Vyan

Thursday, February 4

Fox Denies GOP Crazies they Created

O'Reilly: Did you know most Republicans are Stupid or Evil?


Yes, actually I did know that. All you have to do is pay attention to know that. But Bill doesn't.



So apparently Bill O'Reilly and Karl Rove object to the Dkos/Research 2000 Poll which indicated that about 30% of the Republican Party think that Obama is a Socialist, Terrorist Sympathesizer who wasn't even born in America and should be Impeached. After heaping a ton of attacks on DKOS - ("they use foul language", "they're loons") - Billo then tries to get Rove to estimate how many on the Right really are as crazy as to believe half the shit Fox News has told them - "What is it 15%? 20%?"

So they *ARE* Crazy, it's just not as many of them as the DKOS Poll says, but don't do your own poll or anything just have Rove spit-ball it why don't cha?

But seriously, after 24/7 Coverage Like this what would you believe?



FOX News: "What else do we not know about Barack Obama?"

88% of Fox Viewers vote Republican, and the vast majority don't watch Any other news outlets because of their so-called "Liberal Bias" - which is to say they don't regularly put out GOP-Based Lies and Spin.

Like these:



Is it any wonder that you get thousands of people who are like this?



P.S. You say we're fouled mouthed Bill? - "FUCK YOU!"

Vyan

Wednesday, February 3

O'Keefe's Racial Animus: White Supremacy & Baked Goods

Long before he showed up at various ACORN Offices in a Pimp Suit (Although he never actually wore his Huggy Bear Outfit inside the buildings) James O'Keefe had a long history of racial pranks and advocacy - including attendence at a Button-down White Supremacist Conference so toxic - not even his employers the "Leadership Institute" wouldn't touch with a ten-foot dead fish.



(Note: Not the original photo - just a snarky photoshopped version)

Via Max Blumenthal at Salon (h/t Democratic Underground)

His right-wing admirers don't seem to mind that O’Keefe's short but storied career has been defined by a series of political stunts shot through with racial resentment. Now an activist organization that monitors hate groups has produced a photo of O'Keefe at a 2006 conference on "Race and Conservatism" that featured leading white nationalists. The photo, first published Jan. 30 on the website of the anti-racism group One Peoples Project shows O’Keefe at the gathering, which was so controversial even the ultra-right Leadership Institute, which employed O'Keefe at the time, withdrew its backing. But O'Keefe and fellow young conservative provocateur Marcus Epstein soldiered on to give anti-Semites, professional racists and proponents of Aryanism an opportunity to share their grievances and plans to make inroads in the GOP.


But here's the thing O'Keefe didn't just attend the Conference as a bystander who may have simply been curious but didn't necessarily agree with the most radical of the attendees there - O'Keefe was manning one of the tables and pushing Racist Literature to the other participants.

According to One Peoples Project founder Daryle Jenkins, O'Keefe was manning the literature table at the gathering that brought together anti-Semites, professional racists and proponents of Aryanism. OPP covered the event at the time, sending a freelance photographer to document the gathering. Jenkins told me the table was filled with tracts from the white supremacist right, including two pseudo-academic publications that have called blacks and Latinos genetically inferior to whites: American Renaissance and The Occidental Quarterly. The leading speaker was Jared Taylor, founder of the white nationalist group American Renaissance. "We can say for certain that James O'Keefe was at the 2006 meeting with Jared Taylor. He has absolutely no way of denying that," Jenkins said. O'Keefe's attorney did not respond to a request for comment on his client's role in the conference.


If you might still think this is merely a fluke, and not really a true representation of O'Keefe's heart and motives when he decided to attack ACORN, an organization than helps Black and poor people to vote and find affordable Housing, or go after Democratic Senator Mary Landrieu for using her leverage to bring more relief funds for Lousiana - a state that to this day continues to struggle under the burden of reconstruction after Hurricane katrina, then you have to look no further than some of the pranks that O'Keefe pulled prior to his Pimp and Ho Show.

O'Keefe's racial issues can be seen in many of his prior stunts, of course. The notorious ACORN videos highlighted images of himself dressed as a pimp, deceptively edited through hidden camera footage as he baited African-American office workers into making statements that could be perceived as incriminating. There were also lesser-known but equally inflammatory spectacles like the “affirmative action bake sale” O’Keefe and his conservative comrades held when they were students at Rutgers University. During the event, O’Keefe stood at a table in the center of campus offering baked goods at reduced prices to Latinos and African-Americans while whites were forced to pay exorbitant amounts. (Native Americans, he announced, would eat free.)

................

Meanwhile, O’Keefe lost his job at the Leadership Institute in 2008 for a prank call he made to an Ohio-based Planned Parenthood clinic. During the call, O’Keefe offered a donation to the clinic on the condition that it would be earmarked to pay for aborting African-American fetuses. “Because there's definitely way too many black people in Ohio,” O’Keefe remarked to the receptionist. “So, I'm just trying to do my part.”


