Life, Liberty, And The Pursuit Of Health Care

Today, the Supreme Court of the United States upheld most of the constitutionality of the Affordable Health Care Act, affectionately referred to by many as Obamacare.

The individual mandate, which requires that most Americans buy health insurance, was upheld and ruled constitutional.

The Supreme Court of the United States of America

If you do not really understand what this actually means for you, here is a brief rundown of what the Supreme Court decided:

• The Supreme Court Justices ruled, in a 5-4 vote, that all Americans must have health care coverage -- whether public or private -- by 2014, or face a tax penalty.
• By 2016, this tax will be around $695 per person.
• An inevitable tax increase for the middle-class.
• Over 20 million Americans will lose the current health care plan that they currently have and want to keep.
• This puts the government in charge of health insurance.
• Makes it less likely for people to receive high quality health care.
• Healthcare is now officially a tax on the American people.  (Sure, you can decide to opt-out of having health insurance; however, if you do, then you have a serious problem with the IRS.)
• Health insurance companies are now required to approve everyone who approaches them for health care, regardless of their health.
• Ultimately, whether you are a completely healthy person, or someone who has a fatal illness -- everyone will be charged (taxed) the same amount.

The Supreme Court only rules on the constitutionality of things.   They do not rule on whether it is a good idea or a bad idea for our country.

Health care is obviously a great investment for any individual.  And although considered constitutional, here are a few questions to consider:

• Is health care something that the federal government should be responsible for?
• Should this be yet another a tax for the American people to pay?
• Should Congress have the power to force people to buy something they may not necessarily want?
• Does this promote the most notable ideal and foundation of America -- Freedom ?

The Justices cannot tell us what the best way to provide healthcare is -- only the American people will be able to decide that, at the ballot.

All the media outlets will have differing opinions and reports on this issue.  The Republicans vow to repeal any other mandates that they can, and the Democrats vow to protect the rest of the mandates.  Regardless, this is clearly going to be a huge issue this in the upcoming election this November.

FBI Sting Raises Awareness of Online Financial Fraud

In the largest enforcement effort ever against hackers of credit card information online, a highly elaborate, two-year long FBI sting has resulted in the arrests of 24 people, on four continents, in 12 different countries.

Hackers had stolen bank and credit card information, as well as other personal information from secured websites.  This practice is known as "carding."

The sting started in June 2010, when undercover FBI investigators set up their own website where they planned to discover and locate cyber criminals in order to stop their fraudulent activities.

Undercover investigators found that they could easily contact the hackers through online forums, and the hackers would exchange personal, credit card, and bank information that they obtained through the secure websites, and sell them to the undercover FBI agents.

Little did the defendants know that these "cyber criminal forums" were not as exclusive as they thought, and that they could easily be tracked with just their IP addresses.

The complaint filed against the defendants specifically names them, as well as their online names (i.e., one who went be the name of "OxieDox"), and states which information the undercover agents were able to obtain from the hackers.

Thanks to the sting, over 400,000 potential victims were protected.  In addition, about $205 million was prevented from being stolen by the hackers.

Eleven arrests were made in the United States, including New York, Florida, and California.  Thirteen arrests in various other countries, including Italy, United Kingdom, Bosnia, Norway, and others.

This FBI sting is not only an eye-opener for the two dozen online hackers who were caught and are now defendants in the case, but also for those of us who share information online every day.

As if you probably haven't heard it enough, let this FBI enforcement effort be a reminder:  It is extremely important to be cautious of where all of your information, especially personal and financial information, is being shared on the Internet.

Freedom of Speech vs. Threats of Violence

Jesse Curtis Morton, a 33-year-old Muslim convert from Brooklyn, was sentenced to nearly 12 years in prison for posting threats online to the creators of the animated show, South Park, and other people he saw as enemies of the Islam religion.

As founder of the Muslim Revolution website, Morton desired to have a forum-style website that promoted ongoing discussions regarding the Islam religion and religious followers.

Morton believed that he was exercising his First Amendment right of freedom of speech on the website, but did admit he took it too far when he posted an Al Qaeda magazine, which had an article entitled "How to Make a Bomb in the Kitchen of Your Mom."  The magazine also specifically called for the murder of a cartoonist from Seattle who started "Everybody Draw Muhammad Day".

The creator of the website, Morton, as well as another person who used the website, Zachary Chesser, delivered threats on the website against creators of popular animated series South Park, because in one episode of the show, the cartoon insulted the prophet Muhammad by placing him in a bear costume.

South Park Episode which depicted Muhammad in a bear suit

These acts were clearly promoting violent acts against so-called "enemies" of Muslims -- Although, the potential victims in these cases were simply using their First Amendment rights (i.e., promoting a day for everyone to draw a religions figure, coming up with a cartoon making fun of a particular religion.)

Although Morton offered an apology, stating that his website was "contributing to a clash of civilizations" with the violent ideology presented, the prosecuting attorney, Gordon Kromberg, believes that even if his apology is sincere, it cannot take back the thoughts put into the heads of potential terrorists to America.

The First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects the Freedom of Speech.

