Showing posts with label Obamacare. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Obamacare. Show all posts

Tuesday, March 11, 2014

Conservatives, by definition, believe things that are not true

Tip of the hat to Addicting Info for this.

LISTEN; Right Wing Nut Jim Garrow, Says Obamacare Legalizes The Guillotine (AUDIO)
According to right wing nut case Jim Garrow,
the Obamacare guillotine has now been legalized and will be used
to behead Christians and enforce Sharia Law.

LISTEN: Right Wing Nut Says Obamacare Legalizes Execution By Guillotine

Right-wing conspiracy theorist, Jim Garrow, recently made an appearance on The Rundown Live, where he told listeners that the president just added legal guillotine beheadings to the ‘Obamacare list.’
“What happened now, just recently? We now have a part of Obamacare where we now have legalized execution by guillotine. Did you see the list? It’s been added to the list.” (Source)

So Obamacare is a Muslim plot to behead Christians?

Did you see the list? Of course you didn’t see it. That’s because no such list exists.
Garrow is not known for his obsession with those little things called ‘facts, though.’ The author of a highly questionable book about Chinese baby smuggling, Garrow is a regular contributor to websites like Infowars and Prison Planet. He’s also a frequent guest on right wing radio and television shows like The Rundown Live and World Net Daily TV.
“If Obama is a Muslim,”
Garrow continued, during his recent appearance on The Rundown Live,
“if the Muslims when they dominate Christians, if what they do is kill them by taking off their heads, decapitation by the sword, this is just another sword, it’s another way, it’s another mollification of Muslims, of Islam, it’s another lining up, paralleling what’s right and able to be done in America, legally, with what the Muslims do. This is dhimmitude, submission, submission to Islam and the traditions of Islam. Done by that bunch of wackos, that bunch of crazies, traitors in the White House led by Mr. Obama.”
We've heard a lot of lies, some more subtle, others just so off-the-wall that it beggars credibility that there are conservatives who believe such nonsense.

This falls into the latter, but the sad reality is that this is just the further right wing of modern conservatives on the conservative spectrum.  The more teabaggy, the more religious right extremist, the cray-cray-crazier the things they sincerely believe.  Worse, because they are sincere in their belief, they feel they deserve deep respect and even special treatment.

There is no longer a moderate and serious core to conservatism that can significantly reprimand or reject the cray-cray-crazy extremists, the way that William F. Buckley did to the John Birchers and other mouth-foaming wackos back in the mid 20th century.  The very essence of a rational political party has been hijacked; the lunatics are in control of the asylum.

The Addicting Info piece caught my attention, not only because it was so preposterous, but because I spent a few hours I will never get back again a few years ago, researching the man who made the cray-cray claim over some OTHER nut job statements.  Even for those on the right who have enough rational capacity left in their heads to be skeptical of claims like this, it is useful to those in power on the right because it contributes to the emotional response that Obamacare is bad, an emotional response on which they rely. 

It was a boast of Dubya that he made decisions based on his gut - and his gut was consistently wrong.  That alternative to factual thinking characterizes the modern right, and has increasingly done so since the days of Ronald Reagan.

The other aspect of the Addicting Info piece that caught my attention was that this appeared in the radical right wing media.  We have seen that pattern over and over, where propaganda has pride of place over fact, from commercial right wing radio, like Salem Broadcasting, which I encountered when researching the Affinity Scam posts where right wing radio gave credibility as well as made money by selling their air time to scam artists who prey on the radical right, in the case we wrote about here, primarily on the religious right. The scammers are doing stretches in the federal pen; those on the right who helped them to rip off other conservatives however are still getting cushy MN GOP patronage jobs.

This guillotine garbage was also broadcast on the radical right media, and came from a right wing alternate media broadcaster next door in Wisconsin, which broadcasts not just nationally, but internationally, on an internet Christian network, the Truth Broadcasting Network.

Sadly, besides the embrace of magical and emotional thinking, the belief in things that are not true, the modern conservative bubble people are not just all-too-willing to promote pure unadulterated shit as fact, they are eager to exploit their more gullible followers, to take not only their time but to try to separate them from their money.  They are a greedy and shamefully exploitative group of people who live by terrorizing and ripping off their own gullible, ignorant and very sincere base.

