Yelling At The TV

[jecarter4]

Jeb! makes HUGE foreign policy mistake

In an interview with Joe Scarborough & Mika Brzezinski that aired on Morning Joe, Jeb! Bush claims that Obama has "allowed Russia to create a military base in Syria, which they never had in the region." And "they now have the capability of projecting force from the Mediterranean."

Actually, Russia (and the Soviet Union before them) has had a military base in Syria since 1971. Even if Jeb! is only referring to more permanent, “long-term” military bases, the status of Russia’s Syria base was upgraded in 2008, in response to George W. Bush’s foreign policy and before Obama even won the election.

Additionally, the Soviet Union’s first base in the Mediterranean was established in Albania in 1958. The first major Soviet naval exercise in the Mediterranean was staged out of the Albania base in 1960. The USSR also had two bases in Egypt from 1968 to 1977. 

Information in the previous paragraph is from the RAND Corporation paper, The Soviet Presence In The Mediterranean, October 1987.

Actually, he's also wrong about when Sadat kicked the Soviet advisers out of Egypt. It was in 1972, before Egypt lost the Yom Kippur War. But screwing up that timeline isn’t nearly as big a mistake as the one above.

[jecarter4]

Planned Parenthood Shooter may have gone to high school in KY

Robert Lewis Dear, Jr

Mugshot

Westport High School (Louisville, KY) Class of 1976

Classmates profile

8th Grade photo from 1972 Westport Yearbook

The Westport Teen Parent Program is an alternative school near Westport High that seems to be just for teen mothers, so I don’t know what this MyLife profile is about... Also, he graduated in 1976 and isn’t Doogie Howser, so... he wasn’t born in 1969.

[jecarter4]

George H. W. Bush on Planned Parenthood

In 1973, George H. W. Bush wrote the foreword to Phyllis Tilson Piotrow’s World Population Crisis: The United States Response. In it, he speaks very highly of Planned Parenthood.

George HW Bush on Planned Parenthood by jecarter4

[jecarter4]

A Board Member of the Hate Group that Inspired the Charleston Shooting has Donated Almost $20,000 to the Arkansas GOP

The Council of Conservative Citizens' website was cited by Charleston Shooter Dylan Roof as his inspiration. CofCC board member John Casteel of Arkansas is a prolific political contributor. For example, Casteel, his family and businesses contributed $19,345 to the Arkansas Republican Party between October 2003 and February 2011. Records also show over $7500 in donations current office holder Congressman Rick Crawford (R-AR) as well as older donations to Mike Huckabee and Asa Hutchinson.

Click the link below for a full list of contributions.

CofCC Board Member John Casteel Political Contributions

[jecarter4]

For those who claim that the Confederacy wasn’t about slavery and racism… Part 2

Excerpts from a speech by Alexander H. Stephens, in Savannah, GA, on March 21, 1861, just one month after taking the oath to become the first Vice President of the Confederate States of America.

The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution -- African slavery as it exists amongst us -- the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the "storm came and the wind blew."

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery -- subordination to the superior race -- is his natural and normal condition. [Applause.] This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science. It has been so even amongst us. Many who hear me, perhaps, can recollect well, that this truth was not generally admitted, even within their day. The errors of the past generation still clung to many as late as twenty years ago. Those at the North, who still cling to these errors, with a zeal above knowledge, we justly denominate fanatics. All fanaticism springs from an aberration of the mind -- from a defect in reasoning. It is a species of insanity. One of the most striking characteristics of insanity, in many instances, is forming correct conclusions from fancied or erroneous premises; so with the anti-slavery fanatics; their conclusions are right if their premises were. They assume that the negro is equal, and hence conclude that he is entitled to equal privileges and rights with the white man. If their premises were correct, their conclusions would be logical and just -- but their premise being wrong, their whole argument fails. I recollect once of having heard a gentleman from one of the northern States, of great power and ability, announce in the House of Representatives, with imposing effect, that we of the South would be compelled, ultimately, to yield upon this subject of slavery, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics, as it was in physics or mechanics. That the principle would ultimately prevail. That we, in maintaining slavery as it exists with us, were warring against a principle, a principle founded in nature, the principle of the equality of men. The reply I made to him was, that upon his own grounds, we should, ultimately, succeed, and that he and his associates, in this crusade against our institutions, would ultimately fail. The truth announced, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics as it was in physics and mechanics, I admitted; but told him that it was he, and those acting with him, who were warring against a principle. They were attempting to make things equal which the Creator had made unequal. 

