Saturday, July 20, 2013

one of sixty-three separate lawsuits against Obamacare mandates

Federal judge grants injunction in Hobby Lobby’s lawsuit over birth-control requirement


Staff
The Washington Post | Associated Press
19 July 2013

"Hobby Lobby Inc. was given a temporary exemption Friday from a requirement in the new federal health care law to offer insurance coverage for the morning-after pill and similar emergency birth control methods or face steep fines....

There are currently 63 separate lawsuits challenging the health care law’s mandate, 34 of them involving for-profit businesses like Hobby Lobby."

[Read more...]

ADDITIONAL LINKS
Overview of case The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty
Interview with Hobby Lobby president Steve Green Christian Post
Overview The Blaze

are precedents being quietly set in stone?

Federal Court Permanently Vacates Injunction Against NDAA “Indefinite Detention”


Michael Boldin
10th Amendment Center
17 July 2013

"In layman’s terms, Forrest put a stop to indefinite detention[, and the Second Circuit overturned that.  It also permanently prohibited Forrest from attempting to do so again, ordering her to proceed with the case consistent with their opinion.

NDAA “indefinite detention” powers are alive and well."

[Read more...]

ADDITIONAL LINKS
Analysis and overview (RT)
"...have authorized the detention or killing of American citizens without..." The New American
Overview of NDAA (PolicyMic)

the continued impact of the Zimmerman case on America

10 Things the Media Aren't Telling You about the Zimmerman Case


John Nolte
Breitbart
17 July 2013

""The jury received standard instructions. Zimmerman did not invoke the Stand Your Ground provision. Zimmerman later waived his right to a pretrial immunity hearing under the Stand Your Ground procedures.""

[Read more...]

ADDITIONAL LINKS
Overview in video form
The bag of jewelry and the screwdriver (2012)
Allen West and the "heinous memory of lynchings'
Holder and Stand Your Ground
A dousing of gasoline in its own right (scroll down through comments)
Jeantel's candid admission of Trayvon's intent
Colin Flaherty on NAACP comments by Tristan Breaux
Piers Morgan vs. Larry Elder #1
Piers Morgan vs. Larry Elder #2 [Language]
Impact and analysis aprés Elder's comments

COMMENTARY
Stand Your Ground had nothing to do with the Zimmerman case. I was not aware of this and thus present this post as an update to the earlier post.

Readers should note that I do not necessarily agree with all views and/or ire presented in the above links, nor do they represent all that is being reported and analysed at the present moment on this topic. Such serves neither to endorse nor condemn the information but merely to remind that readers should connect the dots as needed.

On Allen West's voiced frustration with 'white liberals invoking the heinous memory of lynchings,' that particular portion of American history belongs to black and white citizens in this country.

And on the views of another commentator, who compared the number of lynchings in our history to the number of violent black on black crimes, intending to highlight a disparity that he felt overpowered the impact of said lynchings, it must be reminded that crimes of a government-sanctioned thrust against subordinates (and/or unfavoured ones) will always trump crimes between equals.

A great many nowadays do not seem aware of dividing lines between subordinates and those who are in positions of authority over them and—whether they are in management over others (who are their subordinates)—or in positions of government or—'safe' within the factions created within societies that allow law to uphold their safety at the expense of another designated segment of society—the concept of 'not equal' within a stated frame that rules subordinates vs. superiors does not seem to be grasped.

In point of fact, this nation was conceived as a democratic republic, which is not at all the same as a democracy. Democracy, while more closely capturing the idea behind 'all are equal,' certainly mangles any concepts of subordinate vs. superior.

Belovéd, in the world in which we live, hierarchies (set within specific frames) rule. Certainly, I am respectful of the office, for example, that Barack Obama holds as president of this country.

I respect Mr. Obama because he holds that office.

I have no respect for Mr. Obama separate from that, save the normal respect I show all individuals who share the planet with me.

It is of note that, when people do not understand that respect is accorded to them because of the office they hold, they often become prone to misconceptions about who they are and what they are doing. They mistake the respect shown the office as respect shown to their own person.

Conversely, what Mr. Obama might achieve within the constraints of his office, certainly belongs to him.

