Tuesday, April 29, 2014
Friday, April 25, 2014
Randi Rhodes Homework for April 25th 2014
| Just The Facts - Hate, Racism, & The Right In America | |
 |
GOP Sets Small Goals For Black Voter Outreach In 2014 Just The Stats: The Economics And Demographics Of The African American Middle Class Just The Stats: Black Home Ownership Just The Stats: African Americans & Crime Just The Stats: Black Owned Businesses Today Just The Stats: Black Politics & Party Affiliation |
| Photo Credits: SAUL LOEB/AFP/Getty Images | |
Thursday, April 24, 2014
Turn on the Lights! vis Randi Rhodes
Among other gems, Bundy asked if black people are "better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things." Well one thing is for sure—people like Cliven Bundy would be happier if they were slaves. Bundy wonders "…are they better off under government subsidy? They didn’t get no more freedom. They got less freedom." Maybe these "Negroes" should take lessons from you Mr. Bundy on how to properly take advantage of "government subsidy." They should be out there grazing cattle on government land for free! Clive Bundy is a great one to talk about people taking advantage of government subsidies. Bundy took advantage of free cattle grazing — that’s a government subsidy that doesn’t even exist!
Predictably now, a lot of Republicans are trying to back away from their earlier support of Cliven Bundy. They really shouldn't be runing away from him. What Cliven Bundy said is what many of them really believe on the right. Bundy was essentially expressing the same sentiment that Chief Justice John Roberts did in the ruling on affirmative action. It’s just that John Roberts is a lot more eloquent.
Speaking of the Court, conservative media is still trying to spin the Supreme Court decision on affirmative action as a blow against "reverse racism." And you need spin to do that, since it’s the reverse of the truth. The National Review Online called the decision "a resounding win for the good guys." That’s true enough, for people who think "good" is synonymous with "white." In the old westerns, the "good guys" were the guys in the white hats. In today’s conservative code words, the "good guys" are the guys in the white skin.
Yes, America − welcome to fascism. You've made it! Look - these kinds of people have always been around. In the highly successful 90s, when people were growing up, or finally taking their first serious steps into adulthood by doing things like buying houses and getting serious jobs, millions of Americans walked away from politics. We all turned out the light, we stopped paying attention, we stopped being informed, and we walked away. The problem with doing that is that people like Bundy - and those that use the Bundys of the world, like Hannity & Limbaugh do - are like cockroaches. When you turn out the light, they come crawling out. And their kind, like roaches, will never completely die off. So your job, as an American, is simple:
Keep the lights on. That's all.
Call the show today at 866-87-RANDI (866-877-2634)
Randi’s blog
Today’s Randi Rhodes Homework
Randi’s message board
Randi’s comedy bit archive
Randi’s daily blog archive
Randi on Facebook & Twitter
Even as Stephen Colbert begins getting ready to take over for David Letterman, and Randi begins to move on to her next adventure, we have to admit - Stephen has been good a LOT over the years. For example, in June of 2008, when Stephen and his team noticed that Sean Hannity, well... says something about America an awful lot.
Read more: http://www.randirhodes.com/articles/daily-blog-380723/on-todays-show-thu-apr-24-12287417#ixzz2zrnZry60
Wednesday, April 23, 2014
April 23rd 2014 Homework via Randi Rhodes
Monday, April 21, 2014
New Hopes - Old Fears: Via Randi Rhodes
Meanwhile, Senator Harry Reid is standing by his description of Cliven Bundy's militia supporters as "domestic terrorists." Hey, if the camouflage outfit and extended gun clip fit? On a local Nevada TV show, Reid repeated the "domestic terrorist" accusation, calling the militia members "domestic violent terrorist wannabes." I like the addition of the word "wannabes." Let's hope they stay being only "wannabes."
In case you missed it, President Obama announced last week that the enrollment numbers for Obamacare have now passed 8 million. Not only is Obamacare not a "train wreck" — it’s a train that’s running ahead of schedule. The Obamacare enrollments include enough healthy young adults to make the system function smoothly. It turns out that young people aren’t easily scared away by an evil plastic-faced Uncle Sam performing gynecological exams.
And speaking of people who aren't scared? How about the city of Boston coming out today to support the Marathon runners - including the men's division winner, Meb Keflezighi! Now there's a guy who works hard, does what he has to, pays his dues, and earns his reward. He's even a former U.S. Olympic silver medal winner. Nothing is more American than that! Of course, don't tell Cliven Bundy and his gun-toting cowards that Keflezighi is also an immigrant and a naturalized citizen.
You do that, and the renegade ranchers might win the medal for craziest Americans yet.
Call the show today at 866-87-RANDI (866-877-2634)
Randi’s blog
Today’s Randi Rhodes Homework
Randi’s message board
Randi’s comedy bit archive
Randi’s daily blog archive
Randi on Facebook & Twitter
Meb Keflezighi is the first American winner of the Boston Marathon since 1983 -and no matter what folks like the insurrectionists like Bundy or the Boston Bombers do or, no one can take that away from him AND us. Want to fight the crazies on the right? Own America, take action - and we can win, like Meb.