Shades of Bill Bennett there I think.

Another example (provided via Comments) of O'Keefe pulling his "Tax Payers Clearing House" Scam on a Black Family, claming they've one a prize only to present them with a BILL for the Bailout (Which by the way- has mostly been Paid Back already)



(Note: After watching this video - I actually think it's pretty funny in a Michael Moore kind of way. If they did more of this they'd be onto something, but I would also point out - it's not journalism either)

Look one clearly Racial Stunt could simply be a slip - ala Bennet - two is a trend, but three and four in a row is a clear and obvious pattern of bigotry.

But it shouldn't be a surprise O'Keefe just might be one of the Insane 23% of Republicans and Conservatives who probably think the President is a Kenyan, Socialist, Muslim who was only elected because ACORN (who've only registered 2 Million Voters in thier entire history) somehow managed to give him a 10 Million Vote Victory.

O'Keefe is far from alone on the Wingnut fringe. They think they've been greivously wronged somehow. They want "Their America Back" - and their willing to do almost anything to get it back.

Even commit multiple Felonies, then Lie About it on National TV.

Here's a question Hannity should ask: How Long Have You been a racist Mr. O'Keefe? Has it been since birth, or did you only gradually begin to Hate non-Whites?



This may explain why "Jammed" suddenly equals "Broken" in his twisted little mind of douchebaggery.

Hannity: Did you have any electronic equipment that could be used to tap into the Senator's phones?

O'Keefe: We never even thought about interfere with phones, it never even occured to me. They slandered me, and jumped the gone on the story. It's journalism malpractice what they've done.

O'Keefe: I was trying to get to the truth of what these people think about their constituents.


"These People"? Hmm...

"Never thought about it" is an artful dodge. The Criminal Complaint against them, as I describe in a previous diary addresses the fact that they perpetrated a charade intended to give the impression that Landrieu's phones were inoperative and gain access to their phone closet - where certainly the charade would have continued. Those actions alone disrupted the operation of the phones Violating (18 USC 1362) and is itself the underlying Felony, not "Wiretaping". Nitwit.

Also Is he going to sue Fox News for "Slander" when their very first reaction to his arrest was this?



GAUGHAN: [It's a] very weird story that probably needs a lot of context and a lot of looking into, which is what we’re going to do here. I just wanted to get it on the record with it right now.

SHEP SMITH: So, they’re saying basically, they’re in there — It sounds as if what they’re saying is, they’re looking for some ACORN hanky panky and they try to tap into Mary Landrieu’s telephone to get it.

GAUGHAN: That could be one way of looking at it, yes


Somehow I doubt it. Besides since the AP and New York Post did it in print - it would be Libel, not Slander - Dipwad.

Vyan

Thursday, January 28

Alito on "Super Duper" Precedents

Justice Samuel Alito during his confirmation hearings describing the concept of "Stare Decisis" (Settled Law).



Strangely this idea that a precendent that has been reaffirmed in multiple decisions seems to have gone completely out-the-window when it to the ability of corporations to flood our electoral system with oceans of cash with the Citizen's United decision.

Vyan

Shuster Punks Breitbart over Phone-Gate

David Shuster vs Andrew Breitbart of BigGovernment.com - Round One, DING!



Ok, here's are my notes on this - Shuster showed class and integrity when admitting he overstated when he said that O'Keefe and Company had engaging in "Wiretaping". A charge I myself made via twitter and have no problem correcting the record. The facinating thing about Breibart is he can't even take that concession in good spirit and has to try and berate Shuster for it after he's repeatedly corrected the record.

2nd point, even though the Federal Complain didn't including a charge for "Wiretaping" - it's still a Felony Charge that carries up to ten years so Brietbart's attempt to minimize this into a "Non-crime" is patently ridiculous and highly telling.

Shuster then goes on the attack and asks why has Breibart and other Right-wing Neo-Journalists continued to accuse ACORN of being criminals when there's isn't even a criminal complaint filed? Breibart argues somehow that in his opinion there was a crime and the flaw is on the part of the Justice Dept that has "refused to investigate".

Except that there Was an investigation which found ACORN did nothing wrong.

While some of the advice and counsel given by ACORN employees and volunteers was clearly inappropriate and unprofessional, we did not find a pattern of intentional, illegal conduct by ACORN staff; in fact, there is no evidence that action, illegal or otherwise, was taken by any ACORN employee on behalf of the videographers. Instead, the videos represent the byproduct of ACORN's longstanding management weaknesses, including a lack of training, a lack of procedures, and a lack of on-site supervision.


The people at ACORN answered questions presented by O'Keefe and his associate. Their answers weren't illegal, but in fact, ACORN staff members actually called the police and filed at report against O'Keefe and Co because what they claimed they were doing or wanted to do - WAS Illegal.