Defense attorney, James Hudley, argued that Morton did try to use his website strictly for free speech, but admitted that he did cross the line to violent threats at times -- he sought a prison term of less than five years for his client.

United States District Judge, Liam O'Grady, said in a statement that he believed Morton was a bright man who could have used his intellect for good, but decided to take a turn for the worse instead when his freedom of speech turned into promoting violence to some of the most dangerous revolutionaries within the past few years.

North Carolina Boy Strip-Searched over Twenty Dollars

A 10-year old boy, Justin Cox, who is a student at Union Elementary School in Clinton, North Carolina was strip-searched after being accused of stealing $20 from another student.  He was ordered to strip down to his boxers and t-shirt.

According to Justin's mother, he told her after it happened that the girl had dropped the money and he simply reached down to help her pick it up from the ground to give it back to her.

Justin's mother was infuriated by the incident, which she did not find out about until after he came home from school that day.  No one contacted her during the day -- before, during, or right after it happened.  She said that if she felt he needed to be searched, she would've searched her son herself, in the bathroom, with a witness present.

The Fourth Amendment protects all people from unreasonable searches and seizures.

The assistant principal at Union Elementary, Teresa Holmes, was the one who strip-searched the boy, and said in a statement that two teachers and several students told her they saw Justin dive under the table for the missing $20.

Justin told Holmes many times that he did not have the money, and to "search him."

After strip-searching Justin, Holmes did not find the money.  She apologized to him afterwards.

The money was later found on the ground; a teacher had said it had not been there previously (before the search).

Sampson County Schools spokeswoman, talked about the event, and stated that Holmes was within her legal authority to conduct the search; however, she "may have been overzealous in her actions."

Justin's mother believes that the search was extremely inappropriate.  She said in a statement, "[Holmes] came up to him and rubbed her fingers around inside of the underwear.  If that isn't intrusive, I don't know what is."

"A Dingo Ate My Baby" Defense: Verified 32 Years Later

In 1988, Lindy Chamberlain-Creighton was convicted and life sentenced for the murder of her daughter, Azaria, after her daughter mysteriously disappeared.

Chamberlain-Creighton's defense? A dingo ate her baby.

I'm sure you're probably thinking that line sounds familiar.  A movie with Meryl Streep entitled Cry in the Dark made this line famous.  This line was based on this case.

Crying in the Dark Movie Cover

The official finding was finally uncovered today by an Australian coroner: an actual dingo -- type of wild dog -- attacked and caused the death of the young child.

She served three years in prison, until continuing to fight with her same defense, that a dingo ate her baby.  This has been a legal battle in Australia for over 30 years in regards to this case.  Chamberlain-Creighton has been fought over four different inquests, including a judicial inquiry, a murder trial, High Court of appeals, and Federal Court.

Lindy Chamberlain-Creighton

I am glad to see that the coroners have finally gotten down to finding out what happened 32 years ago, when poor Azaria mysteriously disappeared.

Today, Chamberlain-Creighton's conviction was overturned, and although the exact dingo who did it will most likely never be found -- justice was served for the "dingo ate my baby" woman.

Sandusky Trial Kicks Off

Opening arguments are to begin today in former Penn State football coach, Jerry Sandusky's, sex abuse case.  Sandusky faces 52 counts of molestation from 10 different alleged victims over a 15-year period.

Eight of the victims are expected to testify in the trial, and two of the victims have either not been located or identified by the Attorney General.

Gerard "Jerry" Sandusky, Former Penn State Football Coach

The investigation began in 2008, when a high school student told his mother and school administrators that he had been molested by Sandusky.

On November 4, 2011, charges were brought against Sandusky that sparked a great deal of controversy around the Penn State football team, and led to charges against two school officials, as well as the dismissal of the legendary football coach, Joe Paterno.

The trial will likely depend on the testimonies of the eight alleged victims.  There is essentially no physical evidence to prove that Sandusky molested the boys; however, it seems that there will be a whole lot of men claiming to have been molested by the former coach.

The credibility of the alleged victims and what they testify is supposed to be the main deciding component of this case for the jury.

During the jury selection process, more than 200 Centre County, Pennsylvania residents were interviewed, and the 12 jurors were finally selected, seven women and five men -- Many of them apparently having close ties to Penn State.

Centre County Courthouse where the Trial will take place

I am interested to see what will happen during this trial.

For full coverage of the Sandusky trial (with live updates), click here.

Bank of America's CEO Withheld the Facts

Back in September 2008, when Bank of America acquired Merrill Lynch, shareholders with Bank of America had to vote to approve the bank's purchase of Merrill Lynch, which would cost approximately $50 billion.

The purchase of Merrill Lynch by Bank of America struck during one of the lowest points of the financial crisis, and was part of a point in time in which CEO, Ken Lewis, was transforming Bank of America from its base in Charlotte into a monstrous financial corporation that would compete with the biggest institutions on Wall Street.

Days before voting, apparently Bank of America's top executives and Ken Lewis, knew that Merrill Lynch's extreme mortgage losses would actually cause another taxpayer bailout of $20 billion.