Read more: http://www.randirhodes.com/articles/daily-blog-380723/on-todays-show-mon-apr-21-12274145#ixzz2zZLgLqft
Friday, April 18, 2014
I will NEVER understand 'Age-ism' - Kim Nokak
I will NEVER understand 'Age-ism' - Damned if you do....Damned if you
don`t....I think she looked BEAUTIFUL no matter what - Age is a
Privileged - what do you want older people to do.....die? go away? Fuck
Off - we will grow old and act, dress and look the way WE WANT TO - We
EARNED it Fuck Heads!! We exist and we will be visible and we will be
enjoying our lives - so all you haters - just know that we rocked it
waaay before you and will always rock harder than you ever will!!!!
https://movies.yahoo.com/news/kim-novak-speaks-against-oscar-night-bullies-000542620.html
Novak's Oscar night speech, which some observers characterized as halting, was the result of a pill she had taken to relax and a three-day fast, she said in her letter.
It was a commitment to appear at the TCM Film Festival last week that changed her mind about going public with her concerns. Novak, an artist with an upcoming exhibit at the Butler Institute of American Art in Ohio, also showed one of her works, a "Vertigo"-related painting, at the festival.
She was well received during her initial appearance but felt she had to "take the bull by the horns" and deal openly with the treatment of her and Minnelli, she said. Turner Classic Movies host Robert Osborne agreed to discuss it during an interview that preceded a festival screening Saturday of her film "Bell, Book and Candle."
https://movies.yahoo.com/news/kim-novak-speaks-against-oscar-night-bullies-000542620.html
LOS ANGELES (AP) — Kim Novak says
that cruel jabs about how she looked during the Oscar ceremony amounted
to bullying that left her crushed at first, but then determined to
speak out in protest.
"It
really did throw me into a tailspin and it hit me hard," Novak, 81, said
in a telephone interview Thursday, after she released an open letter
condemning remarks by Donald Trump and others about her appearance.
In
her letter, Novak said: "I will no longer hold myself back from
speaking out against bullies. We can't let people get away with
affecting our lives."
She had
initially remained silent after serving as a presenter with Matthew
McConaughey at the March 2 Academy Awards because the comments were so
painful, Novak said from her home near the Rogue River in Oregon.
"For days, I didn't leave the house, and it got to me like it gets kids and teenagers" who are attacked, she said.
Trump
tweeted during the Oscars that Novak should "sue her plastic surgeon,"
while others noted how unnaturally smooth-faced the veteran star of
"Vertigo" and other classic films looked — even though actresses are
pressured to look forever young.
"I'm not going to deny that I had fat injections in my face.
They seemed far less invasive than a face lift," Novak wrote in her
letter, adding, "In my opinion, a person has a right to look as good as
they can, and I feel better when I look better."
Novak's Oscar night speech, which some observers characterized as halting, was the result of a pill she had taken to relax and a three-day fast, she said in her letter.
Novak wasn't
the only older actress targeted at the Oscars. She was disturbed, she
said, when ceremony host Ellen DeGeneres singled out audience member
Liza Minnelli, 68, and pretended to mistake her for a male impersonator.
"Good job, sir," DeGeneres said.
Novak
said she retains dark memories of her years as a young actress in
Hollywood, when she suffered from untreated bipolar disorder and was
acutely sensitive to the industry's casual snideness and harsh reviews
of her lesser films.
But the
Oscar sniping took her aback, Novak said, because she had been given
such a gracious welcome during a visit last year to Cannes, France, and
gets warm notes from fans.
"I
thought, 'Perhaps Hollywood is ready to receive me in a different way.' I
was just not prepared for such a negative reaction and it just caught
me off guard," she said.
Comments spread fast and far online, she said, and people don't
realize you're listening. "It goes over in such a public way now," she
said.
It was a commitment to appear at the TCM Film Festival last week that changed her mind about going public with her concerns. Novak, an artist with an upcoming exhibit at the Butler Institute of American Art in Ohio, also showed one of her works, a "Vertigo"-related painting, at the festival.
She was well received during her initial appearance but felt she had to "take the bull by the horns" and deal openly with the treatment of her and Minnelli, she said. Turner Classic Movies host Robert Osborne agreed to discuss it during an interview that preceded a festival screening Saturday of her film "Bell, Book and Candle."
Novak, who said she
takes medication for her disorder, decided afterward that she wanted to
spread her message more widely and asked her longtime manager, Sue
Cameron, to release the letter.
"I
realized that I had to stand up not only for myself but for other
people that don't have the courage to do so," Novak said. "I feel like I
have a mission."
___
Online:
http://www.kimnovakartist.com
Thursday, April 17, 2014
America Under Oligarchy via Randi Rhodes
A writer at the conservative National Review magazine compared Bundy to Gandhi. That's a stretch. Gandhi spoke several languages fluently. Cliven Bundy doesn't speak any language fluently. Also, do you remember Gandhi's militia, walking through the streets of New Delhi, strapped with AK-47s, pushing the government around? Of course you don't - because Gandhi didn't have a militia.