Philadelphia ACORN Housing official: "[W]e called the police and filed this report." In a newly released YouTube video, Katherine Conway Russell, ACORN Housing Corp.'s Philadelphia office director, stated that O'Keefe visited the office "[l]ast July" with "another woman." Russell stated that "[a]fter asking several general questions, [O'Keefe] began to veer off into suspicious territory." Russell said that O'Keefe eventually "asked about bringing girls from El Salvador and getting them papers, et cetera," but that "I told them that there was nothing we could do to help them, that I didn't know anything about what they were asking about." Russell also said that after she contacted another ACORN official and it became clear that O'Keefe "lied to get his appointment," they contacted the police.




There was also a police report filed by ACORN's San Diego Office.

NATIONAL CITY, Calif. (AP) -- Police say an ACORN worker caught on video giving advice about human smuggling to a couple posing as a pimp and a prostitute had reported the incident to police.

National City police said Monday that Juan Carlos Vera contacted his cousin, a police detective, to get advice on what to with information on possible human smuggling.

Vera was secretly filmed on Aug. 18 as part of a young couple's high-profile expose.

Police say he contacted law enforcement two days later. The detective consulted another police official who served on a federal human smuggling task force, who said he needed more details.

The ACORN employee responded several days later and explained that the information he received was not true and he had been duped.


Giving bad advice isn't a crime - although it should be note that everyone who DID give bad advice was Fired - no matter how much Breitbart attempts to spin with Lies such as these via Media Matters.



Breitbart: "There's no place, as ACORN tried to state, that kicked them out based upon the premise that they were doing something nefarious." Following Giles' denial, Hannity turned to Breitbart and said, "Not one? Every place you went, they helped you or were willing to help you, either -- not report you for an underaged prostitution ring, evade taxes as we've -- ." Breitbart responded, "Right. The -- it is interesting. There's no place, as ACORN tried to state, that kicked them out based upon the premise that they were doing something nefarious."

O'Keefe: "None of the facilities kicked us out. That's a lie." During the September 13 edition of Fox News' America's News HQ, senior correspondent Eric Shawn asked O'Keefe, "ACORN says that you went to, what, five other places around the country where they kicked you out. ... [D]id you find ethical, honest ACORN employees in any of the places that you went to that kicked you out and said, 'No, we're not going to do this. We're not going to cooperate. We're not going to have ACORN help you'?" O'Keefe responded that the people at ACORN are "liars" and that he "[a]bsolutely" wanted an apology and later added: "[N]one of the facilities kicked us out. That's a lie."

During the same interview, Giles stated: "[A]bout the whole kicking out, I mean, the women in Baltimore hugged me and -- when I left. And the women in D.C. -- I did follow-up phone calls, and they asked if I could come and meet them for coffee so we could further discuss how to make this possible." Shawn then asked, "[Y]ou are saying that there were some that did refuse? James or Hannah?" Giles responded, "Not -- no."


Yet again they're engaging in a Olympic Semantics here, the Philadelphia ACORN Office refused to help them with thier child prostitution ring plot.

"I told them that there was nothing we could do to help them, that I didn't know anything about what they were asking about."

Since they couldn't get any help or any good footage - they left. It was afterward they discovered the O'Keefe lied to get the appointment and they subsequently called the police.

"Thrown Out" is a harsh word, but effectively that's what happened once the ACORN employees refused to help them anymore and had them depart. It's not like anyone claimed that tossed them out the front door - they made them LEAVE - the fact that they did it was some class should be commended, not condemned.

They may not have been "Kicked Out" of the Washington and New York ACORN offices, but neither did they bring up the subject of their "child prostitution ring".

Washington, D.C., office: Child prostitution not clearly discussed. At no point in the transcript of Giles and O'Keefe's visit to the Washington, D.C., ACORN office does either Giles or O'Keefe clearly state that they are planning to engage in child prostitution. Both Giles (Page 15) and O'Keefe (Page 9) say that the house will be used by "girls" -- who the ACORN employee refers to as "women of the night" -- and at one point, O'Keefe says (Page 13) that "10 El Salvadorians" will be working in the house, but at no point are the ages of the supposed prostitutes mentioned.

New York office: Child prostitution not clearly discussed: In the transcript of Giles and O'Keefe's visit to the New York ACORN office, they discuss underage girls that Giles wants to "protect" and separately discuss "girls" working in the house, but they do not indicate that the two groups are the same. O'Keefe says that Giles "is going to have this business in the house with a bunch of girls coming and doing these things, performing tricks and she is going to give me the money so that I can pay the mortgage" (Page 15) but does not say that those "girls" are underage. Much later, Giles states, "They should throw Sonny in jail, not me, he's the one who got me started. ... I mean he got a whole slew of which is why I also want a house. ... He's got all these 13, 14, 15 year old girls from El Salvador and that's what -- I need to protect them like I know what its like and I have to protect them and like give them somewhere to live" (Page 28). The videos posted on YouTube are nevertheless titled "ACORN NYC Child Prostitution Investigation."