When it came time to vote, the shareholders didn't have an issue with this --- Why, you ask? -- Because they were not informed by any of the Bank of America's top executives or the CEO.  Had the shareholders known about the projected losses in advance, the vote would have most likely taken a different route.

Bank of America Corporate Center; Located in Uptown Charlotte, North Carolina

Bank of America's shareholders filed a lawsuit Sunday evening against Ken Lewis. The suit says that Lewis had received Merrill's loss estimates before the stockholders voted to approve the deal.

Shareholders rely on proxy documents to decide whether or not to approve transactions companies propose.  Because of this, it is necessary that companies disclose all the facts that might be meaningful to the vote of their shareholders.  Considering a lawsuit is now being filed, it looks as if Lewis's failure to mention the details of Merrill's massive losses may have been meaningful to the vote of Bank of America stockholders.


The proxy documents recommending the approval stated that Merrill's mortgage losses would reduce earnings by only 3% in 2009, but would then not hurt the bank's profits in 2010, and possibly even add to them.

A motion filed on behalf of Lewis filed on Sunday stated that Lewis did not tell shareholders the information about the losses because the bank's law firm and other bank executives had told him that it was not necessary.

The CEO also discussed the hectic period between September 2008 (when Bank of America acquired Merrill Lynch) and December 2008 (when the shareholder's voted on Merrill Lynch's acquisition by Bank of America).

 Lewis testified that after the shareholders voted, the numbers regarding the merger's effect on the bank had changed.  It had now been over 13% reduction in earnings in 2009, and about 3% reduction in 2010 -- a large difference from the previous "profit outlook" stated in the proxy documents.

Before the vote, Bank of America and Merrill Lynch had determined that the loss for that period would be approximately $14 billion before taxes.

There are emails back and forth from Bank of America's former treasurer, Jeffrey J. Brown, and Joe L. Price, the chief financial officer during that time, with Brown warning Price of the potential consequences of failing to notify stockholders of the merger's actual outlook.

Fiscal Responsibility Prevails in Wisconsin

After the recall election for governor of Wisconsin, Republican Gov. Scott Walker once again, prevailed.  All precincts found that the governor won by a wide margin (with approximately 54% of the votes in each precinct).  Today, Walker is still the governor of Wisconsin.

The effort for a vote recall stemmed from the labor union movement -- when Governor Walker prevented what they thought were excessive collective bargaining agreements of public-employee unions.  This was part of the effort to cut Wisconsin's approximately $3.6 billion shortfall in the state's budget.

Governor Walker's reform effort turned Wisconsin's $3.6 billion deficit to a $154 million surplus.  The main beneficiaries of this powerful change in Wisconsin's economy was Wisconsin's schools.  Now, children in Wisconsin are able to receive materials needed to learn, and teachers are receiving materials they need to teach, as well as getting paid what they deserve.

I am happy to see that there is an elected official like Governor Walker keeping the government living within its means -- this cannot be said truthfully about every politician.
It is important for elected officials to both meet the wants and needs of his or her constituents, while also being fiscally responsible.  After all, it is the money of the people that voted for the official, and their children, that will be paying any extra money out of their pockets.

This is not an issue that has to deal with which political party you belong to, or which politician most easily persuades you -- this has to deal with getting America back to the ideals it is founded on. 

Economic freedom is a huge part of political freedom.  Once indebted, especially to the government, personal and political freedom becomes extraordinarily limited.

Although we, as a country, do not often pay attention to the small Midwestern state -- the people of Wisconsin sent the message Tuesday night that they are not interested in limiting their freedom.  They chose the American ideals of liberty, responsibility, and security.  We may forget that Wisconsin exists sometimes, but we should continue to uphold the message they sent.

Mark Zuckerberg Quickly Becoming "Unfriended" By Many

A group very of unhappy Facebook IPO investors, including Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, and Morgan Stanley, has reportedly sued the CEO.

A class-action lawsuit -- filed yesterday, June 3rd, in the United States District Court of Manhattan -- claims that the Facebook creator knew his stock was terribly overpriced at $38 per share last month, when the trading began.  With this inside information, he quickly unloaded shares.  If the complaint is true and accurate, this was clearly a highly unethical move on the billionaire's part.
 
Facebook was down 27% last Friday, June 1st -- since it went public on May 18, 2012.

In the class-action lawsuit, the complaint calls out Zuckerberg and company of hiding the business "flaw" of his stock, was was: there is simply not enough advertising revenue to support a thirty-eight dollar per share opening price.

Essentially, the suit suggests that this business "flaw" information was only shared with its largest investors, which Zuckerberg and company did through "selective discourse" methods (as reported by Daily Mail).

Stock market analysts have constantly held doubts about Facebook's valuation, prospects in the moible market, and its overall ability to compete with Google.

After this Facebook situation, Nasdaq's market structure and market quality as a whole has been put under scrutiny.

Allegedly, Facebook is developing technology that would allow children younger than 13 years old to use the social-networking site (under parental supervision).  Under Facebook's current policy, users under 13 years of age are banned.  Although this is not part of the class-action suit, there is something seriously questionable about this situation.