Insane former sheriff Richard Mack is trying to backpedal on his remarks about putting all the women up front in case there was shooting in the Bundy cattle standoff. Right. You can't backpedal after you've gone off of a cliff. Mack had said they were "strategizing to put all the women up at the front." Finally — we have a conservative who is willing to acknowledge that women have some value. Now Mack says it was never "strategized." He says "the women just did it." Great! Now he's not only putting the women in mortal danger, he's blaming them for the fact that they are there.
Meanwhile, the mayor of the town of Marionville, Missouri says that suspected killer Frazier Glenn Miller is a friend of his and that that he shares his beliefs. But he doesn't approve of Miller's actions - or his methods of victim selection, I assume.
In other news, a new study from Princeton and Northwestern concludes that the United States is already an oligarchy - just like Russia! The study said "When a majority of citizens disagree with economic elites and/or with organized interests, they generally lose." And what the economic elites want is even more oligarchy!
Even the right knows it! American Enterprise Institute "scholar" and author Charles Murray says that "capitalism is in bed with government—big time." Capitalism is not only in bed with government, it has government handcuffed to the bed and it's getting out the whips. I might say it's getting kinky - but there's no safe word to stop it.
Call Randi today at 866-87-RANDI (866-877-2634)
Randi’s blog
Today’s Randi Rhodes Homework
Randi’s message board
Randi’s comedy bit archive
Randi’s daily blog archive
Randi on Facebook & Twitter
America is already an oligarchy - and the studies say it's been that way since Ronald Reagan won the White House. Most Americans just hadn't noticed it until now. However, when even the far right-wing Wall Street Journal editorial page, and the conservative AEI member Charles Murray agree with us on the left, it's pretty hard for even the far right to claim that capitalism hasn't corrupted our government.
Read more: http://www.randirhodes.com/articles/daily-blog-380723/on-todays-show-thu-apr-17-12265760#ixzz2zCF1VshC
Wednesday, April 16, 2014
The Republican Party of Today via Randi Rhodes
Sean Hannity is hyping rumors that the feds might raid Clive Bundy's ranch and end up killing him, or what the people at Fox News refer to as a "ratings bonanza." These are the morons who are driving the agenda! Why? Because they have armed supporters. Welcome to 21st century American discourse, Tea Party style. If right-wingers aren't trying to control things with massive amounts of dark money, then they're trying to control things with armed militias. They're either going to outspend you, or outgun you.
Some people are worried that the federal government temporarily backing off in Nevada could embolden the militia types. Hello! They're in militias. They're already threatening federal employees with automatic weapons. It doesn't get much bolder than that. Saying that you don't want to embolden the militia people is like saying you don't want to destabilize Somalia. Too late!
Hopefully the situation has been defused. We don't need any more nuts walking around with guns and signs that misspell "martial law" as "marshal law." Really, is there anything scarier than someone with an automatic weapon and a misspelled sign? They're telling you "I'm armed, and I'm stupid!"
When he was facing long prison terms, suspected Kansas City shooter Glenn Miller turned federal informant against other white supremacists. Yes, he was a rat too! I guess he was a white rat. Miller testified against people in the White Patriot Party - one of the organizations that he founded! Here is a white supremacist whose supreme desire is just to save his own white skin. At least Glenn Miller isn't solely motivated by hatred. He's also motivated by fear and sleazy self-interest. Sounds like he'd be perfect in the executive suites of most major American media companies today.
How bad are some of these people? The white supremacist online hate forum Stormfront rejects Glenn Miller. Evidently they have standards beyond white skin. After Miller testified against fellow white supremacists, he was placed on Stromfront's blacklist. And you don't want to be on the blacklist of a white group.
Call Randi today at 866-87-RANDI (866-877-2634)
Randi’s blog
Today’s Randi Rhodes Homework
Randi’s message board
Randi’s comedy bit archive
Randi’s daily blog archive
Randi on Facebook & Twitter
Republicans and so-called "Independents" - who are really just embrassed Republicans can make any claim they want. The fact is, the majority of the mass media today isn't liberal - it's right-wing slanted propaganda, that Republicans and corporatists support. What's more, that right-wing hate machine isn't harmless. It helps to create people like Frazier Glenn Miller, the racist who killed three people in Kansas City this weekend. If you know a Republican, point this out to them: Whether they like it or not, this is the face and voice of the GOP today. [WARNING: NSFW - LANGUAGE & HATE SPEECH]
Read more: http://www.randirhodes.com/articles/daily-blog-380723/on-todays-show-wed-apr-16-12261492#ixzz2z5r3MTuJ
Thursday, April 10, 2014
Analysis: Top White House Women Out-Earn Their Male Colleagues
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024803683
CATHERINE THOMPSON – APRIL 10, 2014, 11:39 AM EDT
Conservatives made hay over the White House push for gender pay equity after a study highlighted its own wage gap between the sexes, but they were missing part of the picture.
The Washington Examiner explained Thursday that although an American Enterprise Institute study showed that female staffers earned 88 cents for every dollar their male counterparts earned last year, the salary data also showed that women actually out-earned men among the highest-paid White House staffers.
Based on the same 2013 salary data, the Examiner found that 70 of the 150 White House staffers making more than $100,000 were women. Those top female aides earned $128,600 on average compared to $120,600 for top male aides, the publication found.