These guys really can't keep their shit straight.

Besides Philadelphia one ACORN employee in Los Angeles also refused to help O'Keefe as soon as he started talking about underage children.

So that's two times the FAIL on the "No one refuse to help" us lie.

The ones who committed a crime, namely Fraud, were O'Keefe and Giles. They also broke the wiretap laws of Maryland and California according to the Congressional Research Service.

A December 22, 2009, report by the Congressional Research Service prepared for the House Judiciary Committee on "several issues" relating to ACORN and its affiliates stated that "[a] search of reports of federal agency inspectors general did not identify instances in which ACORN violated the terms of federal funding in the last five years." Addressing "the recent videotaping of ACORN workers and the distribution of conversations with ACORN workers without consent," the report stated that "the laws of Maryland and California appear to ban private recording of face to face conversations, absent the consent of all the participants."



Media Matter Broehlert also schooled Breitbart on this "Independant Contractor" thing...



They'd already been reported to the police twice, had investigations going against them in two states - but just couldn't QUIT, so now they're looking at doing ten to twenty in Federal Prison.

Brilliant.

Vyan

Wednesday, January 27

Stop Freaking Out: Obama Always Promised to Cut Deficit Spending

And addressing deficit spending is exactly what he's doing with the "Sending Freeze". Frankly based on what was described yesterday by Jared Bernstein on Rachel Maddow, it's not really a "freeze" if the Stimulus and other job generating elements of the budget are exempt.



Let's all recall the Obama originally pledged to cut the Federal Deficit in Half by the end of his first term.

Obama also promised to cut the federal budget deficit by more than half in his first term. That now appears unlikely, given the spending on the stimulus and the billions of dollars spent on bank and auto company bailouts. The 2009 federal budget deficit hit a record $1.42 trillion, and the red ink in the first two months of fiscal 2010 was nearly 6 percent higher than the same period in 2009.


So what he's supposed to be unveiling tomorrow is actually a considerable walk-back from his original goal. Plua what he's being criticized for - "Hooverism" - isn't what's happening.

Time and time again Bernstein explains that this is really about reseting priorities with some items cut and other items increased in a deficit neutral manner, with the exception of Economic Stimulus, Education, Homeland Security & Defense.

Here's his first try:

BERNSTEIN: Well, first of all, not in the middle, because we‘re talking about a freeze that would take effect in 2011.

But I think the important thing, Rachel, that your comments didn‘t get to is that we‘re not talking about an across-the-board freeze. That entitles this president to comb through the budget and find policies that help to create jobs and boost the middle class—like the policies we announced today which is what I was going to talk about anyway here—and to cut back on spending on the wasteful stuff, stuff that accumulates over the years that Congress has a very hard time pulling back on, that the lobbyists love. So, we‘re talking about boosting the spending that helps the middle-class pushing back on the special interests.

So, for example, today, we talked about a set of programs that will be in the State of the Union, that will be in this budget, the very budget we‘re talking about—programs that nearly double the child care tax credit for middle class families, cutting much higher into the middle class than the current policy, retirement security policies, policies that help students facing burdensome debt from college loans, policies that help with elder care. All of those are policies that can be boosted while this freeze is pulling back on some of the wasteful stuff that is nothing to do with jobs in the middle class.


Then he tried again....

BERNSTEIN: What I‘m saying is that, that is an aggregate freeze but it‘s not an across-the-board freeze.

Let me explain what I mean. If you have an across-the-board freeze, you say, OK, folks. Every agency, everything goes down by 3 percent, end of story. It‘s real simple.

That‘s not what this is. Some things will go down. Some things will go up. More things will go down than will go up. That‘s how you achieve some of the deficit savings.

Now, on the other—there‘s also a bunch of emergency spending that‘s outside of this freeze. The Recovery Act will continue to create employment. By the way, that‘s one of the other things I wanted to talk to you about because I know you get this.

The Recovery Act saved or created 2 million jobs so far, on track to create or save another 1.5 million before it‘s done. That‘s going to be in effect, of course, the rest of this year and in 2011 as well. This freeze won‘t affect that at all.

New jobs initiatives that the president will be outlining in the State of the Union—those will also be accommodated under this program.

So, we‘re going to really shift our focus here to stuff that works and

to help stabilize what is truly a long-term, unsustainable budget picture,

by squeezing stuff that doesn‘t help.


That's didn't work either... so he tried a third time.

MADDOW: I have to tell you, it sounds completely, completely insane.

BERNSTEIN: Two hundred and fifty billion over 10 years, but—by the way, I think it‘s wrong that we‘re not talking about additional programs to foster job growth.