Friday, August 24, 2012

YES! Hooray for Michael Higgins, President of Ireland for calling out tea party wankers!


There is nothing quite like enjoying Friday with a rousing rant that makes you want to cheer. We don't use the perjorative 'wanker' in American punditry; I think this an enrichment that our version of the parent language should adopt. Enjoy!



From the HuffPo:

Leave it to the Irish to teach their American cousins a thing or two about the ancient art of the smackdown.
A 2010 interview between Michael D. Higgins, who was elected President of Ireland in 2011, and Boston conservative radio host Michael Graham has recently gone viral, with a YouTube clip of the debate attracting over half a million visitors. (Close to 200,000 of those visits were recorded in the past 48 hours, according to The Irish Times.)
The clip's newfound surge in popularity is due in large part to video-sharing website Upworthy, which posted the audio on Tuesday with the headline, "A Tea Partier Decided To Pick A Fight With A Foreign President. It Didn't Go So Well."
The contentious encounter occurred during a May 28 special broadcast of The Right Hook, a NewsTalk radio program hosted by conservative Irish radio pundit George Hook. The fiery Higgins, a longtime leftist politician and human rights activist, takes Graham, a Tea Party organizer, to task for the party's criticisms of President Obama and its strident opposition to the White House's health care reform bill.
"I think even the poorest people in the great country that is the United States should be entitled to basic health care," Higgins said. "And I don't think they'll thank the Sarah Palin lookalikes and followers for taking it off them."
Although Graham tries to interject, Higgins is clearly having none of it, continuing to berate Graham and Sarah Palin for perceived warmongering.
"You're about as late an arrival in Irish politics as Sarah Palin is in American politics, and both of you have the same tactic," Higgins continued. "The tactic is, to get a large crowd, whip them up, try and discover what is that creates fear, work on that and feed it right back and you get a frenzy."
Graham, who according to his bio introduced Sarah Palin during a Tea Party rally on Boston Common in 2010, is barely able to get a word in during the tirade, which lasts over four minutes.
As applause and cheering is audible in the background, Higgins tells the American pundit that "the image of the United States is getting better," and upbraids Graham, urging him to "be proud to be a decent American rather just a wanker whipping up fear."

Friday, June 29, 2012

Comical World of the Affordable Care Act,

Steve Sack in the past two days has brilliantly summed up the nature of our political system which is being badly damaged to the point of being so corrupt, so bought-and-paid-for, that we need to fix it.

A case in point was the many freight trainloads of money spent to oppose the much needed health care reform before it passed.  Now we see those same trainloads of money being spent to support repealing it, delaying it, but most ly LYING about it to those gullible low information voters and the ideologues who choose consistently to believe propaganda not fact because it is what they WANT to believe.

From the brilliant resident Strib artist:

 blown gasket elephant


politician buying it

Satire Illumines our Public Discourse -- and it's more fun

I'm laughing at the 'eat broccoli' government over-reach argument. Who should know more about government overreach than the chronically over-reaching Republicans?

The Colbert ReportMon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Cable News Gaffe on Obamacare Supreme Court Ruling
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full EpisodesPolitical Humor & Satire BlogVideo Archive


The Colbert ReportMon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
John Roberts as Obamacare Swing Vote
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full EpisodesPolitical Humor & Satire BlogVideo Archive


The Colbert ReportMon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Obamacare & The Broccoli Argument
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full EpisodesPolitical Humor & Satire BlogVideo Archive


The Colbert ReportMon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Obamacare & The Broccoli Argument - Emily Bazelon
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full EpisodesPolitical Humor & Satire BlogVideo Archive

Thursday, June 28, 2012

Whoooo HOOOOOOOOOOOO! Yippppeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!!!!!!!!!

The Supreme Court announces that they upheld Obamacare/ more correctly known as the Affordable Health Care Act!  Hooray!

