Another Effort to Reduce Competition

Over the past 35 years since Ronald Reagan became president we have seen a decline in competition in the United States. His words “Government is the problem” was a signal to those who could accumulate more wealth and control of businesses at the expense of America’s general welfare. Reagan’s philosophy was government should not interfere with business. Thus we now have just four banking companies that control most finance. There is a handful of pharmacy chains, and a handful of supermarket chains spread across the nation that set the price you will pay for eggs, meat, and everything other food product.

List of largest banks in the United States

Rank	Bank name	Headquarters
1	JPMorgan Chase	New York City, NY
2	Bank of America	Charlotte, North Carolina
3	Citigroup	New York City, NY
4	Wells Fargo	San Francisco, California

Chances are you do your banking at one of the branches of these companies.

List of largest drug store chains in the United States

Walgreens
CVS
Rite Aid
Walmart

Chances are you are buying some part of your drug supplies from one of these companies. Go into any of them and you will find their prices to be almost the same.

Now imagine what the cost of health care will be when the number of insurance providers is reduced. Did you know that Blue Cross and Blue Shield are both owned by Anthem? This is not a new fact.

Yesterday Centene said it will spend $6.3 billion to buy fellow insurer Health Net. Today Hartford, Conn.-based Aetna will spend about $35 billion to buy rival Humana. Now Health insurance giant Anthem presses for Cigna takeover at $54 billion.

Of course these companies argue that their consolidation will lower costs. For Who?

Will the federal government stop these consolidations? Who are the major contributors to presidential campaigns? Who provides the money to help your congressional representative and senator? Small donations are accepted but the big donors aren’t supporting those elected officials without receiving something in return.

The Supreme Court Under Attack

Once again and for the umpteenth time there are many people unhappy with Supreme Court decisions. This probably goes back to the beginnings of America. Every time there is a major decision handed down the opposition wants to modify the Supreme Court in some manner. Happily those unhappy people have never managed to change the roll of the Supreme Court in any way. The reason may be that every proposed modification has a serious downside.

In 1937 President Franklin Roosevelt attempted to circumvent the court by proposing an enlargement to 15 justices. It was his intention to add justices that would favor his new deal legislation. Before the bill came to a vote in Congress, two Supreme Court justices came over to the liberal side and the FDR plan was dropped.

Brown v. Board of Education in my memory brought on the greatest resistance. The result of that decision was forced busing and that created more turmoil in the schools without a significant improvement to education.

Following is a list of some of the most significant cases before the Supreme Court. In most cases the losers believed that the court was wrong and wanted to change the rules governing the court.

Marbury v. Madison, 1803 (4-0 decision)

Established the Supreme Court’s power of judicial review over Congress.

McCulloch v. Maryland, 1819 (7-0 decision)

Established the federal government’s implied powers over the states.

Dred Scott v. Sandford, 1857 (7-2 decision)

Denied citizenship to African American slaves.

Plessy v. Ferguson, 1896 (7-1 decision)

Upheld “separate but equal” segregation laws in states.

Brown v. Board of Education, 1954 (9-0 decision)

Separating black and white students in public schools is unconstitutional.

Massive resistance was a strategy declared by U.S. Senator Harry F. Byrd, Sr. of Virginia to unite white politicians and leaders in Virginia in a campaign of new state laws and policies to prevent public school desegregation, particularly after the Brown v. Board of Education Supreme Court decision in 1954.^[1] Many schools, and even an entire school system, were shut down in 1958 and 1959 in attempts to block integration, before both the Virginia Supreme Court and a special three-judge panel of Federal District judges from the Eastern District of Virginia, sitting at Norfolk, declared those policies unconstitutional.

On February 24, 1956, Byrd declared a campaign which became known as “Massive Resistance” to avoid implementing public school integration in Virginia. Leading the state’s Conservative Democrats, he proclaimed “If we can organize the Southern States for massive resistance to this order I think that in time the rest of the country will realize that racial integration is not going to be accepted in the South.”^[7] Within a month, Senator Byrd and 100 other conservative Southern politicians signed what became known as the “Southern Manifesto,” condemning the Supreme Court’s decisions concerning racial integration in public places as violating States’ Rights.