The president, last month, talked about new jobs initiatives in areas of clean energy investment, building on some of the successes of the Recovery Act that you mentioned, but also considerable deep investments in clean energy, manufacturing for example, here in the United States, building the components of the new clean energy economy, education spending. The president talked about some favorable tax policies for small businesses. That‘s very much part of this targeted jobs agenda that you‘ll hear more about on Wednesday night and infrastructure spending—and, by the way, to that the president attached a number $50 billion.

So, we‘re talking about some serious investments in job growth to boost the middle class and I would again remind you about a set of announcements the president and vice president made today in the area of child care, elder care, student lending, retirement security, all part of new initiatives or expanded initiatives that you‘ll hear going forward—totally consistent with the freeze we‘re talking about.


The President is NOT going to be putting the brakes on job growth while attempted to implement a responsible budget.

I quoting so extensively because obviously Rachel wasn't listening, neither was Keith based on his program today which just completed.

Meanwhile Paul Krugman is freaking out. Robert Reich is freaking out - and somehow forgetting that when he was Secretary of Labor President Clinton cut the budget, cut deficit spending and reduced the overall Federal Workforce by an average of about 12% - and the Economy did pretty well during that time.

According to the tables current online at the OMB when President Obama came into office the Federal Budget Deficit was $1.8 Trillion, yet as of the start of this year the Budget Deficit for 2010 is - TADA - $1.2 Trillion which is a $600 Billion reduction.

The projection for 2011 is $900 Billion, and the 2012 projection is $575 Billion. That would be a more than a 50% reduction in the deficit over that time, pretty much what Obama said he was going to do. The primary reason for this deficit reduction isn't so much that President Obama has implemented a lot of spending cuts - the fact is that TARP, which alone was reason for about 30% of the huge 2009 deficit, has largely been Paid Back.

The government got $68 billion Wednesday from 10 financial firms eager to escape the curbs that came with taxpayer-funded capital infusions.

Repayment of the bailout cash J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Morgan Stanley and the other companies got under the Troubled Asset Relief Program essentially leaves them on their own to wrestle with the recession and financial crisis. Some firms said they plan to immediately start the tricky task of negotiating to repurchase warrants that the government received in return for the infusions.


Also the end of 2010 is when the Bush Tax Cuts Finally Expire injecting a huge amount of cash back into the Federal System and putting us back on track to the Balance Budget we had when Bush first came into Office.

Let's also recall that Obama still has about $300 Billion of TARP funds still under his belt which he can put forward toward direct SBA Loans, as well as Small and Community Banks to help small Business grow and hire more people. And not nearly all of the Stimulus has been spent yet - so it's not like the White House is putting on the spending breaks, their simply reseting their priorities.

It's not an issue of Big Government Vs Small Government, it's Dumb Government vs Smart Government.

So calm down.

Vyan

Saturday, January 23

The Twisted Path Forward on Health Care

Listening here to Anthony Weiner on Hardball, who a few months ago was frothing at the mouth about Insurance Companies and the need for Medicare-For-All now talking about scaling down the plan to something more manageable is truly amazing.



In the later portion of this video Matthews and Rep. Alan Grayson go toe-to-toe over the issue of whether or not Reconcilliation can or can't be used to pass Health Care.

Ultimately I actually think they're both right.

The Senate Parliamentarian is the one who determines whether or not something fits within the Budget Reconciliation Rules or not. In the past not only have they passed tax cuts via Reconciliation, they also funded the Iraq War and expanded SCHIP using that process.

These are the rules for Reconciliation.


Reconciliation generally involves legislation that changes the budget deficit (or conceivably, the surplus). The "Byrd Rule" (2 U.S.C. § 644, named after Democratic Senator Robert Byrd) was adopted in 1985 and amended in 1990 to outline which provisions reconciliation can and cannot be used for. The Byrd Rule defines a provision to be "extraneous" (and therefore ineligible for reconciliation) in six cases:

1. if it does not produce a change in outlays or revenues;
2. if it produces an outlay increase or revenue decrease when the instructed committee is not in compliance with its instructions;
3. if it is outside the jurisdiction of the committee that submitted the title or provision for inclusion in the reconciliation measure;
4. if it produces a change in outlays or revenues which is merely incidental to the non-budgetary components of the provision;
5. if it would increase the deficit for a fiscal year beyond those covered by the reconciliation measure, though the provisions in question may receive an exception if they in total in a Title of the measure net to a reduction in the deficit; and
6. if it recommends changes in Social Security.

Any Senator may raise a procedural objection to a provision believed to be extraneous, which will then be ruled on by the presiding Senator. A vote of 60 Senators is required to overturn the ruling.