In the context that it is a gift to see ourselves as others see us, I'm going to turn to the Guardian in the UK for our 'Obamacare' news.  They have an excellent continuing update here that refreshes every 60 seconds, and they also provide excellent analysis -- which it is sad to say, is often better than their American counterparts,:
you can follow that coverage with additional updates, analyses and other coverage HERE.

Supreme court ruling on healthcare law – live coverage

The US supreme court rules today on the fate of President Obama's healthcare reforms – follow live coverage here

10.21am: In the detail: the supreme court appears to have also redefined the commerce clause and tightened its use. The clause's power has been trimmed by the court in recent decision, but this is another attempt to box it in further.
10.20am: Here's the key quote to maintain the individual mandate as constitutional, from Roberts's opinion:

Our precedent demonstrates that Congress had the power to impose the exaction in Section 5000A under the taxing power, and that Section 5000A need not be read to do more than impose a tax. This is sufficient to sustain it.
That's clear, right? Me neither.

10.17am: Once again, this is a long, complex and multi-layered decision by the supreme court, and the voting may have differed on different points – so take nothing for granted.

But it appears that John Roberts joined the liberal wing in upholding the healthcare law and individual mandate. This is significant in itself and news that will sink the US conservative movement into deep gloom.

10.16am: Wow: it appears that the so-called swing vote on the court, Anthony Kennedy, actually joined Scalia, Alito and Thomas in voting against the law – and that Chief Justice Roberts voted to uphold.

Now there's a turn-up for the books.

10.15am: Opinion seems to be that the Affordable Care Act has been upheld – but there's a lot of detail in there, so more as it comes.

10.12am: So the individual mandate appears to have survived as constitutional, not under the commerce clause but as a tax, and that Chief Justice Roberts has joined the "liberal" wing of the court on the issue.

More important news: the Medicaid expansion is slighty limited but not invalidated by the decision. The devil is in the details but if that's broadly the case that's another big win for the administration.

No news on votes or dissents yet.

10.10am: As suggested earlier – this is a complex decision, so it's worth waiting to see what the whole decision reads.

It appears that the individual mandate may survive as a tax – but that may need further Congressional action.
More as we get it.

10.08am: Hold on – while Roberts appears to have invalidated the individual mandate under the commerce clause, ScotusBlog is saying the mandate has survived as a tax. Let's wait and see how this plays out.

10.07am: Here we go: Chief Justice John Roberts is reading the decision on healthcare law now – so that means he wrote the decision – and the mandate fails under the commerce clause.

More as we get it.

10.02am: The court has published its first decision, but it's about something else involving the first amendment. Oh it's the Stolen Valor act – which bans people falsely claiming they have won military honours (surprisingly common in the US, for some reason).

Anyway, it's unconstitutional but Congress can redraft it. Apparently it's not illegal to lie. Thomas, Scalia and Alito all dissent.

10am: While we are waiting, here's a nice photo of the supreme court justices.

The justices of the US Supreme Court, front row (L-R): Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, chief justice John Roberts, Anthony Kennedy and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Back row (L-R): Sonia Sotomayor, Stephen Breyer, Samuel Alito and Elena Kagan. Photograph: Tim Sloan/AFP/Getty Images

They all have a great health insurance deal.

9.55am: Five minutes to go. There's a tiny but non-negligible chance that the court will punt on the whole issue, thanks to the Anti-Injunction Act that holds that taxes cannot be challenged in court until they are first levied. Which hasn't happened yet. But it's not likely.

But if the court did, that would be really bad for everyone's health.

9.49am: Fifteen minutes to go – and when the healthcare rulings come, it's likely to be a complex one with many layers and possibly multiple dissents – as the Arizona immigration ruling on Monday showed – so beware of over-caffinated responses declaring victory for one side or the other.

The fate of the individual mandate is only one aspect, although it's obviously the biggest one. Another, perhaps more far reaching in constitutional terms, is how the court redefines the commerce clause that the government is using to justify the mandate.

And then there's the so-called Medicare expansion issue, offering healthcare coverage to an additional 16 million people but from which some states are asking the court to allow them to opt out. That alone could be even more significant than a decision on the individual mandate.
9.40am: In all the political excitement over today's ruling, let's not forget what's at stake: the nearly 50 million Americans without health insurance.