As the Examiner pointed out, those salary figures represent an increase in the number and percentage of women in top-earning White House positions over the last two years.
more
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/senior-level-obama-aides-women-out-earn-men
CATHERINE THOMPSON – APRIL 10, 2014, 11:39 AM EDT
Conservatives made hay over the White House push for gender pay equity after a study highlighted its own wage gap between the sexes, but they were missing part of the picture.
The Washington Examiner explained Thursday that although an American Enterprise Institute study showed that female staffers earned 88 cents for every dollar their male counterparts earned last year, the salary data also showed that women actually out-earned men among the highest-paid White House staffers.
Based on the same 2013 salary data, the Examiner found that 70 of the 150 White House staffers making more than $100,000 were women. Those top female aides earned $128,600 on average compared to $120,600 for top male aides, the publication found.
As the Examiner pointed out, those salary figures represent an increase in the number and percentage of women in top-earning White House positions over the last two years.
more
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/senior-level-obama-aides-women-out-earn-men
Wednesday, April 9, 2014
Homework April 9th 2014 via Randi Rhodes
| Civil Rights Today: Cause For Celebration Or Mourning? | |
 |
President Obama, Other Presidents, To Honor Anniversary Of Civil Rights Act This Week Many Doubt Civil Rights Act Could Pass Today Lucy Baines Johnson On Civil Rights In America Today How LBJ Saved The Civil Rights Act What The Southern Strategy Was (Or Is) How The Southern Democrats Become Republicans |
| Photo Credits: Weegee(Arthur Fellig)/International Center of Photography/Getty Images | |
| Violent America | |
 |
President Obama To Attend Fort Hood Memorial Service Wednesday 20 Students Stabbed At School Outside Pittsburgh CDC Facts: Youth And School Violence National Youth Violence Prevention Week: Brady Center To Prevent Gun Violence Launches "Speak Up" Campaign To Save Lives |
| Photo Credits: Jahi Chikwendiu/The Washington Post via Getty Images | |
| A 'Marriage' From Hell | |
 |
Comcast Defends Time Warner Cable Merger Plan In FCC filing Time For Some Tough Questions About The Comcast-Time Warner Deal The Backlash To The Comcast Merger Is Now Bipartisan Why The Right Opposes The Comcast Merger |
| Photo Credits: William Thomas Cain/Getty Images | |
Tuesday, April 8, 2014
Can`t Find Randi Rhodes? -here you go- listen LIVE now @ 1480 KPHX
LISTEN live now - Randi Rhodes on from 12noon-3pm Pac Time - 3pm-6pm East Coast Time
You can also find her here: http://tunein.com/radio/The-Randi-Rhodes-Show-p33691/
Every 3rd Grader (But No Republican) Knows: POTUS Decides How to Enforce Laws
http://www.politicalgarbagechute.com/every-3rd-grader-but-no-republican-knows-potus-decides-how-to-enforce-laws/
There’s something that’s been sticking in my craw lately, every time I hear a right-wing politician or pundit on a TV show or in an interview and they start throwing the term “lawless” around.
They also like using “imperial” to describe him. This is of course not a new attack on a president. Literally every single president has been accused of overstepping his constitutional bounds, or has been told they are acting in kingly, imperial fashion. Washington rode his own horse ahead of the army to bust up the Whiskey Rebellion, and Lincoln was called a war monger just as much then as he is by history revisionist, slaver apologists now. When Honest Abe suspended habeas corpus, his opponents were shocked and outraged. Imagine if Obama were to just declare a key tenet of the Constitution invalid, claiming his executive authority to do so.
But what irks me about the criticism of Obama in terms how his administration is implementing and enforcing the Affordable Care Act is that the implementation and enforcement of a law is his precise Constitutional duty. Every time I hear Ted Cruz or Rand Paul bleat on about how lawless the president is for delaying certain aspects and deadlines associated with Obamacare, I flash back to my very first lesson in American government, in third grade. We learned about the three-tiered government we lived under, and what each tier’s job descriptions were.
1. The Legislative Branch (Congress) — Congress writes and passes bills through their bicameral legislature, consisting of the House of Representatives and the Senate, and sends them to the President’s desk to be signed or vetoed.
2. The Executive Branch (POTUS) — The President signs bills passed through Congress and decides how best to enforce the laws they become.
3. The Judicial Branch (SCOTUS) — The Supreme Court decides whether laws passed by Congress and signed by the President are constitutional or not.
Yes, this is indeed a very, very basic outline of our three branch government, but it’s as plain as the derp in Louie Gohmert’s brain that there are a lot of Republicans and right-wing pundits that need a refresher course on this stuff. It would be one thing if Obama flat-out refused to enforce his own health care law at all; that would be clearly unconstitutional and even I would have no problem with articles of impeachment being drafted, but that’s now that Obama is doing. Instead, he is through his designated officers and agencies, selecting the most prudent way — in his view — to execute the ACA. This is not only constitutional, it’s exactly how the process — per the Constitution — is supposed to work.
Article Two of the Constitution contains the “instruction manual” for the presidency, if you will. In it, the entire office is described, from how we elect the president all the way down to what his duties and responsibilities are. Contained within Article II is the “Take Care” or “Faithful Execution” clause. If you’ve heard the oath of office that presidents take on their inauguration days, you’ve heard “faithful execute” before.