Those two types of respect accorded to the individual, however (as contradistinguished from respect shown to the office) are not the same types of respect, and seem to be confused, in the present moment, by many.

In the same ideation, I give to my employer the respect due because of the position each 'superior' holds over me. Outside of the context of that position, we are certainly equal, and were I not employed as their subordinate, they might not have my respect at all. I respect the position each holds over me.

In using democracy as the global term now to 'explain' the government that is our own, however, we are lead, perhaps, to the confusion noted.

To use democracy as the global term is appropriate only if the reality of democratic republic is understood as that which upholds that idea of democracy. When democracy is not bound up within a correct understanding, many awfuls result, if I may.

Greek history long ago proved that a democracy cannot succeed, hence the framing by the Founding Fathers within a democratic republic. That the frame which undergirded the creation of this democratic republic limited voting power to white male landowners, refusing that privilege to women and to black individuals and to those who have nothing to defend is a matter generally regarded as too inflammatory to examine now. [Apologies to women and black citizens who are not made out of this sort of nonsense.]

But that is a matter of language and, unfortunately, folk being what we are, the loss in distinguishing that has resulted suggests that the global use of the term has had an ill result.

That said, I remind that, in a democracy, all possess an equality that disallows subordinates (you see, then, how limited the term is), yet it is in the lives that we actually live (contradistinguished from these incorrect ideas about our government), that lynching must be understood as an element of 'sanctioned over-rule' from a particular era.

Lynchings occured as an act of vigilante posses acting on their own presumption; however, a 'white rule' (social, economic and governmental-bias) did command all in many points of American history.

And it is within that frame that lynchings must be regarded as acts of state (metaphorically speaking) against a subordinate/lacking in power people.

Again, to reduce lynchings to a par with crime between equals cannot be done, and should not.

However, a tendency to violence within the black portion of our citizenry (not all: profiling, as noted in another post, depends upon a trackable/'trendable' element in a particular crime that can be found often enough to substantiate its concern) is noted within the black community and is being tracked at large by many commentators.

The willingness of the young woman who testified at the Zimmerman trial and has appeared on talk shows in its aftermath to speak to that violence as a matter of fact within that community, and to not grasp the implications of what she noted, is key.

In one account, Rachel Jeantel admits that Martin was out to beat Zimmerman up (I do not borrow Ms. Jeantel's more colourful language, although I recognize that her term more exactly portrays the matter as it happened). As noted in the other post, the crime did not come with signs warning Zimmerman that Martin was only intent on 'whooping a**, as opposed to killing him.'

In addition, the one thing a subculture intent on violence does not seem to grasp is violence against another is against the law.

Ms. Jeantel revealed a great many things of note in her candour, however, including that the future of America is in the hands of youngsters like herself and Martin, who (it might be inferred) hold justice in the power of their own hands, rather than in a system of law administered by 'old school' jurors.

What Ms. Jeantel said reveals, not a contempt, but rather an ignorance of civil society—the very underpinnings of a civilized society—which ignorance appalls.

These matters need to be on the table in any discussion of racial profiling, social injustice (to include Eric Holder and the Department of Justice activities that spurt out from the Zimmerman case, whether to refashion a suspected influence of race in that case or to exploit gun control) and racially-motivated or racially-identified crime.

My own views regarding Stand Your Ground remain that (as Attorney General Eric Holder says in the NBC link above) a legal right to self-defence already exists, and therefore, laws that 'create' this right are not appropriate. However, the very fact that, as the post began, the Zimmerman case did not utilize Stand Your Ground begs why Mr. Holder is harping on the connection.

What Holder reminds about having to warn his son that he might be stopped on any street in America simply because he is black, and young, cannot negate the reality of violence inherent in that 'black, and young,' which needs to be addressed at large, for the good of all.

It is not possible to know the history of being black in America and ignore that much has gone down that should never have, and for which, one day, we (white folk) may answer before the Throne of God. I think we all accept that, in this day.

But even that part of the matter is stained with a colouring of certain facts that are being mishandled at large, and will continue to be. As they do not change the charges against white society (and no, that is not an apology on the part of white society: we are long past that, in regard to how various elements within black society have 'evened up' the tally), they are of little note in the dialogue at hand.