9.35am: In the event of the supreme court upholding the Affordable Care Act, how will the Republicans react? After the apoplexy has faded, here's what Speaker of the House John Boehner said yesterday:
If the court does not strike down the entire law, the House will move to repeal what's left of it.

Thursday, November 17, 2011

Recalls Seem to Be Going Well; Maybe It Is Time to Impeach Thomas and Scalia

The following story raises some very deep and troubling questions about our current Supreme Court Justices.  The LA Times Story below is not the only instance  where the Justices appear to have relationships, including financially benefiting from activities, that compromise their appearance of propriety, as shown here in the New York Times from earlier this year.

We should be pursuing removal of these two Justices from the bench, and we also should be pursuing adding a requirement that the Supreme Court abide by the same judicial rules of ethics as lower courts.  This is not an unreasonable thing to request of the members of a body that have so much power; rather this should be mandated precisely because of the power and authority of the courts. 

I adamantly believe that the right is correct in that Justice Kagan should be recusing herself from participating in the Supreme Court decision on the health care reform legislation that the right likes to call Obamacare.  I will be surprised and disappointed if she does not do so; for her to participate would be very wrong.

But if both Justices Scalia and Thomas do NOT recuse themselves from participating in this SCOTUS decision, they should be removed from office for corruption.

Where the difference occurs is that Justice Kagan has a clear conflict of interest because of her role in the White House during the legislative process that produced the health care reform.  She absolutely cannot be an impartial person in this matter.

But Thomas and Scalia have personally BENEFITED, materially and substantially from their relationships with one side of the case, prior to the matter coming before the court. And now apparently DURING the time the matter has come before the court as well; there is a clear bias on their parts as well as profit.

Read the story below; apparently these two conservative Justices no longer consider it worth their while to even pretend to be unbiased or impartial.  Maybe they think the right is so used to crony capitalism, SuperPacs and dirty money, that no one will notice, or care.  They are beyond shame.

They are wrong on both counts. It's time they were off the bench, in disgrace. That disgrace should be shared by the people and entities which were willing to behave unethically, and by the Presidents who nominated them for the Supreme Court.

From the L.A. Times:

Scalia and Thomas dine with healthcare law challengers as court takes case

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia speaks to a policy forum in Washington last month.
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia speaks to a policy forum in Washington last month. (Manuel Balce Ceneta/AP)
The day the Supreme Court gathered behind closed doors to consider the politically divisive question of whether it would hear a challenge to President Obama’s healthcare law, two of its justices, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, were feted at a dinner sponsored by the law firm that will argue the case before the high court.

The occasion was last Thursday, when all nine justices met for a conference to pore over the petitions for review. One of the cases at issue was a suit brought by 26 states challenging the sweeping healthcare overhaul passed by Congress last year, a law that has been a rallying cry for conservative activists nationwide.

The justices agreed to hear the suit; indeed, a landmark 5 1/2-hour argument is expected in March, and the outcome is likely to further roil the 2012 presidential race, which will be in full swing by the time the court’s decision is released.

The lawyer who will stand before the court and argue that the law should be thrown out is likely to be Paul Clement, who served as U.S. solicitor general during the George W. Bush administration.

Clement’s law firm, Bancroft PLLC, was one of almost two dozen firms that helped sponsor the annual dinner of the Federalist Society, a longstanding group dedicated to advocating conservative legal principles. Another firm that sponsored the dinner, Jones Day, represents one of the trade associations that challenged the law, the National Federation of Independent Business.

Another sponsor was pharmaceutical giant Pfizer Inc, which has an enormous financial stake in the outcome of the litigation. The dinner was held at a Washington hotel hours after the court's conference over the case. In attendance was, among others, Mitch McConnell, the Senate’s top Republican and an avowed opponent of the healthcare law.

The featured guests at the dinner? Scalia and Thomas.

It’s nothing new: The two justices have been attending Federalist Society events for years. And it’s nothing that runs afoul of ethics rules. In fact, justices are exempt from the Code of Conduct that governs the actions of lower federal judges.