Read part 1 here

[jecarter4]

For those who claim that the Confederacy wasn’t about slavery and racism...

Excerpts from a speech delivered to the Georgia General Assembly by William L. Harris, Commissioner from Mississippi to the state of Georgia, on December 17, 1860. He had been sent to lobby Georgia to join Mississippi in secession from the United States.

They [the North] have demanded, and now demand, equality between the white and negro races, under our Constitution; equality in representation, equality in the right of suffrage, equality in the honors and emoluments of office, equality in the social circle, equality in the rights of matrimony. The cry has been, and now is, "that slavery must cease, or American liberty must perish," that "the success of Black Republicanism is the triumph of anti-slavery," "a revolution in the tendencies of the government that must be carried out."

...

Our fathers made this a government for the white man, rejecting the negro, as an ignorant, inferior, barbarian race, incapable of self-government, and not, therefore, entitled to be associated with the white man upon terms of civil, political, or social equality.

This new administration comes into power, under the solemn pledge to overturn and strike down this great feature of our Union, without which it would never have been formed, and to substitute in its stead their new theory of the universal equality of the black and white races.

...

Mississippi is firmly convinced that there is but one alternative:

This new union with Lincoln Black Republicans and free negroes, without slavery, or, slavery under our old constitutional bond of union, without Lincoln Black Republicans, or free negroes either, to molest us.

If we take the former, then submission to negro equality is our fate. if the latter, then secession is inevitable --- each State for itself and by itself, but with a view to the immediate formation of a Southern Confederacy, under our present Constitution, by such of the slave-holding States as shall agree in their conventions to unite with us.

...

Whatever may be the result of your deliberations, I beg to assure her from my intimate knowledge of the spirit and affections of our people, that no enemy to her constitutional rights, may consider his victory won, while a Mississippian lives to prolong the contest. Sink or swim, live or die, survive or perish, the part of Mississippi is chosen, she will never submit to the principles and policy of this Black Republican Administration.

She had rather see the last of her race, men, women and children, immolated in one common funeral pile [pyre], than see them subjected to the degradation of civil, political and social equality with the negro race.

Continued in Part 2...

[jecarter4]

Charleston shooting suspect Dylann Storm Roof with jacket patches and logo identified. Top left: Apartheid era South African flag. Bottom Left: Rhodesian flag. Right: Richland One Academic All-Stars logo. The logo is especially interesting because the designation is only given to high school seniors, and the Richland One school district only has records of Roof’s attendance through 9th grade.

[jecarter4]

Dennis Hastert as a Teacher and Wrestling Coach at Yorkville High School - Yearbook Photos

1966 New Teacher Profile

1966 Wrestling Team

1979 Faculty Profile

1979 Wrestling Team

1980 Faculty Photo

1980 Wrestling Team

[jecarter4]

Bill Clinton’s Moscow Speech in Context

There has been a lot of talk about the half a million dollars that Former President Bill Clinton recieved for a speech he gave in Moscow in 2010. The implication in much of the recent coverage of the speech is that the purpose of the payment to Bill Clinton was to influence Hillary Clinton’s actions regarding the State Department’s signing off on the sale of a company called Uranium One to a Russian conglomerate.

There are several problems with this theory, many of which are explained by Media Matters at the following link: http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/04/23/schweizers-anti-clinton-claims-start-falling-ap/203396

One thing that isn’t discussed in the link above is the speech itself. I will deal with that here.