However, very real questions concerning the racial issues that divide remain. Can 'one' be crafted from the many? Does hope for that one remain? If all that happens is one regime topples another, has justice been served?

Readers should note that a great many bloggers are posting about the Zimmerman matter, and continue to research the matter (if they can still stomach it) on their own. I have left out several whose thoughts still resound in my mind and, were it not that this essay is several days old now in its edits (during which time I have had to also work on other essays), I would hold the post further in the hope of finding several of them.

Too, today, in Atlanta, a newscaster (WSB Channel 2 ABC) noted that the demonstrations in our city set for later this afternoon are for the purpose of forcing (if I may) justice for Trayvon.

I'd be really wary of that forcing. The DOJ documents revealed by Judicial Watch are too suggestive of what (and who) might be behind these protests (and what they might intend). The attention of America, as others are reminding, should be on Chicago, and the children who died and die there as a result of violence within the black community—and on that huge and overweening presence of violence in the black community at large.

ADDENDUM. In spite of what Mr. Obama is trying to craft, it is not white America that needs to apologize for the locked cars or nervous looks (and clutched purses) when a black man enters the scene. The problem is violence and crime in the black community, both perpetrated within that community and spilling over as direct actions against the white.

White folk did not create that violence or crime. Yes, white people have their own sins within the whole picture for which they are accountable (and the white community itself is not crime-free). But a vivid and accelerating and to be proud of middle class (and upper middle class/professional) black community already thrives: the city of Atlanta is not the only major metropolitan area where the black community has excelled in government, education, industry, entertainment, historical signposts, wealth and culture.

Black violence, then, cannot be (in spite of what we are being 'instructed' to think) a matter of being avenged against or rattling still within that history which results from a Jim Crow past.

That history, if I may, is in our past.

As long as violence and crime remain a part of the picture, white folk are going to remain nervous.

Law enforcement officials are not going out there arresting black men for crimes that have not been committed. As noted elsewhere, I am aware of the Innocence Project.

But that project does not prove that violence and crime separate from and a defining portion of the black community is incorrectly noted or tracked or issued sentence against. Any 'disparity' between black individuals being sentenced for crime and white individuals being sentenced for crime must recognize that more black individuals have committed the crime for which they are sentenced.

Mr. Obama has stated that the present day situations in the black community in regard to violence are a result of the social and economic imbalance and insanity (if I may—I do not quote, but rather, interpret what Mr. Obama has said) of the history of white people against black people. The present day situation, however, is being carefully 'seeded' with ideas, and it is upon ideas that people rise up and overthrow and/or destroy others.

A prevailing idea of 'sticking it to the man' lurks in many in the black community now. To be sure, that infiltrates the white community, too, but the white community has perhaps not taken it to the lengths of criminal activity that particular elements within the black community have.

However, people who have more commitment, if I may, to seeing the matter resolved (and less to gain from it being politicized), reckon other items that are perhaps capable of as much 'shaping' in this matter, and one example of that comes from a dearth of responsible fathers who stay on the scene and raise their children to adulthood, and walk with them through the battles that teens in our day face.

Tend the problem, Mr. Obama, rather than trying to shift the blame...

And be aware, as many of us are aware, that when the president interjects himself personally into a matter of criminal record, he has overstepped the boundaries that separate his office from his person.

[Note. Mr. Obama's speech attempts to end on a high note. It is, however, statements like,
Obama said the black community also isn’t “naive” about the fact that young black men are “disproportionately involved in the criminal justice system.”
“They’re disproportionately both victims and perpetrators of violence,” Obama said. “It’s not to make excuses for that fact — although black folks do interpret the reasons for that in a historical context. They understand that some of the violence that takes place in poor black neighborhoods around the country is born out of a very violent past in this country, and that the poverty and dysfunction that we see in those communities can be traced to a very difficult history.”
which reveal an impetus that denies that high note's intent and keeps the matter focused on the problem.

Which is merely to say. Problem-solvers don't seed a speech with attempts to justify a view. They pinpoint a view, track its insufficiencies, promote actions that overcome. Ed.]