The Take Care Clause specifically deals with the president’s duty to execute and enforce the laws of the land. Indeed, the clause forces the president to faithfully execute the laws that he signs onto the books, even if he disagrees with them. Since they gave the president veto powers, the founders likely felt that if he’s signing the law onto the books, he was going to have no problem executing that same law. Of course, they also gave Congress the authority to override a veto, provided they muster enough votes in the Senate, so they wanted to make sure the president was bound by the duties of the office to execute even the laws he may not agree with.
However, nowhere in the Constitution does it give a specific instruction that every law must be executed according to Congress’ desires. In fact, very specifically the role of enforcement is not that of Congress. All Congress gets to do is draft, debate and pass or kill the bills. Not that this has kept just about every session of Congress from grousing about how the president is executing their laws, but the idea is still very simple: Congress writes ‘em and the President enforces ‘em.
The funny thing is that there are so many legitimate places for concern, and yes critique of President Obama’s handling of the laws. His weird desire to apparently permanently ensconce certain aspects of the War on Terror — drone strikes for instance — is a place where I think a Congressional representative would have a valid complaint, since it’s hard to imagine that the spirit of the Constitution is cool with killing any American without a trial. But once again, it’s the periphery issues that are snagging the ideologues’ attention, and they’re not even fighting a fight the Constitution says that they can fight.
The Affordable Care Act will only be improved if both sides of the aisle are honest about its impacts, but whether or not the White House decides to delay certain aspects of the law is not really something that will move the ball forward. This might be the right’s motivation all along, to just simply gum up the works with more rhetoric and political theater, I honestly don’t know.
What I do know is that I’m sick to death of hearing Republicans yell into the ether about the president being lawless or tyrannical because he’s doing what every president does, and is supposed to do per the Constitution. Delaying implementation of a deadline or aspect of a law is simply the president — any president — exercising their executive powers in determining how best to enforce a law. The Department of Justice — the governmental agency most central to the execution and enforcement of the laws — falls under the president’s jurisdiction for a reason.
If Republicans and conservatives are so hand-wringy about the way the guy in the White House is executing laws, they have the methods at their disposal to rectify the situation, and no it’s not impeachment. If Republicans and conservatives want the president to enforce the laws the way they want them to be enforced, all they have to do is put a Republican in the White House. Of course, they may want to stop calling rape “gifts from God,” and they probably better start at least trying to be nicer to brown people, and maybe a little less hell fire, damnation and discrimination for the gay and transgender people if they’re going to go that route…
…so expect them to just keep calling him a lawless usurper. That other way’s way too much work for them.
- See more at: http://www.politicalgarbagechute.com/every-3rd-grader-but-no-republican-knows-potus-decides-how-to-enforce-laws/#sthash.vlgyrVyY.dpuf
There’s something that’s been sticking in my craw lately, every time I hear a right-wing politician or pundit on a TV show or in an interview and they start throwing the term “lawless” around.
They also like using “imperial” to describe him. This is of course not a new attack on a president. Literally every single president has been accused of overstepping his constitutional bounds, or has been told they are acting in kingly, imperial fashion. Washington rode his own horse ahead of the army to bust up the Whiskey Rebellion, and Lincoln was called a war monger just as much then as he is by history revisionist, slaver apologists now. When Honest Abe suspended habeas corpus, his opponents were shocked and outraged. Imagine if Obama were to just declare a key tenet of the Constitution invalid, claiming his executive authority to do so.
But what irks me about the criticism of Obama in terms how his administration is implementing and enforcing the Affordable Care Act is that the implementation and enforcement of a law is his precise Constitutional duty. Every time I hear Ted Cruz or Rand Paul bleat on about how lawless the president is for delaying certain aspects and deadlines associated with Obamacare, I flash back to my very first lesson in American government, in third grade. We learned about the three-tiered government we lived under, and what each tier’s job descriptions were.
1. The Legislative Branch (Congress) — Congress writes and passes bills through their bicameral legislature, consisting of the House of Representatives and the Senate, and sends them to the President’s desk to be signed or vetoed.
2. The Executive Branch (POTUS) — The President signs bills passed through Congress and decides how best to enforce the laws they become.
3. The Judicial Branch (SCOTUS) — The Supreme Court decides whether laws passed by Congress and signed by the President are constitutional or not.
Yes, this is indeed a very, very basic outline of our three branch government, but it’s as plain as the derp in Louie Gohmert’s brain that there are a lot of Republicans and right-wing pundits that need a refresher course on this stuff. It would be one thing if Obama flat-out refused to enforce his own health care law at all; that would be clearly unconstitutional and even I would have no problem with articles of impeachment being drafted, but that’s now that Obama is doing. Instead, he is through his designated officers and agencies, selecting the most prudent way — in his view — to execute the ACA. This is not only constitutional, it’s exactly how the process — per the Constitution — is supposed to work.
Article Two of the Constitution contains the “instruction manual” for the presidency, if you will. In it, the entire office is described, from how we elect the president all the way down to what his duties and responsibilities are. Contained within Article II is the “Take Care” or “Faithful Execution” clause. If you’ve heard the oath of office that presidents take on their inauguration days, you’ve heard “faithful execute” before.