If they were, they arguably fell under code’s Canon 4C, which states,A judge may attend fund-raising events of law-related and other organizations although the judge may not be a speaker, a guest of honor, or featured on the program of such an event.“

Nevertheless, the sheer proximity of Scalia and Thomas to two of the law firms in the case, as well as to a company with a massive financial interest, was enough to alarm ethics-in-government activists.



Scalia and Thomas have shown little regard for critics who say they too readily mix the business of the court with agenda-driven groups such as the Federalist Society. And Thomas’ wife, Ginni, is a high-profile conservative activist.

Moreover, conservatives argue that it’s Justice Elena Kagan who has an ethical issue, not Scalia and Thomas. Kagan served as solicitor general in the Obama administration when the first legal challenges to the law were brought at the trial court level. Her critics have pushed for Kagan to recuse herself from hearing the case, saying that she was too invested in defending the law then to be impartial now. Kagan has given no indication she will do so.

Wednesday, October 5, 2011

The Supreme Court is Back in Session.....
some, if not all of them

It will be exciting to see what new cases, including 'Obamacare'.  The Obama Administration seems confident of winning.........

To get our readers 'in the mood', here are two clips from the Colbert Report on Monday October 4, 2011.

From Comedy Central:
The Colbert ReportMon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Supreme Courting Season
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full EpisodesPolitical Humor & Satire BlogVideo Archive
I am disappointed that once again, it is a Minnesota Representative to Congress who is making an ass of herself with misinformation. But Colbert is both funny and informative, so make yourself some popcorn, or........a nine layer dip with veggies and chips......and cuddle up with someone you love in front of the computer. Enjoy!
The Colbert ReportMon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Supreme Courting Season - Jeffrey Toobin
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full EpisodesPolitical Humor & Satire BlogVideo Archive
What I find really fascinating is whether or not Kagan and Thomas will recuse themselves from participating in the decision.