Gideon v. Wainwright, 1963 (9-0 decision)

Criminal defendants have a right to an attorney even if they cannot afford one.

Miranda v. Arizona, 1966 (5-4 decision)

Prisoners must be advised of their rights before being questioned by police.

Loving v. Virginia, 1967 (9-0 decision)

Invalidated state laws prohibiting interracial marriage.

Roe v. Wade, 1973 (7-2 decision)

Women have a constitutional right to an abortion during the first two trimesters.

This ruling continues to be the victim of efforts by politically conservative states to evade the decision.

District of Columbia v. Heller, 2008 (5-4 decision)

Citizens have a right to possess firearms at home for self-defense.

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 2010 (5-4 decision)

Corporations and unions can spend unlimited amounts in elections.

Obergefell v. Hodges, 2015 (5-4 decision)

Same-sex marriage is legalized across all 50 states.

In an article posted on the National Review Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) wrote the following:

“This must stop. Liberty is in the balance. Not only are the Court’s opinions untethered to reason and logic, they are also alien to our constitutional system of limited and divided government. By redefining the meaning of common words, and redesigning the most basic human institutions, this Court has crossed from the realm of activism into the arena of oligarchy. This week’s opinions are but the latest in a long line of judicial assaults on our Constitution and the common-sense values that have made America great. During the past 50 years, the Court has condemned millions of innocent unborn children to death, banished God from our schools and public squares, extended constitutional protections to prisoners of war on foreign soil, authorized the confiscation of property from one private owner to transfer it to another, and has now required all Americans to purchase a specific product, and to accept the redefinition of an institution ordained by God and long predating the formation of the Court. Enough is enough.”

“I am proposing an amendment to the United States Constitution that would subject the justices of the Supreme Court to periodic judicial-retention elections. Every justice, beginning with the second national election after his or her appointment, will answer to the American people and the states in a retention election every eight years. Those justices deemed unfit for retention by both a majority of the American people as a whole and by majorities of the electorates in at least half of the 50 states will be removed from office and disqualified from future service on the Court.”

Read his entire article at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/420409/ted-cruz-supreme-court-constitutional-amendment. Some of what he wrote does make sense. Changes to the constitution with one exception (The Eighteenth Amendment effectively established the prohibition of alcoholic beverages) have been wisely made.

The Right to Bear Arms

It doesn’t make any difference whether mass killings are called “a form or terrorism” or “a “hate crime.” The victims are dead or seriously injured. Americans live in a country that permits the use of guns to kill people. The argument that “it’s people who kill people, it’s the not guns who do the killing” is simply another way of defending gun ownership.

There really is only one reason to own a gun and that is to protect yourself from violence. Relying on the police won’t work since they can’t arrive at any destination in seconds. I know you may argue that shooting at a target is fun and collecting weapons is a hobby and you would be correct if there was little chance that those weapons would ever be used to kill or maim. The problem is that hundreds of people are killed annually because of hate rather than for protection. No other industrial country in the world has a gun related death rate near the rate of the United States.

Cross the border into Canada and you are stopped by their border patrol and asked if you have any weapons in your car. They search your car trunk and your suitcases to confirm your words. The record is clear. Canadian deaths from weapons is about 2.22 per 100,000 people. In the United States the rate is 10.64 (2013).

The killing of nine Black people in a church is no different from the killing of audience members of a movie theater in Colorado or Sikh’s in their temple near Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

“If only those people had been armed” is the argument offered by the NRA (National Rifleman’s Association). They would have had the teachers at Sandy Hook Elementary School carrying a sidearm to protect themselves and the children.

In other words we should behave like an old west movie with everyone prepared to draw a weapon.

What is more astonishing is that our congress lacks the will to stop the killing. The right to bear arms grew out of a concern that the government might become tyrannical to the point where the public feared for their freedom.

The argument is not supportable in the 21^st century. The weapons the government has in its possession are unavailable to the public. An armed insurrection is not possible today unless part of the army itself decided to start a rebellion.

I keep hearing our politicians tell us that the United States is the greatest country in the world. On what basis do they make that statement? There is no more freedom here than in other western nations. Guns have never helped to preserve our freedom except in war.