First, the company that paid Bill Clinton for the speech is not one of the companies that was involved in the sale. The New York Times describes it this way: “a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.” The speech was at Renaissance Capital’s annual investors meeting. Renaissance Capital is basically Russia’s Goldman Sachs. The Uranium One stock that they were “promoting” is a miniscule portion of their total business.

Second, Renaissance Capital has had many speakers at their annual meetings over the years:

2006 - Former German Chancellor, Gerhard Schroeder & Former U.S. Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright

2007 - Former U.S. Secretary of State, Colin Powell

2008 - Former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Tony Blair &  Former U.S. Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger

2010 - Former U.S. President, Bill Clinton

When viewed in this context, the Clinton speech doesn’t even seem unusual, much less nefarious.

[jecarter4]

On Religious Freedom Bills and Discrimination

Supporters of so called “religious freedom” bills, whether in Arkansas, Georgia, or Indiana, all claim that the bills aren’t about discrimination. That is nonsense. In January 2009, the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty urged this type of legislation at the state level. From their Issue Brief

State level: State legislators should enact additional exemptions from anti-discrimination laws so that religious individuals and institutions are not forced to choose between following their consciences and following their government. In states where same-sex marriage or civil unions are permitted, legislators should take care to carve out religious exemptions when crafting those laws. In states where same-sex marriage is imposed by the judiciary, state legislators should act promptly to preempt burdens on religious exercise. Ideally these exemptions would be made part of the relevant state constitutions. Moreover, existing exemptions should be expanded to include religious individuals and “parachurch” organizations.

It seems, from the excerpt above, that before they had tightened up their messaging, they were describing these bills as “exemptions from anti-discrimination laws.” Maybe that explains Georgia State Senator Josh McKoon’s response to Representative Mike Jacobs’ anti-discrimination amendment at the meeting of the Judiciary Committee of the GA State House of Representatives on March 26, 2015.

Senator McKoon says anti-discrimination language would “negate the purpose of the bill.” If the purpose of the bill is to exempt people from anti-discrimination laws, then yes, I imagine it would.

[jecarter4]

Jon Meacham goes on Meet the Press to talk about Obama's remarks at the National Prayer Breakfast without reading them first

Two things the Meacham said about Obama's remarks made it obvious to me that he hadn't read the whole speech. These quotes are from the transcript.

"If you're going to start this debate, it's better not to do it with one or two sentences."

"The President I think to some extent missed an opportunity here. Because what you I think what you want to talk about is how does a civilization with dark impulses, because all civilizations are like that. We're all fallen, we're all sinful, how do we overcome those?"

First, the only thing that was "one or two sentences" is the part of the speech that the media has chosen to yank out of context.

Second, here is the paragraph of President Obama's remarks immediately before the one that gotten so much attention:

"So how do we, as people of faith, reconcile these realities -- the profound good, the strength, the tenacity, the compassion and love that can flow from all of our faiths, operating alongside those who seek to hijack religious for their own murderous ends?"

And the paragraph immediately after:

"So this is not unique to one group or one religion.  There is a tendency in us, a sinful tendency that can pervert and distort our faith.  In today’s world, when hate groups have their own Twitter accounts and bigotry can fester in hidden places in cyberspace, it can be even harder to counteract such intolerance. But God compels us to try.  And in this mission, I believe there are a few principles that can guide us, particularly those of us who profess to believe."

It's almost as if Obama was talking about exactly what Jon Meacham believes he missed an opportunity to talk about. Oh wait, he was.

I encourage everyone to read the remarks in their entirety. Don't be a Meacham.

[jecarter4]

Why were Gov Christie's office staff screening Ft Lee mayor's calls?

One of the emails from the massive bridge-gate document dump that I found particularly interesting has not gotten much attention thus far. It is an email from Christie aide Christina Genovese Renna to Christie's then Deputy Chief of Staff, Bridget Anne Kelly. In it, Renna describes a phone call that another Christie aide, Evan J Ridley, fielded from Ft. Lee's mayor, Mark Sokolich. 

