OBOF SS & MORE PART 40

WELCOME TO OPINIONS  BASED  ON FACTS (OBOF)

Name	Published
OVERVIEW	Dec. 28, 2010
SOCIAL SECURITY PART 1	Dec. 30, 2010
SOCIAL SECURITY PART 2	Jan. 10, 2011
SOCIAL SECURITY PART 3	Jan. 17, 2011
SOCIAL SECURITY PART 4	Jan. 24, 2011
SOCIAL SECURITY PART 5	Jan. 31, 2011
SOCIAL SECURITY PART 6	Feb. 07, 2011
SOCIAL SECURITY PART 7	Feb. 14, 2011
SPECIAL ISSUE	Feb. 18, 2011
SOCIAL SECURITY PART 8	Feb. 21, 2011
SOCIAL SECURITY PART 9	Mar. 01, 2011
SOCIAL SECURITY PART 10	Mar. 07, 2011
SS & MORE PART 1	Mar. 14, 2011
SS & MORE PART 1A	Mar. 21, 2011
SS & MORE PART 2	Mar. 25, 2011
SS & MORE PART 3	Mar. 29, 2011
SS & MORE PART 4	Apr. 04, 2011
SS & MORE PART 5	Apr. 11, 2011
SS & MORE PART 6	Apr. 18, 2011
SS & MORE PART 7	Apr. 25, 2011
SS & MORE PART 7A	Apr. 29, 2011
SS & MORE PART 8	May 02, 2011
SS & MORE PART 9	May 09, 2011
SS & MORE PART 10	May 16, 2011
SS & MORE PART 11	May 24, 2011
SS & MORE PART 12	Jun. 06, 2011
SS & MORE PART 13	Jun. 20, 2011
SS & MORE PART 14	July  05, 2011
SS & MORE PART 14A	July  18, 2011
SS & MORE PART 15	July  19, 2011
SS & MORE PART 16	Aug. 03, 2011
SS & MORE PART 17	Aug. 15, 2011
SS & MORE PART 18	Aug. 29, 2011
SS & MORE PART 19	Sept. 12, 2011
SS & MORE PART 20	Sept. 26, 2011
SS & MORE PART 21	Oct.   10, 2011
SS & MORE PART 22	Oct.   24, 2011
SS & MORE PART 22 EXTRA	Nov.  04, 2011
SS & MORE PART 23	Nov.  07, 2011
SS & MORE PART 24	Nov.  21, 2011
SS & MORE PART 25	Dec.  05, 2011
SS & MORE PART 26	Dec.  19, 2011
SS & MORE PART 27	JAN.  03, 2012
SS & MORE PART 27A	JAN.  05, 2012
SS & MORE PART 28	JAN.  17, 2012
SS & MORE PART 29	JAN.  31, 2012
SS & MORE PART 30	Feb.  14, 2012
SS & MORE PART CL1	Feb.  21, 2012
SS & MORE PART 30 EXTRA	Feb.  23, 2012
SS & MORE PART 31	Feb.  28, 2012
SS & MORE PART CL2 - 59	Mar.  06, 2012
SS & MORE PART 31 EXTRA	Mar.  07, 2012
SS & MORE PART 32	Mar.  13, 2012
SS & MORE PART CL3 - 1	Mar.  20, 2012
SS & MORE PART 32 EXTRA	Mar.  24, 2012
SS & MORE PART 33	Apr.  10, 2012
SS & MORE PART CL 4 - 2	Apr.  17, 2012
SS & MORE PART 34	Apr.  24, 2012
SS & MORE PART CL5 - 49	May  01, 2012
SS & MORE PART 35	May  09, 2012
SS & MORE PART CL6 - 19	May  15, 2012
SS & MORE PART 35 EXTRA	May  18, 2012
SS & MORE PART 36	May  22, 2012
SS & MORE PART 36 EXTRA	May  25, 2012
SS & MORE PART 36
EXTRA II	June 01, 2012
SS & MORE PART 37	June 05. 2012
SS & MORE PART 37 EXTRA	June 07, 2012
SS & MORE PART 38	June 12, 2012
SS & MORE PART 39	June 19, 2012
SS & MORE PART 40	June 26, 2012

  IN  THIS  ISSUE

1.  "THE FAB GROUP."

2.  The Supreme Court, it has changed.

3.  Is Affirmative Action next.

4.  Court decision on Affordable Care Act.

5.  What is the true meaning of Patrotism.

6.  Parting Thought.

~~~

"VOTE, AN  EDUCATED  VOTE"

What is an educated vote?  It is one that has been made with as much knowledge, based on facts, not misinformation, that an individual can obtain.

