDeltaHopkins,WoodFranklinTitusCampMorrisCass (the entire county)Marion, HarrisonPanolaRuskUpshurShelby, most of Hunt, northern Nacogdoches

...and these are the counties of the district after the gerrymandering. One county, Cass, is even divided. There are five of the same counties in the district. All the others are different and diluted to their importance. It is an equal protection issue. It's ridiculous.

UpshurMarion, HarrisonGreggSmithRuskPanolaNacogdoches,     ShelbySan AugustineSabineAngelina, southeastern Cass

The Voter's Rights Law of 1964 is still important today. I honestly don't see it never being important. And I never see it being an assault on the USA Constitution. Never. How can a law that demands equity of all citizens within their democracy, in the only way they have to practice their democracy, ever be an enemy to the USA Constitution?

The question by Chief Justice Roberts about what state has the largest/best African American voter turnout and which has the smallest/worst, is a hideous question. Mississippi's population is 37% African Americans.

(*African American individuals in Mississippi are 1,110,591 individuals; not all adults;

*African American adults over 18 years of age 830,772 as of 2011;

*according to the 2010 (non-presidential year) voting report of the Mississippi four districts there was a voter "turnout" (not just registered) of 788,549 people;

*that is low;

*the population of Mississippi is 2,977,457 with  2,227,137 adults over 18 years old;

*that is a voter turnout of 35% of all adults 18 years or older;

*if 35% of the adult African American population turned out to vote it would be 290,770 African Americans) 

while Massachusetts' population is 7.8% African American 

(*that is 515,346 African American individuals, not all adults, adults over 18 years of age 405,577 as of 2011;

*according to the 2010 (non-presidential year) REGISTERED voters, not turn out, is 4,190,907;

*the turnout in Massachusetts is 57.4% which is a better turnout than Mississippi;

*the turnout in Massachusetts of registered voters was 2,405,581;

*if a full 7.8% of those voters were African Americans that would be 187,635 African American voters in Massachusetts that turned out;

*so sheer numbers place Massachusetts with a better percentage of African American Voters and

*brings a difference between the two states to 103,135 of African American Voters. 

I don't believe there is any quality argument with those numbers. The voter turnout is better in Massachusetts than Mississippi and the numbers are higher in Mississippi due to sheer numbers of difference in the population. There is no legitimate argument in those numbers by Chief Justice Roberts. He is playing games. In actuality with a 57.4% turnout rate, Massachusetts does a better job.)

The nation's population is 13.1 percent African American. That question is irrelevant to any equity issue. There are more than twice as many adult voters in Mississippi as Massachusetts. Just because there is a larger African American turnout in Mississippi has nothing to do with opportunity so much as numbers in the state. Justice Roberts is being petty to prove something. I am not sure what.


Rogues, Robes and Racists

Published: May 29, 2009

...Then there’s John Roberts, (click here) who replaced Rehnquist as the chief justice in 2005. That year, Newsday reported that Roberts had made racist and sexist jokes in memos that he wrote while working in the Reagan White House. And, The New York Review of Books published a scolding article in 2005 making the case that during the same period that he was making those jokes, Roberts marshaled a crusader’s zeal in his efforts to roll back the civil rights gains of the 1960s and ’70s — everything from voting rights to women’s rights. The article began, “The most intriguing question about John Roberts is what led him as a young person whose success in life was virtually assured by family wealth and academic achievement to enlist in a political campaign designed to deny opportunities for success to those who lack his advantages.”...

Thank you. Someone finally says the truth.

Meteorite streaked through the sky over the Chelyabinsk Region on February 15 and exploded in the atmosphere

MOSCOW, February 26 (RIA Novosti) – The powerful blast of a meteorite (click here) above the Urals city of Chelyabinsk was probably caused by its previous “space collisions” with other celestial bodies, said Professor Erik Galimov of the Vernadsky Institute of Geochemistry and Analytical Chemistry.
Fragments of the meteorite were taken to the institute’s lab on Monday.
“[The meteorite] experienced collisions in space before entering the atmosphere. Probably, this caused its disintegration, or fragmentation, which later resulted in such a powerful blast. Such blasts to not always occur when meteors fall,” Galimov said.
And the reason there were blasts this time is because the meteor entered the atmosphere abruptly due to the asteroid 2012 DA14's close proximity.
He said that findings made by experts in Moscow confirmed preliminary results of the meteorite’s test in a lab of the Urals Federal University.
Windows were shattered and walls were damaged by shockwaves in thousands of mostly residential buildings, as the meteorite streaked through the sky over the Chelyabinsk Region on February 15 and exploded in the atmosphere. Over 1,500 people were injured, most by flying glass shards.

Scientists from Russia's Urals Federal University (click here) have discovered a meteorite fragment weighing more than one kilogram (2.2 lbs), the largest fragment found so far following the meteorite strike in the Chelyabinsk Region on February 15.

MOSCOW, February 26 (RIA Novosti) - The Chelyabinsk diocese (click here) of the Russian Orthodox Church said on Tuesday it would organize mass prayers on Thursday evening to thank God that no deaths occurred during the recent meteorite blast....

We are getting close. January 1, 2014. It begins.

307 Days, 20 hours and 39 minutes until new health coverage begins for millions of Californians. (click here)

The Affordable Care Act is already a success. It has preserved coverage for college students, provided coverage to those with pre-existing conditions, which is all of us, Right? We were born with flaws according to the Health Care Industry. Women were born with a uterus, boy was that a mistake.

We now have minimum standards for our health care insurance. No deductibles for all the preventive care a person needs.

Essential Health Benefits. 

Newly sold health plans must cover services that fall into these 10 categories of Essential Health Benefits:

o Ambulatory patient care
o Emergency service
o Hospitalization
o Maternity and newborn care
o Mental health and substance abuse disorder treatment
o Prescription drugs
o Rehabilitation and habilitation services and devices
o Lab services
o Preventive and wellness services and chronic disease support
o Pediatric services, including dental and vision care

And Medicaid is fully funded which means our hospitals and doctors will be receive monies they should have been getting for decades.

Those that seek to call the Affordable Care Act unconvincing have no sincere reason for their point of view. The cost of health care should come down. There will be more people participating in health care and those people will have health insurance. The Emergency Room solution will be over.

In the early years of the law there will be upticks in health statistics, both good and bad. Children will have a good start across the country. But, the adult statistics will increase because people who have neglected their wellness due to lack or poor quality health care will be diagnosed. There will be a higher demand for doctors, prescriptions and treatment. The 85% spending will be justified in larger ways than in the years past 2019. For the first time ever, the USA will have a clear understanding of their wellness as a nation. I am quite confident the picture will be stark. To that reality, the political oppositionists will seek to justify their reasons to repeal the law once again. 

So, there it is. The Affordable Care Act is a success already, it will be more of one in the near future. I am looking forward to the challenge the nation will face when the law is fully realized. It will be a matter of understanding where we are as a nation and the path forward. It will take several years to know it's impact, but, it will stabilize the reality of wellness in the USA and that is a good thing. 

The Affordable Care Act is the best of us. Those that opt out will change their mind over time.

The Affordable Care Act is saving lives today and will continue to grow in carrying out that reality in the future. The Emergency Room is not the place to receive a diagnosis of cancer. By then, it is too late. What is the value of a life?