The most interesting part of the email is the first paragraph, in which Renna explains why Ridley answered the phone, saying:

This afternoon, Evan received a call from Mayor Sokolich. It came from a number he was not familiar with that was actually a secretary who patched the Mayor through to Evan.

This paragraph leads me to believe that Renna felt she needed to justify Ridley's behavior (speaking to Mayor Sokolich). It also implies that Governor Christie's staff would have been "familiar" with Sokolich's number if he had called directly.

The last paragraph is also enlightening. According to Renna, Ridley told the mayor that "he was unaware that the toll lanes were closed." This was in the afternoon of September 12, the fourth day of the lane closures.

This seems to be evidence of widespread knowledge, in the Governor's office, of the issues surrounding the Ft. Lee traffic problems and the George Washington Bridge. Based on their salaries, Christina Renna and Evan Ridley don't hold high ranking positions in the office and probably wouldn't have been privy to much more than general information. I can't imagine them having more information than the Boss about anything.

The full email chain is below. Let me know if anyone has a better explanation.

Christie Staff Screening Calls From Fort Lee Mayor

[jecarter4]

Tom Delay in 1990 - Inviting Mandela to speak diminishes the honor of addressing Congress

ADDRESSING CONGRESS IS AN HONOR WHICH HAS BEEN DIMINISHED - HON. TOM DELAY (Extension of Remarks- June 26, 1990) HON. TOM DELAY in the House of Representatives

TUESDAY, JUNE 26, 1990

• Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I am saddened to learn that the Members of this body are diminishing the value of the honor of addressing the U.S. Congress. • Today, Mr. Nelson Mandela addressed a joint meeting of Congress. He is not a head of State nor has he been victorious in his struggle. This is unprecedented in the history of our Congress. What's more is that while all of us in Congress want to see an end to apartheid, I doubt that any of our Members would support the kind of governmentally oppressive society that Mr. Mandela would seek to impose. • Keep in mind that Mr. Mandela still actively supports Marxism. Keep in mind that Mr. Mandela still refuses to renounce violence and terrorism. Keep in mind that Mr. Mandela still publicly praises and admires tyrants and terrorists like Fidel Castro, Mu'ammar Qaddahi and Vasser Arafat. • In fact, Mr. Mandela recently stated that he supported the terrorists who in 1954 attempted to assassinate Members of Congress right here in the hallowed Chamber of the House of Representatives. He praised the terrorists at a rally in New York City and considered them to be comrades. • As recently as 1 month ago, Mr. Mandel a declared that Cuba 'stands head and shoulders above' the other nations of the world 'in its love for human rights and liberty.' • Fidel Castro is a tyrant and despot and Mr. Mandela's praise of him is greatly misplaced. It is precisely for this reason that five Cuban-American mayors in South Florida have denounced Mr. Mandela for refusing to condemn the human rights violations in Cuba. • The United States of America and the U.S. Congress have been a beacon of leadership for the principles of liberty, democracy, and human rights for more than 200 years. • Mr. Speaker, make no mistake, Nelson Mandela is no friend to liberty, democracy, or human rights. He is the deputy president of the African National Congress. Their support for liberty and freedom is feigned. The ANC has announced their own constitutional guidelines which call for democracy, the freedom to form political parties, and freedoms of association, thought, worship, and the press. • However, all of these rights are subject to the direct approval of the ANC which could ban any and all state or social institutions which do not 'take active steps to eradicate, speedily, the economic and social inequalities produced by racial discrimination.' Further, the ANC would reserve the right to ban any or all groups which the ANC believes is ethnically or regionally exclusive. • The ANC does not respect nor defend human rights. Our own Defense Department has appropriately labeled the ANC a terrorist organization. Nelson Mandela even admitted last April that it is a practice of the ANC to torture and execute its own members when they try to exercise freedom of thought and not obey the directives of the ANC. In fact, throughout Nelson Mandela's 27 years of imprisonment, Amnesty International never recognized him as a political prisoner because he was not jailed for his political viewpoints, but for his personal involvement in violent activities. • Mr. Speaker, by allowing Nelson Mandela to address the U.S. Congress without renouncing violence, terrorism, or tyranny we have done an extreme injustice to all of those persons who have come to address Congress before him. • I deeply regret the decision to invite Nelson Mandela to speak at a joint session and cannot participate under these circumstances.