Recusal will be a hot topic for a variety of reasons this session, as evidenced by this letter from Congresswoman Slaughter, D-NY and 19 of her colleagues:
PDF Print E-mail
Slaughter, 19 Colleagues, Call for Investigation into Justice Thomas's Non-Disclosure
Under Law, Judicial Conference Must Refer Issue to US Attorney General
WASHINGTON – Congresswoman Louise Slaughter, Ranking Member of the House Rules Committee, together with 19 Members of Congress, today sent a letter to the Judicial Conference, requesting that the Conference follow the law and refer the matter of Justice Clarence Thomas's non-compliance with the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 to the Department of Justice. Throughout his entire tenure on the Supreme Court, Justice Thomas has checked a box titled "none" on his annual financial disclosure forms, indicating that his wife had received no income, despite the fact that his wife had in fact earned nearly $700,000 from the Heritage Foundation from 2003-2007 alone.
Slaughter said, "To believe that Justice Thomas didn't know how to fill out a basic disclosure form is absurd. It is reasonable, in every sense of the word, to believe that a member of the highest court in the land should know how to properly disclose almost $700,000 worth of income. To not be able to do so is suspicious, and according to law, requires further investigation. To accept Justice Thomas's explanation without doing the required due diligence would be irresponsible."
Section 104(b) of the Ethics in Government Act requires the Judicial Conference to refer to the Attorney General of the United States any judge who the Conference "has reasonable cause to believe has willfully failed to file a report or has willfully falsified or willfully failed to file information required to be reported."
If the Judicial Conference finds reasonable cause to believe that Justice Thomas has "willfully falsified or willfully failed to file information to be reported," it must, pursuant to §104, refer the case to the Attorney General for further determination of possible criminal or civil legal sanctions.
Throughout his entire tenure on the Supreme Court, Justice Thomas checked a box titled "none" on his annual financial disclosure forms, indicating that his wife had received no income, despite the fact that his wife had in fact earned nearly $700,000 from the Heritage Foundation from 2003-2007 alone. The Heritage Foundation was a prominent opponent of the Affordable Care Act, an issue that is expected to be considered by the Supreme Court in the near future.
Slaughter said, "The Attorney General would be the appropriate person to investigate the issue of non-disclosure, and that is why my colleagues and I are making this request today. I cannot determine guilt or innocence, but I can request that the government do our due diligence in investigating a situation that strikes me, and many other Members of Congress, as suspicious."
The full text of the letter is below.
September 29, 2011
James C. Duff
Secretary to the Judicial Conference of the United States
Administrative Office of the United States Courts
Suite 2-301
One Columbus Circle, N.E.
Washington, DC 20544
Dear Mr. Duff:
Widespread reporting, including a recent report in The New York Times titled "Friendship of Justice and Magnate Puts Focus on Ethics," raise grave concerns about the failure of Justice Clarence Thomas to meet various disclosure requirements under the Ethics in Government Act of 1978. Based upon the multiple public reports, Justice Thomas's actions may constitute a willful failure to disclose, which would warrant a referral by the Judicial Conference to the Department of Justice, so that appropriate civil or criminal actions can be taken.
Due to the simplicity of the disclosure requirements, along with Justice Thomas's high level of legal training and experience, it is reasonable to infer that his failure to disclose his wife's income for two decades was willful, and the Judicial Conference has a non-discretionary duty to refer this case to the Department of Justice.
Throughout his entire tenure on the Supreme Court, Justice Thomas checked a box titled "none" on his annual financial disclosure forms, indicating that his wife had received no income, despite the fact that his wife had in fact earned nearly $700,000 from the Heritage Foundation from 2003-2007 alone.
Furthermore, an investigation conducted by The New York Times has revealed that Justice Thomas may have, on several occasions, benefited from use of a private yacht and airplane owned by Harlan Crow, and again failed to disclose this travel as a gift or travel reimbursement on his federal disclosure forms as required by the Ethics in Government Act of 1978.
Justice Thomas's failure to disclose his wife's income for his entire tenure on the federal bench and indications that he may have failed to file additional disclosure regarding his travels require the Judicial Conference to refer this matter to the Department of Justice.
Section 104(b) of the Ethics Act requires the Judicial Conference to refer to the Attorney General of the United States any judge who the Conference "has reasonable cause to believe has willfully failed to file a report or has willfully falsified or willfully failed to file information required to be reported." If the Judicial Conference finds reasonable cause to believe that Justice Thomas has "willfully falsified or willfully failed to file information to be reported," it must, pursuant to §104, refer the case to the Attorney General for further determination of possible criminal or civil legal sanctions.
Particularly as questions surrounding the integrity and fairness of the Supreme Court continue to grow, it is vital that the Judicial Conference actively pursue any suspicious actions by Supreme Court Justices. While we continue to advocate for the creation of binding ethical standards for the Supreme Court, it is important the Judicial Conference exercise its current powers to ensure that Supreme Court Justices are held accountable to the current law.
As a result, we respectfully request that the Judicial Conference follow the law and refer the matter of Justice Thomas's non-compliance with the Ethics in Government Act to the Department of Justice. We eagerly await your reply.
Sincerely,
Rep. Louise Slaughter
Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr
Rep. Gwen Moore
Rep. Mike Honda
Rep. Earl Blumenauer
Rep. Christopher Murphy
Rep. John Garamendi
Rep. Pete Stark
Rep. Raul Grijalva
Rep. John Olver
Rep. Jan Schakowsky
Rep. Donna Edwards
Rep. Jackie Speier
Rep. Paul Tonko
Rep. Bob Filner
Rep. Peter Welch
Rep. John Conyers
Rep. Keith Ellison
Rep. Anna Eshoo
Rep. Ed Perlmutter
Congresswoman Slaughter, who unlike Bachmann has been an effective legislator who actually shows up in Congress regularly,  was also interviewed about this letter on Countdown with Keith Olbermann:



and





So the next SCOTUS session as well as the hearing holding the Supreme Court Justices accountable to the law promise to be very exciting, and certainly different from previous years. 

See why you need that popcorn?  This promises to last longer than an epic movie, and will no doubt involve going round and round more than the chariot scene in Ben Hur.