The Take Care Clause specifically deals with the president’s duty to execute and enforce the laws of the land. Indeed, the clause forces the president to faithfully execute the laws that he signs onto the books, even if he disagrees with them. Since they gave the president veto powers, the founders likely felt that if he’s signing the law onto the books, he was going to have no problem executing that same law. Of course, they also gave Congress the authority to override a veto, provided they muster enough votes in the Senate, so they wanted to make sure the president was bound by the duties of the office to execute even the laws he may not agree with.
However, nowhere in the Constitution does it give a specific instruction that every law must be executed according to Congress’ desires. In fact, very specifically the role of enforcement is not that of Congress. All Congress gets to do is draft, debate and pass or kill the bills. Not that this has kept just about every session of Congress from grousing about how the president is executing their laws, but the idea is still very simple: Congress writes ‘em and the President enforces ‘em.
The funny thing is that there are so many legitimate places for concern, and yes critique of President Obama’s handling of the laws. His weird desire to apparently permanently ensconce certain aspects of the War on Terror — drone strikes for instance — is a place where I think a Congressional representative would have a valid complaint, since it’s hard to imagine that the spirit of the Constitution is cool with killing any American without a trial. But once again, it’s the periphery issues that are snagging the ideologues’ attention, and they’re not even fighting a fight the Constitution says that they can fight.
The Affordable Care Act will only be improved if both sides of the aisle are honest about its impacts, but whether or not the White House decides to delay certain aspects of the law is not really something that will move the ball forward. This might be the right’s motivation all along, to just simply gum up the works with more rhetoric and political theater, I honestly don’t know.
What I do know is that I’m sick to death of hearing Republicans yell into the ether about the president being lawless or tyrannical because he’s doing what every president does, and is supposed to do per the Constitution. Delaying implementation of a deadline or aspect of a law is simply the president — any president — exercising their executive powers in determining how best to enforce a law. The Department of Justice — the governmental agency most central to the execution and enforcement of the laws — falls under the president’s jurisdiction for a reason.
If Republicans and conservatives are so hand-wringy about the way the guy in the White House is executing laws, they have the methods at their disposal to rectify the situation, and no it’s not impeachment. If Republicans and conservatives want the president to enforce the laws the way they want them to be enforced, all they have to do is put a Republican in the White House. Of course, they may want to stop calling rape “gifts from God,” and they probably better start at least trying to be nicer to brown people, and maybe a little less hell fire, damnation and discrimination for the gay and transgender people if they’re going to go that route…
…so expect them to just keep calling him a lawless usurper. That other way’s way too much work for them.
- See more at: http://www.politicalgarbagechute.com/every-3rd-grader-but-no-republican-knows-potus-decides-how-to-enforce-laws/#sthash.vlgyrVyY.dpuf
Friday, April 4, 2014
INEQUALITY for ALL - The Movie
Robert Reich
www.robertreich.orgThis weekend, please see our award-winning doc "Inequality for All," now available on Netflix, iTunes, DVD, and On Demand. It's essential that everyone understand what's happening to our democracy and economy, why, and what can be done. (Critics say it's also entertaining and enjoyable, 91% positive on "rotten tomatoes.") Have a watch party.
Thursday, April 3, 2014
What The Founding Fathers Thought About Corporations
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/06/09/founding-fathers/How would the Founding Fathers feel about corporations? If you believe what the GOP says, you’ll be shocked by the truth.
http://www.thomhartmann.com/users/godot/blog/2010/07/jefferson-quotes
Citizens United. This is the 2010 Supreme Court case that shocked America, influenced an election, and reversed over 100 years of campaign finance laws. In this case, corporations were declared as people and as such declared to have the same rights as people do. It also opened the doors for corporations to pour unprecedented amounts of campaign donations into elections, and what’s more, these donations can be totally secret. Corporations can now literally and legally buy elections and shape the government like never before in our nation’s history.
The economic world we live in today is dominated by corporations. Huge corporations that boast massive profits and span continents. But corporations also wield political power and are lobbying heavily to be free from any and all government regulations that would make them responsible and liable. Republicans have been defending corporations since the late 1800′s and have literally gone on a history revising crusade to show that even the founding fathers supported corporations. But is this the case? What did the founding fathers really think about corporations?
The origin of modern corporations can be traced all the way back to 17th century England when Queen Elizabeth I created the East India Trading Company. At first, corporations were small, quasi government institutions that were chartered by the crown for a specific purpose. If corporations stepped out of line, the crown did not hesitate to revoke their charters. Corporations generated so much revenue that they even began taking on increased political power. Corporations were also organized to finance large projects such as exploration, which leads us to the American colonies.
To say that the founding fathers supported corporations is very absurd. Its quite the opposite in fact. Corporations like the East India Trading Company were despised by the founding fathers and they were just one reason why they chose to revolt against England. Corporations represented the moneyed interests much like they do today and they often wielded political power, sometimes to the point of governing a colony all by themselves like the Massachusetts Bay Company did.To say that the Founding Fathers supported corporations is very absurd. Its quite the opposite in fact.