From the Congressional Record

[jecarter4]

NBC News investigates Obamacare... poorly

NBC News has a scandalous headline up today: Obama administration knew millions could not keep their health insurance, with a story by Lisa Myers and Hannah Rappleye.

The article includes this paragraph:

Buried in Obamacare regulations from July 2010 is an estimate that because of normal turnover in the individual insurance market, “40 to 67 percent” of customers will not be able to keep their policy. And because many policies will have been changed since the key date, “the percentage of individual market policies losing grandfather status in a given year exceeds the 40 to 67 percent range.”  

While this is technically true, it doesn't have anything to do with the Affordable Care Act, and the article misses the point entirely, beginning with the very next sentence and continuing through the end of the piece and into the interviews the next day:

That means the administration knew that more than 40 to 67 percent of those in the individual market would not be able to keep their plans, even if they liked them.

Yet President Obama, who had promised in 2009, “if you like your health plan, you will be able to keep your health plan,” was still saying in 2012, “If [you] already have health insurance, you will keep your health insurance.”

So President Obama is a liar, right?

Wrong.

Page 17 of the regulations themselves makes this very clear:

Reliable data are scant, but a variety of studies indicate that between 40 percent and 67 percent of policies are in effect for less than one year. Although data on changes in benefit packages comparable to that for the group market is not readily available, the high turnover rates described here would dominate benefit changes as the chief source of changes in grandfather status. While a substantial fraction of individual policies are in force for less than one year, a small group of individuals maintain their policies over longer time periods. One study found that 17 percent of individuals maintained their policies for more than two years, while another found that nearly 30 percent maintained policies for more than three years.

Using these turnover estimates, a reasonable range for the percentage of individual policies that would terminate, and therefore relinquish their grandfather status, is 40 percent to 67 percent.  

So, the 40 to 67 percent are health care plans that would have ended whether or not Obamacare existed. Obamacare didn't cause the affected people to "lose" their coverage. Obamacare is providing those people a chance to get better plan. 

The NBC News report is misleading, if not outright false. Giving them the benefit of the doubt would require believing the reporters read the regulations, but didn't comprehend them.

[jecarter4]

Making sure my mom can still vote in Texas

By special guest blogger, my wife, Sally Carter

I really love talking politics with my Mom and Dad. They’re both what I would consider “moderate” politically (i.e., not crazy), with my Mom tending towards the left and my Dad pretty squarely on the right, and as someone who considers herself a firm progressive, I always find their opinions and points of view valuable.  I grew up in Texas, and while I don’t live there anymore (I am, at present, in the similarly frustrating political landscape of Georgia), my parents and a good-sized portion of my heart reside in the Lone Star state. And so at a family gathering/event this past weekend in the politically-neutral state of Minnesota, I was excited to have an opportunity to talk with them in person about some events that have been unfolding recently in Texas.

Me: “So have you been following the new voter ID thing?”

Mom: “I don’t think so, what new voter ID thing?”

(Dad quickens pace to slightly faster than wife and daughter, reaches plausible out-of-earshot distance)

 Me: “So you know how you have to have your driver’s license to vote now, photo ID?”

 Mom: “Yes…”

 Me: “So for some reason, a long time ago they made it the law in Texas that your driver’s license has to have your maiden name on it, even if it’s not legally part of your name anymore – is that how yours is?”

Mom: “Really? I’m not actually sure what mine says,”

Me: “Yeah, well your license probably has your maiden name on it like it’s your middle name, but the name on your voter’s registration has your real full name,”

(Dad slows pace, could be considered to be actively listening to conversation)

Mom: “So….?”