~~~

"THE FAB  GROUP"

What is "THE FAB GROUP?"  Very simply, it is a group of short news items that provide more varied amounts of news, which I think we all will be interested in, without long detailed commentary.  More news - less reading.

Why "FAB?"  My name is Floyd Austin Bowman -  (FAB), and these are a goup of items that I have choosen, thus "THE FAB GROUP,"  pronounced "FAB."

 

34 Lawmakers Changed Their Investments after Receiving Private Briefings About 2008 Economic Crisis

Pat Garofalo, News Analysis:

After speaking with Paulson, Boehner shifted $50,000 to $100,000 out of a risky mutual fund, and spent tens of thousands of dollars more on a less-risky fund. Other lawmakers who were making investment decisions after receiving private information at the time included Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND), Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), and Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE). The lawmakers contend that their investments are overseen by outside advisers and that the private information had no bearing on their portfolio moves.

Class of 2012, Greetings!

 by Tom Engelhart

It’s a deceptively glorious day, even under this tent in the broiling heat of an August-style afternoon in mid-June on this northeastern campus. Another local temperature record is being set: 98 degrees. And yes, let’s admit it, the heat, the sun, the clearness of the azure blue sky stretching without a cloud to the horizon, the sense of summer descending with a passion, it’s not quite as reassuring as it might once have been, is it?

 I suspect that few of you, readying yourselves to leave this campus, many mortgaged to your eyeballs (some for life no matter what you do), and heading into a country on edge, imagine personal clear skies to the horizon.

And while we’re admitting things, let’s admit something else about the heat today, as you bake under your graduation gowns: whether or not you have the figures at your fingertips, whether or not you know the details, who doesn’t sense that this planet is on edge, too? I mean, here you are, the class of 2012, and like the classes of 2011, 2010, and so on, you are surely going to spend your first months out of college enduring one of history's top ten heat years.

ROBIN  HOOD'S

Economic Justice

by Leo Gerard

Is Digg defining a new direction for the curation economy? And could the new site help us cope with information overload?

Robin Hood popped up all across America last week. A bunch of green-suited Merry Men protested in front of Wall Street bank branches in 15 cities.

Another felt-hatted group demonstrated in Washington D.C. during J.P. Morgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon's testimony about why his bank shouldn’t submit to regulation even after flushing $2 billion down the toilet. The biggest band of Robin Hoods appeared on dollar bills -- a pointy hat drawn on George's head and the words “Robin Hood tax” written below.

The American Robin Hoods are seeking economic justice. They want Congress to resurrect the financial transactions tax. This is the Robin Hood tax, a tiny levy on the sale of stuff like stocks, bonds, derivatives, futures and credit default swaps. It packs two benefits in one tax. It would give the government cash to offset the cost of the Wall Street-caused recession. And it would suppress the high-risk, high-speed trading that caused the crash. Britain, home of Robin Hood, already charges a form of it. Ten European Union countries plan to institute it. America needs it.

~~~

THE  SUPREME  COURT,

IT

  HAS  CHANGED.

by Floyd

What has happened to the highest court in the land?  That, of course, is the Federal Supreme Court, to which I am referring.  Today, June 25, 2012, the Supreme Court handed down a ruling prohibiting States from passing laws contradictory to Federal law. 

For example, the specific law, being referred to today, is one that was passed in 1912 in the State of Montana.  It was passed  to stop corruption in the voting process and to keep excessive money from being used to sway elections.  It is reported, that this law has worked extremely well for 100 years, in Montana, and now the Federal Supreme Court says that it is null & void.

It seems to me, that this action, which is the second step of the Citizens United ruling, which, you may recall, opened the floodgate for corporate money in politics, is more damaging than the first ruling.  As Ed Schultz said tonight, "We lost a bit of America today."

Will Affirmative Action Go Next?

The following is part of an article by Earl Ofari Hutchinson, published in The New American Media News Report  on Monday June 25, 2012

......Next up is affirmative action.  Expect the court to use the suit by a former Texas white student against the University of Texas’ modest affirmative-action program to once and for all dump affirmative action out of education.  This will have a ripple effect throughout all government and even corporate affirmative action programs.

The court’s sharp upturn in the sheer number of conservative decisions tells the real story of the majority’s naked political activism.

In the first five years under the watch of Chief Justice Roberts, the court issued conservative decisions in nearly 60 percent of the cases, an unusually large number of them by a 5-4 split.

And in the term that ended the year after Obama took office in 2009, the percentage of conservative decisions shot up to 65 percent.  This is the largest number of overtly conservative political decisions in over a half-century.  There’s no sign that that the court’s conservative rampage will change.

The health care reform law, if it is overturned, would be the court conservative’s political coup de grace.  It would come in the heat of what will be an intensely close White House race and will earmark yet another big political gift to the GOP.  With that and its other decisions, it has done everything it could to bend the law for its blatant political ends.

by Floyd

The Supreme Court is suppose to determine constitutionality of an issue, not legislate from the bench.  It not only opened the floodgate for money, it has become a PAC ,in itself, in terms of providing, as Hutchinson said, ".....big political gift to the GOP."