I still don't believe that Insurance rule changes such as the banning of pre-existing conditions, the limiting of life-time cash outlays and recisions probably can be done via Budget Reconcilliation. But one thing they can do is remove the Excise Tax, a program already exists, it can be expanded or contracted via Budget Reconciliation - but the program has to EXIST first. Creating an Insurance Exchange with or without a Public Option via Reconciliation is doubtful.

In the end though, this decision and distinction is for the Senate Parliamentarian.

There is also the possibility that Pelosi's announcement that the Senate Bill won't pass the House without changes may have been a head-fake. Via Alternet.

"In every meeting that we have had, there would be nothing to give me any thought that that bill could pass right now the way that it is," Pelosi said yesterday, "There isn't a market right now for proceeding with the full bill unless some big changes are made."

Now, maybe Pelosi doesn't have the votes right now, but such is the life of the Speaker of the House. Just because she doesn't have the votes in hand doesn't necessarily mean she can't get them.

If Pelosi does have the votes right now, she'd be a fool to say so. In the wake of Martha Coakley's defeat, all eyes are on the House. If health care reform is to survive, the House will have to pass the Senate bill "as is." But that wouldn't necessarily be the end of the story. The Senate could still fix some stuff the House doesn't like through budget reconciliation. In theory, it could even put the public option back.

Pelosi would be foolish announce that the House could pass the Senate bill right off the bat.


So what I think will probably happen is that the House and Senate will first come up with a modified version of the Combined House/Senate Bill which will go down in flames in the House and get buried in the Senate,

This will take a few weeks to play out, then comes the hard-knuckle deal making...

House members who hate the Senate Bill may be offered a deal to support it in exchange for a series of Amendments fixing it attached to the Budget Reconcilliation Bill. As Rep Grayson alludes - this deal might already be in the works it's just a matter of working out some of the details. Since the Senate has already passed a Bill, getting the bill through the House and then immediately amending it via Reconciliation is a mean and dirty way of getting Health Care done - but it can GET DONE.

Then we just have to start trying to fix our financial system.

Vyan

Friday, January 22

The End of Our Democracy



OLBERMANN: Finally tonight, as promised, a special comment on the Supreme Court‘s ruling today in the case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.

On the cold morning of Friday, March 6th, 1857, a very old man who was born just eight months and 13 days after the Declaration of Independence was adopted, a man who was married to the sister of the man who wrote “The Star Spangled Banner,” a man who was enlightened enough to have freed his own slaves and given pensions to the ones who had become too old to work, read aloud, in a reed-thin voice from a very long, handwritten document.

In it, he ruled on a legal case involving a slave brought by his owner to live in a free state yet to remain a slave. The slave sought his freedom and sued. And looking back over legal precedent and the Constitution, and the America in which it was created, this judge ruled that no black man could ever be considered an actual citizen of the United States. “They had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order and all together unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations. And so far unfit that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect.”

The case of course was Dred Scott. The old man was the fifth chief justice of the United States of America, Roger Brooke Taney. The outcome, he believed, would be to remove the burning question of abolition of slavery from the political arena once and for all. The outcome, in fact, was the Civil War.

No American ever made a single bigger misjudgment. No American ever carried the responsibility for the deaths and suffering of more Americans on his shoulders. No American was ever more quickly vilified.

Within four years, Chief Justice Taney‘s rulings were being ignored in the south and the north. Within five, President Lincoln at minimum contemplated arresting him. Within seven, he died in poverty while still chief justice. Within eight, Congress had voted to not place a bust of him alongside those of the other former chief justices.

But good news tonight, Roger B. Taney is off the hook. Today, the Supreme Court of Chief Justice John Roberts, in a decision that might actually have more dire implications than Dred Scott v. Sanford, declared that because of the alchemy of its 19th century predecessors in deciding that corporations had all the rights of people, any restrictions on how these corporate beings spend their money on political advertising are unconstitutional.

In short, the First Amendment, free speech for persons, which went into effect in 1791, applies to corporations, which were not recognized as the equivalents of persons until 1886. In short, there are now no checks on the ability of corporations or unions or other giant aggregations of power to decide our elections. None.

They can spend all the money they want. And if they can spend all the money they want, sooner rather than later, they will implant the legislators of their choice in every office from president to head of the visiting nurse service. And if senators and congressmen and governors and mayors and councilmen and everyone in between are entirely beholden to the corporations for election and reelection to office, soon they will erase whatever checks there might still exist to just slow down the ability of corporations to decide the laws.

It is almost literally true that any political science fiction nightmare you can now dream up, no matter whether you are conservative or a liberal, it is now legal. Because the people who can make it legal can now be entirely bought and sold. No actual citizens required in the campaign fund raising process. And the entirely bought and sold politicians can change any laws. And any legal defense you can structure now can be undone by the politicians who will be bought and sold into office this November, or two years from now. And any legal defense which honest politicians can somehow wedge up against them this November or two years from now, that can be undone by the next even larger set of politicians who will be bought and sold into office in 2014 or 2016 or 2018.