Me: “So they don’t match. The name on your ID doesn’t match the name they have on the roll,”

Mom: “Oh. Wait…”

Me: “So, fun new rule – you and every other married woman in Texas might have problems when they go to vote,”

(Dad makes skeptical face and noise, re-quickens pace)

Mom: “So what do I need to prove that those names are both me?”

Me: “Your marriage certificate. Not a copy.”

Mom: “I’m not bringing my marriage certificate. I’m not digging that out,”

Me: “Well, they might try to make you vote on a provisional ballot. A judge had problems when she went to vote last week,”

Mom: “I have to check and see how my name is on my voter’s registration,”

Me: “And this is all just in time for Wendy Davis and the election for governor,”

Mom: “But someone will challenge this right? It will go to court?”

Me: “I don’t know, the reason they get to do this is because the Supreme Court overturned part of the Voting Rights Act, remember just a few months ago?”

(At this point, most of the relevant information has been exchanged, and the rest of the discussion consists of me and my mom making appropriately disparaging remarks about Republican politicians in Texas. You get the idea.)

It turned out that my mother’s driver’s license did indeed have her maiden name on it, which did not match the name under which she was registered to vote. However, Texas elections administrators announced that if the names were “substantially similar” a woman would simply have to sign an affidavit and would then be allowed to vote – a regular ballot, not a provisional one.

My mom usually votes on Election Day (in this case, November 5). But today, the very first day my parents got back to Texas, my mom looked up the closest polling place for early voting and went down there so that she could take care of the name discrepancy and make sure that she was able to cast her ballot in time. As promised, she was allowed to vote after signing an affidavit. She was also permitted to change her name on the voter registration rolls so that it matched the name on her driver’s license.

Me: “So you had to show something as proof to change your name on the rolls, right? Did you take your marriage certificate after all?”

Mom: “Nope”

Wait, WHAT? What has all of this been about? If it isn’t really a problem that the names on the roll and the names on the IDs aren’t exactly the same, then why make everyone go through this affidavit business? Even if I pretend to agree that voter fraud is an actual problem in Texas, just how, precisely, does this reduce it?

One might conclude that this is simply adding an extra step (and time, and resources) to the voting process. And that this extra step mainly affects women. And that some women like my Mom will be expecting this extra step and make sure that they have enough time to take care of it, but many of them won’t. And whether they are expecting it or not, women like my Mom – who are white and live in nice, upper middle-class suburban neighborhoods – most likely won’t have a problem having their affidavits approved by the election officials. But hey, this year Texas is just voting on dull, constitutional amendments. One might conclude that we won’t really understand the effects of this rule until a more exciting, higher-turnout election is held – you know, like an election for governor.

[jecarter4]

GOP Rep Joe Barton's alternative to Obamacare: More people on Medicaid

October 17, 2013 - Congressman Joe Barton (R-TX), during an interview with Texas conservative talk radio host Mark Davis, offered an alternative to Obamacare.  People with pre-existing conditions and no insurance (who Barton admits would be helped by Obamacare), should instead be put on Medicaid.  Preparing for the walk-back in 5, 4, 3...

Listen to the full interview here

[jecarter4]

Congressman Mick "There is No Default" Mulvaney experienced at not paying bills

Congressman John Michael (Mick) Mulvaney (R-SC) has been one of the members of Congress aguing that not raising the debt ceiling wouldn't be that big of a deal. He has accused President Obama of lying about the serious consequences that would result if the US couldn't pay all of its bills. Mulvaney may be speaking from experience: He doesn't pay all of his bills, and it doesn't seem to have bothered him at all.

The Congressman's company, The Mulvaney Group Ltd, owes Mecklenburg County, NC at least $7,854.65 in back taxes. The oldest of the bills was due on September 1, 2008.

Mulvaney Group Ltd Taxes Due by jecarter4