Mexico Needs a New Government

Best Director Oscar for “Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance),” Alejandro G. Iñarritu

As reported in the Los Angeles Times. From the Oscars in Hollywood, to the pope in Rome, Mexico is receiving some rather unflattering attention, a reversal of the image that the government has spent millions to cultivate.

It started as a celebration of Mexicanness, with Academy Award glory being heaped on Mexican director Alejandro G. Iñarritu, who took three Oscar statuettes in Sunday night’s ceremony. It turned when he made a plea for better treatment of Mexican immigrants and took a sharp dig at President Enrique Peña Nieto.

“I want to dedicate this prize for my fellow Mexicans,” he said when his film “Birdman” was named best picture at the 87th Academy Awards in Hollywood. “I pray that we might find and build a government that we deserve.”

Peña Nieto ignored the slight and congratulated the director via his Twitter account. But many newspapers in Mexico on Monday carried a front-page photo of a jubilant Iñarritu and highlighted his remarks. And social media was aflame with reaction, a hashtag using “the government we deserve” (#ElGobiernoQueMerecemos) soaring to the top of things that trend.

When I visited Mexico City and Acapulco over 40 years ago they were exciting places where both citizens and tourists could comfortably walk down the boulevards and streets without fear of gang violence. Advertising in the Los Angeles Times Travel section was all about visiting those cities and many other places in Mexico. About the only thing you had to fear was the water. – Not any more. Water quality is the least of your worries in Mexico today.

It is sad to write that the tourist population has declined as the level of gangs and other criminal activity has grown dramatically. It is no wonder that the poor of Mexico try to sneak into the United States. The oligarchs of Mexico have no problem with today’s Mexico.

Sadly Peña Nieto is not the answer to their prayers.

I am Charlie Hebdo (Je Suis Charlie)

It is sad to report that many news organizations refuse to print or post Charlie Hebdo cartoons. If everyone would do it then who would the haters attack? Congratulations to The Huffington Post. Someone there has the courage.

From the Huffington Post

Known for its caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad, as well as critical depictions of Catholics, Jews and French politicians, the magazine regularly stirred controversy.

Charlie Hebdo gained notoriety in 2006 for its portrayal of a sobbing Muhammad, under the headline “Mahomet débordé par les intégristes” (“Muhammad overwhelmed by fundamentalists”). Within its pages, the magazine published 12 cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad, bringing unprecedented condemnation from the Muslim world. The French Council for the Muslim Faith eventually sued the weekly for the cartoon. The issue has since been considered the one which positioned Charlie Hebdo as a target for terrorist attacks.

“1984” Revisited

George Orwell’s 1984 was a classic tale of a world where the government watched everyone all of the time. Televisions were everywhere and every one of them had a camera that spied on everyone no matter where they were. If that wasn’t horrible enough, the government redefined everything and required everyone to accept their definitions.

Thus green could be called blue and black could be called white. Junk yards could be called beautiful and torture could be called pleasure.

Could the story of 1984 happen in America? Most of you would say “No.”
– Eric Snowden divulged the fact that our phone lines and e-mail contacts are being monitored by the CIA.
– Cameras identified the Boston Marathon bombers within a few hours thanks to cameras mounted on the streets.
– The Fort Hood massacre by Army Maj. Nidal Hasan has been called “work place violence” but not a terrorist attack. Interesting definition when you consider that just before the shooting began, many of the witnesses recounted, the gunman yelled “Allahu Akbar,” the Arabic exhortation meaning “God is great.”
– Former Vice President Dick Cheney on this past Sunday’s Meet the Press was asked by moderator Chuck Todd how he defined torture:
Well, torture, to me, Chuck, is an American citizen on a cell phone making a last call to his four young daughters shortly before he burns to death in the upper levels of the Trade Center in New York City on 9/11.

Todd followed up by asking whether rectal feeding was torture, and Cheney continued his distract-with-shiny-objects strategy.
I’ve told you what meets the definition of torture. It’s what 19 guys armed with airline tickets and box cutters did to 3,000 Americans on 9/11.

Killing unarmed Black men is justifiable homicide. We have grand juries that confirm it!