Mentioning Lincoln‘s supposed ruminations about arresting Roger B. Taney, he didn‘t say the original of this, but what the hell. Right now you can prostitute all of the politicians some of the time, and prostitute some of the politicians all of the time, but you cannot prostitute all of the politicians all the time.

Thanks to Chief Justice Roberts, this will now change. Unless this near mortal blow is somehow undone, within ten years, every politician in this country will be a prostitute.

And now let‘s contemplate what the perfectly symmetrical money-driven world of that order might look like. Be prepared first for laws criminalizing or at least neutering unions. In today‘s court decision, they are the weaker of the non-human sisters unfettered by the court. So, as in ancient Rome or medieval England, they will necessarily be strangled by the stronger sibling, the corporations, so that they pose no further threat to the corporations‘ total control of our political system.

Be prepared then for the reduction of taxes for the wealthy, and for the corporations, and the elimination of the social safety nets for everybody else, because money spent on the poor means less money left for the corporations.

Be prepared then for wars sold as the new products, which Andy Card once described them as, year after year, as if they were new Fox reality shows, because military industrial complex corporations are still corporations.

Be prepared then for the ban on same sex marriage and on abortion and on evolution being taught and on separation of church and state. The most politically agitated group of citizens left are the evangelicals. Throw them some red meat to feed their holier than thou rationalizations and they won‘t care what else you do to this corporate nation.

Be prepared then for racial and religious profiling, because you have to blame somebody for all the reductions in spending and civil liberties, just to make sure the agitators against the United corporate States of America are kept unheard.

Be prepared for those poor, dumb, manipulated bastards, the Tea Partiers, to have a glorious few years as the front men, as the corporations that bank roll them slowly unroll their total control of our political system. And then be prepared to watch them be banished, maybe outlawed, when a few of the brighter ones suddenly realize that the corporations have made them merely the Judas Goats of American freedom.

Be prepared then for the bank reforms that President Obama has just this day vowed to enable to be rolled back by his successor, purchased by the banks, with the money President Bush gave them, his successor, presumably President Palin, because if you need a friendly face of fascism, you might as well get one that can wink. And if you need a tool of whichever large industries buy her first, you might as well get somebody who lives up to that word “tool.”

Be prepared for the little changes, too. If there are any small towns left to take over, Wal-Mart can now soften them up with carpet advertising for their Wal-Mart town council candidates brought to you by Wal-Mart.

Be prepared for the Richard Mellon Scaifes to drop such inefficiencies as vanity newspapers and simply buy and install their own city governments in the Pittsburghs.

Be prepared for the personally wealthy men like John Kerry to become the paupers of the Senate, or the ones like Mike Bloomberg not even surviving the primary against Halliburton‘s choice for mayor of New York City.

Be prepared for the end of what you‘re watching now. I don‘t just mean me or this program or this network. I mean all the independent news organizations and the propagandists like Fox, for that matter, because Fox inflames people against the state. And after today‘s ruling, the corporations will only need a few more years of inflaming people before the message suddenly shifts to everything‘s great.

Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh don‘t even realize it. Today, John Roberts just cut their throats, too. So with critics silenced and bought off and even the town assessor who lives next door to you elected to office with campaign funds 99.9 percent drawn from corporations coffers, what are you going to do about it? The Internet.

The Internet. Ask them about the Internet in China. Kiss net neutrality good-bye. Kiss whatever right to privacy on the net you think you currently have good-bye. And anyway, what are you going to complain about if you don‘t even know it happened?

In the new world unveiled this morning by John Roberts, who stops Rupert Murdoch from buying the Associated Press? This decision, which in mythology would rank somewhere between the bottomless pit and the opening of Pandora‘s Box, got next to no coverage in the right wing media today. Almost nothing in the middle and a lot less than necessary on the left.

The right wing won‘t even tell their constituents that they are being sold into bondage alongside the rest of us. Why should they? For them, the start of this will be wonderful. The Republicans, the conservatives, the Joe Liebermans, the Tea Partiers are in the front aisle at the political prostitution store. They are especially discounted old favorites for their corporate masters. Like the first years of irreversible climate change, for the conservatives, the previously cold winter will grow delightfully warm.

Only later will it be hot, then unbearable, then flames. Then the conservatives will burn with the rest of us and never know what happened.

What are you going to do about it? Turn to free speech advocates? These were the free speech advocates. The lawyer for that homunculus, one who filed this suit, David Bossie—the lawyer is Floyd Abrahams, Floyd Abrahams, who has spent his life defending American freedoms, especially freedom of speech. Apparently, his life was spent this way to guarantee that when it really counted he could help the corporations destroy free speech.