But there is more evidence that the Revolutionary generation despised corporations. The East India Company was the largest corporation of its day and its dominance of trade angered the colonists so much, that they dumped the tea products it had on a ship into Boston Harbor which today is universally known as the Boston Tea Party. At the time, in Britain, large corporations funded elections generously and its stock was owned by nearly everyone in parliament. The founding fathers did not think much of these corporations that had great wealth and great influence in government. And that is precisely why they put restrictions upon them after the government was organized under the Constitution.
After the nation’s founding, corporations were granted charters by the state as they are today. Unlike today, however, corporations were only permitted to exist 20 or 30 years and could only deal in one commodity, could not hold stock in other companies, and their property holdings were limited to what they needed to accomplish their business goals. And perhaps the most important facet of all this is that most states in the early days of the nation had laws on the books that made any political contribution by corporations a criminal offense. When you think about it, the regulations imposed on corporations in the early days of America were far harsher than they are now. That is hardly proof that the founding fathers supported corporations. In fact its quite the opposite. The corporate entity was so restrictive that many of America’s corporate giants set up their entities to avoid the corporate restrictions. For example, Andrew Carnegie set up his steel company as a limited partnership and John D. Rockefeller set up his Standard Oil company as a trust which would later be rightfully busted up into smaller companies by Theodore Roosevelt.Back in the days of the Founding Fathers, corporations could only exist for 20-30 years and could only deal in one commodety.
For those who need more evidence, how about statements from the founding fathers themselves. As we all know, big banks are also considered corporations and here is what Thomas Jefferson thought about them. In an 1802 letter to Secretary of State Albert Gallatin, Jefferson said,
“If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them (around the banks), will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.”Thomas Jefferson, one of the most prominent founding fathers, also said this in 1816,
“I hope that we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country.”Jefferson wasn’t the only one of the founding fathers to make statements about corporations. John Adams also had an opinion.
“Banks have done more injury to the religion, morality, tranquility, prosperity, and even wealth of the nation than they can have done or ever will do good.”These statements make it pretty clear that corporations were not trusted by the founding fathers. The founding fathers knew that huge corporations only preyed upon the people. But as the founding generation began to fade away, corporations began using their power to gain political favor and eventually that political favor would turn into political power. And corporations would take advantage of a war to do it. As the Civil War raged across the land, corporations made an effort to take advantage of the situation, selling products at high prices, especially to the government. Corporations even sold to both sides throughout the war. Basically, corporations proved even then that they had no allegiance to any country when great profits were at stake. Abraham Lincoln, the first Republican to be President also had plenty to say about corporations…
Abraham Lincoln — one of our great presidents, though not one of the founding fathers, said:
“The money powers prey upon the nation in times of peace and conspire against it in times of adversity. The banking powers are more despotic than a monarchy, more insolent than autocracy, more selfish than bureaucracy. They denounce as public enemies all who question their methods or throw light upon their crimes. I have two great enemies, the Southern Army in front of me and the bankers in the rear. Of the two, the one at my rear is my greatest foe.”And in a November 21, 1864 letter to Col. William F. Elkins, Lincoln wrote,
“We may congratulate ourselves that this cruel war is nearing its end. It has cost a vast amount of treasure and blood … It has indeed been a trying hour for the Republic; but I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. As a result of war, corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands, and the Republic is destroyed. I feel at this moment more anxiety for the safety of my country than ever before, even in the midst of war. God grant that my suspicions may prove groundless.”Unfortunately, Lincoln’s suspicions were anything but groundless. They were in fact, prophetic. After the Civil War, corporations began aligning themselves with Republican politicians, who proved themselves to be up to the task of helping corporations gain more power. Corporations had free reign and total power over its workforce and could sell virtually anything they wanted even if the product was a bad one. Corporations treated workers like slaves. Wages were extremely low. Workers received no benefits, no vacation days, no health insurance, no workers compensation. President Grover Cleveland witnessed how corporations treated its labor force and had this to say in 1888,
“As we view the achievements of aggregated capital, we discover the existence of trusts, combinations, and monopolies, while the citizen is struggling far in the rear, or is trampled beneath an iron heel. Corporations, which should be the carefully restrained creatures of the law and the servants of the people, are fast becoming the people’s masters.”To put it bluntly, corporations didn’t care about its workers or the people who bought their products. The only rule of the game was to make as much profit as possible, no matter what. As the 19th century ended and the 20th century began, corporations were getting bigger and bigger. Many began buying up smaller companies, becoming monopolies that controlled whole industries. This practice eliminated competition and as a result, prices had skyrocketed and no one could challenge them. That was, until Theodore Roosevelt became the President. Theodore Roosevelt did not hate corporations. He simply wanted them to treat workers how they deserved to be treated and to serve the public faithfully and honestly. He believed in honest competition and fair prices. Roosevelt believed that government had not only a duty, but a right to regulate corporations just as the founding generation had done, stating that,
Since the days of the Founding Fathers, corporations kept getting bigger and bigger.
“The great corporations which we have grown to speak of rather loosely as trusts are the creatures of the State, and the State not only has the right to control them, but it is duty bound to control them wherever the need of such control is shown.”And in his State of The Union Address in 1902, Roosevelt stated his intentions toward corporations.