~~~

COURT  DECISION  ON 

"AFFORDABLE  CARE  ACT"

by Floyd

It is reported that the Supreme Court will hand down a decision on the Affordable Care Act on Thursday.  It is also, reported that they could even wait until after the November election; who knows?  Maybe the Court doesn't even know.  They probably have to figure out what would be the best for the Conservative Republicans. 

If they declare the "Mandate to carry health insurance" unconstitutional, they just as well declare the entire Act unconstitutional, as it cannot function without the finances from that section of the Act.  This is a crucial decision that will affect millions and millions of people. 

The next President may very well have the opportunity to appoint two new members to the Court.  This makes the November election even more important.  If President Obama is re-elected, he may have the chance to even-out the look of the court, somewhat.

~~~

Excluding Outsiders or Coming Together for the Common Good: What’s the True Meaning of

 Patriotism?

by Robert Reich

Recently I publicly debated a regressive Republican who said Arizona and every other state should use whatever means necessary to keep out illegal immigrants.  He also wants English to be spoken in every classroom in the nation, and the pledge of allegiance recited every morning.  “We have to preserve and protect America,” he said.  “That’s the meaning of patriotism.”

To my debating partner and other regressives, patriotism is about securing the nation from outsiders eager to overrun us. That’s why they also want to restore every dollar of the $500 billion in defense cuts scheduled to start in January.

Yet many of these same regressives have no interest in preserving or protecting our system of government.  To the contrary, they show every sign of wanting to be rid of it.

In fact, regressives in Congress have substituted partisanship for patriotism, placing party loyalty above loyalty to America.

The GOP’s highest-ranking member of Congress has said his “number one aim” is to unseat President Obama.  For more than three years congressional Republicans have marched in lockstep, determined to do just that. They have brooked no compromise.

They couldn’t care less if they mangle our government in pursuit of their partisan aims.  Senate Republicans have used the filibuster more frequently in this Congress than in any congress in history.

House Republicans have been willing to shut down the government and even risk the full faith and credit of the United States in order to get their way.

Regressives on the Supreme Court have opened the floodgates to unlimited money from billionaires and corporations, overwhelming our democracy, on the bizarre theory that money is speech under the First Amendment and corporations are people.

Regressive Republicans in Congress won’t even support legislation requiring the sources of this money-gusher be disclosed.

They’ve even signed a pledge – not of allegiance to the United States, but of allegiance to Grover Norquist, who has never been elected by anyone. Norquist’s “no-tax” pledge is interpreted only by Norquist, who says closing a tax loophole is tantamount to raising taxes and therefore violates the pledge.

True patriots don’t hate the government of the United States. They’re proud of it.  Generations of Americans have risked their lives to preserve it. They may not like everything it does, and they justifiably worry when special interests gain too much power over it.  But true patriots work to improve the U.S. government, not destroy it.

But regressive Republicans loathe the government – and are doing everything they can to paralyze it, starve it, and make the public so cynical about it that it’s no longer capable of doing much of anything.  Tea Partiers are out to gut it entirely. Norquist says he wants to shrink it down to a size it can be “drowned in a bathtub.”

When arguing against paying their fair share of taxes, wealthy regressives claim “it’s my money.”  But it’s their nation, too. And unless they pay their share America can’t meet the basic needs of our people. True patriotism means paying for America.

So when regressives talk about “preserving and protecting” the nation, be warned: They mean securing our borders, not securing our society.  Within those borders, each of us is on our own. They don’t want a government that actively works for all our citizens.

Their patriotism is not about coming together for the common good.  It is about excluding outsiders who they see as our common adversaries.

~~~

PARTING  THOUGHT

In the depth of winter, I finally learned that within me there lay an invincible summer.

by Albert Camus.

~~~

If the good Lord is willing and the creek don't rise, I'll talk with you again on or before July 3, 2012.  Till then:

GOD BLESS YOU ALL

&

GOD BLESS THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Floyd