His argument, translated from self-satisfied legal jargon, is that as a function of the first amendment, you must allow for the raping and pillaging of the first amendment by people who can buy the first amendment. He will go down in the history books as the quisling of freedom of speech in this country. That is if the corporations who now buy the school boards which decide which history books get printed approve, if there are still history books.

So what are you going to do about it? Russ Feingold told me today there might yet be ways to work around this, to restrict corporate governance and how corporations make and spend their money. I pointed out that any such legislation, even if it somehow sneaked past this the last US Senate not funded by a generous gift from the chub group, would eventually wind up in front of a Supreme Court, and whether or not John Roberts was still at its head would be irrelevant. The next nine men and women on the Supreme Court will get there not because of their judgment nor even their politics. They will get there because they were appointed by purchased presidents and confirmed by purchased senators.

This is what John Roberts did today. This is a Supreme Court sanctioned murder of what little actual democracy is left in this democracy. It is government of the people, by the corporations, for the corporations. It is the dark ages. It is our Dred Scott.

I would suggest a revolution, but a revolution against the corporations? The corporations that make all the guns and the bullets?

Maybe it won‘t be this bad. Maybe the corporations, legally defined as human beings but without the pesky occasional human attributes of compassion and conscience, maybe when handed the only keys to the electoral machine, they will simply not redesign America in their own corporate image.

Let me leave you with this final question: after today, who is going to stop them? Good night and good luck.

Thursday, January 21

How Conservatievs Makes Abortions Worse

Although the Conservative like to call themselves the "Party of Life" - the real facts when looked at in cold objective terms shows that they are anything but "Pro-life". Their policies of abstinence-only education which mandates that students by lied too about the effectiveness of condoms and other methods of birth-control.

According to the CDC Abortion Surveillance the actual rate of Abortions in America was virtually flat-lined during the Bush Era and Republican Control of Congress, and in the 2006 begin to increase.



The importance of this doesn't come into full relief until you see how this contrasts with what was going on just prior to it, specifically what happened between 1992-1995 while Bill Clinton was in office just before the Gingrich Congress rose to power.



Bill Clinton spearheaded initiatives focused on comprehensive - and Accurate - sex education, until he was pushed into promoting abstinence-only programs by the Gingrich Congress.

Abstinence-only programs encourage participants, typically teens, to abstain from sex and don't discuss contraception, except to point out its failings. The program got its start in the 1996 welfare-overhaul law and was later expanded by the Republican-controlled Congress.

But many say the programs haven't been proved effective. A 2007 federally funded study by Mathematica Policy Research, a nonpartisan group, found that participants in four programs had just as many sexual partners and those who did not participate and had sex at the same median age as non-participants.


Other studies have shown that 85% of teens who signed up for abstinence-only "Plegde" programs to refrain from pre-marital sex break that pledge within 18 months.

"But if you’ve got kids who’re saying, 'I’m going to abstain. I’m not gonna have sex.' So they’re not going to get pregnant. They’re not going to have a sexually transmitted disease. Isn’t that improving public health?" asks Bradley.

"Well, it would if they didn’t have sex," says Bearman. "But they do eventually have sex, and then they have unprotected sex, and that doesn’t protect you."

Based on those interviews with more than 20,000 young people who took virginity pledges, Bearman found that 88 percent of them broke their pledge and had sex before marriage.


What's worse is that in the meantime those same programs have told these kids that "condoms don't work" because they are only 98% Effective when used properly, and just 88% effective when misused. So not only are these teen still having sex, since they're been misled they're having unprotected sex - ala Bristol Palin.


"The downside is that, when they have sex, pledgers are one-third less likely to use condoms at first sex," says Bearman. "So all of the benefit of the delay in terms of pregnancy-risk and in terms of STD acquisition -- poof -- it just disappears because they’re so much less likely to use a condom at first sex."

Why do they not use condoms?

"They’ve been taught that condoms don’t work; they’re fearful of them. They don’t know how to use them," says Bearman. "Their peers don’t use them. They have no experience with them. They don’t know how to get them. They’re hard to get access to. For whatever reason they don’t use them, that has long-term consequences."



Other studies show that comprehensive sex education is far more effective than abstinence only programs.

Stoking the fire, a study published in the April edition of the Journal of Adolescent Health found that those who received comprehensive sex education were 50 percent less likely to become pregnant than those who received abstinence-only education. The study also found that those who received comprehensive sex education were 60 percent less likely to become pregnant than those who received no sex education at all.

"I do think that there's strong evidence that comprehensive sex education is more effective at preventing teen pregnancies," said Pamela Kohler, lead author of the study and program manager at the University of Washington's Center for AIDS and STD. "I think we pretty much debunked the myth that comprehensive sex education causes teenagers to have sex."

President Obama has restored funding for fully compreshensive Sex Education in, but whether the damage done by the wrong-headed ideas of Conservatives can be undone and the downward curve on the number of unwanted and unplanned pregnancies leading to abortions remains to be seen.

Vyan