“Our aim is not to do away with corporations; on the contrary, these big aggregations are an inevitable development of modern industrialism, and the effort to destroy them would be futile unless accomplished in ways that would work the utmost mischief to the entire body politic. We can do nothing of good in the way of regulating and supervising these corporations until we fix clearly in our minds that we are not attacking the corporations, but endeavoring to do away with any evil in them. We are not hostile to them; we are merely determined that they shall be so handled as to serve the public good. We draw the line against misconduct, not against wealth.”To that end he fought for corporate regulation, he fought for fair wages for workers, he fought for safe and healthy work environments, and he fought to protect consumers. And the people loved him for it. Roosevelt’s policies toward corporations were immensely popular. He busted up so many giant corporations that he became known as a “trust buster”. The busting up of these corporations created a lot more competition for customers and for employees, resulting in higher wages and lower prices and more jobs. And you know what? Corporate profits did just fine.
Teddy never stopped fighting for workers and consumers even after his presidency when he said this as the Progressive Party candidate for President in 1912,
“We wish to control big business so as to secure among other things good wages for the wage-workers and reasonable prices for the consumers. Wherever in any business the prosperity of the businessman is obtained by lowering the wages of his workmen and charging an excessive price to the consumers we wish to interfere and stop such practices. We will not submit to that kind of prosperity any more than we will submit to prosperity obtained by swindling investors or getting unfair advantages over business rivals.”Roosevelt didn’t win the presidency in 1912, although he most certainly would have if the Republican ticket hadn’t been split. But Woodrow Wilson would continue the fight for workers and consumers. As America entered the 1920′s, corporations began to gain political favors once again as business minded Republicans controlled the White House and Congress. Regulations were being stripped away and banks as large entities were on the rise. These banks and corporations abused the stock market which would lead to the crash of 1929 and the Great Depression. Corporate profits had surged throughout the decade and unfair speculation had caused economic bubbles that had to burst.
Corporate bosses also flexed their muscles over America’s legal system, spending great deals of money to get away with nearly anything. In a statement of sarcasm that speaks to this despicable practice, Senator George Norris, after an industrialist was acquitted of charges of corruption, said that “We ought to pass a law that no man worth $100,000,000 should be tried for a crime.”
The Franklin Roosevelt era would bring new calls for corporate regulation and corporate tax hikes. These new regulations once again kept corporations honest and protected consumers. Workers also benefited from these new regulations, getting fair wages, pensions, and safe working conditions. Corporations were taxed at a rate of 91% and even with all of that, corporations still made huge profits. Life changed dramatically for the middle class. People had jobs with livable wages and promise for the future. Corporations once again served a purpose as consumers were treated fairly and the economy soared. Unemployment was also very low. But these trends did not last long as corporate greed would once again fuel another grab for political power. Corporations began aligning themselves more and more with the Republican Party, and as this relationship grew, corporations found a way to make record profits. Throughout the 1980′s up to today, corporations have outsourced millions of American jobs to cheap labor overseas. As a result of this, corporate profits have broke record after record, while the unemployment rate has jumped higher and higher. Corporate tax rates began getting lower and lower, while more tax loopholes were created to help corporations evade most of them altogether. When the Republican Party took control of government in 2001, they went on a crusade on behalf of corporations (how could they refuse, they were on the payroll), to blame workers for economic downturns and outsourcing. Corporations also decided to take advantage of a national tragedy. After 9/11, there was an understandable push to go to war against terrorists hiding in Afghanistan. But corporations, as in other times of war and tragedy, began pushing for a war against Iraq. And they got their wish. Corporations have since made billions in war profits off of the War in Iraq and have proven once again that profit is far more important than the lives of soldiers. Lincoln was right. This is yet another reason why corporations need to be put in their place. As Henry Ford once said, “Do you want to know the cause of war? It is capitalism, greed, the dirty hunger for dollars. Take away the capitalist and you will sweep war from the earth.”
Republicans are now on the verge of stripping away all corporate regulations and worker’s rights. But it was the 2010 Citizens United decision that really made corporations into political powers. Not only were corporations declared to be people but corporations also now have the power to buy elections at will. The problem with this Supreme Court decision is that it goes against everything the founding fathers believed in. In the Constitution, it says “We the people…”, not “We the corporations…”. The founding fathers never addressed corporations in the Constitution because it never occurred to them that corporations would be perceived as people. And why would they have? Corporations don’t eat, they don’t breathe, they don’t vote, they don’t fight battles in wars. Remember all the limitations the founding fathers placed on corporations mentioned earlier? In the Constitution, the founding fathers speak only of the people. The founding fathers did not limit lifetimes of people, nor did they outlaw a persons right to donate to political campaigns. They also did not limit people to specific life goals like they did with corporations. This should make it absolutely clear that the founders never intended for corporations to be people. The decision by the clearly activist, conservative majority of the court is an abomination that can never be Constitutionally justified. Now it is our duty to call on Congress to bring forward a Constitutional Amendment that bans corporate personhood and bans corporations from interfering with government and legal elections that only real people have the right to donate to and vote in. Because whatever these greedy, arrogant CEO’s and Republicans think, its the opinion of the founding generation that matters most. Corporations are not people. People are people.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
