3 Ways You Can Drive Conservatives Insane: Debunking Right Wing Lies

July 28, 2014 | Filed under: Debunking Right Wing Lies,RIght-Wing Myths |Originally Posted by: Samuel Warde

 

Ronald-Reagan-Upside-Down-111768

 

One of the surest ways or enraging conservatives is through debunking right wing lies, particular the ones most commonly seen on Facebook, Twitter and beyond. Here is this weeks handy list of right wing lies we have taken the time to correct.


Be sure to sprinkle these around and let us know some other great lies you want us to debunk in our next Debunking Right Wing Lies segment.

1. The United States is not a “Christian Nation” founded upon “Christian Principles”.

One need look no further than to Thomas Jefferson to understand the false nature of this claim.

Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. “

Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782

And one cannot forget that Jefferson strongly advocated the separation of church and state:

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between church and State. “

Thomas Jefferson, letter to Danbury Baptist Association, CT., Jan. 1, 1802

Another founder, John Adams, was a Congregationalist who later became a Unitarian. However, he deliberately avoided creed-based dogmatic religion.

The Treaty of Tripoli, introduced to the Senate by John Adams and ratified by unanimous decree, was signed by Adams in 1797 and includes the following passage for any doubters out there:

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.”

 The Treaty of Tripoli, signed Nov. 4, 1796, effective June. 10, 1797

2. The Affordable Care Act is Working

Rolling Stone puts it best, reporting:

President Obama’s centrist healthcare bill was informed by federalism (delegating power to the states) and proven technocratic reforms (like a board to help doctors discern which treatments would be most cost-effective). Republicans, undeterred, decried it as Soviet-style communism based on “death panels” – never mind the fact that the old system, which rationed care based on income, is the one that left tens of thousands of uninsured people to die.

From the beginning, Republicans have predicted disastrous consequences or Obamacare, none of which came true. They predicted that the ACA would add to the deficit; in fact, it will reduce the deficit. They claimed the exchanges would fail to attract the uninsured; they met their targets. They said only old people would sign up; the young came out in the same rates as in Massachusetts. They predicted the ACA would drive up healthcare costs; in fact it is likely holding cost inflation down, although it’s still hard to discern how much of the slowdown was due to the recession. In total, the ACA will ensure that 26 million people have insurance in 2024 who would have been uninsured otherwise.

It’s worth noting that every time the CBO estimates how much Obamacare will cost, the number gets lower. Odd how we’ve never heard Republicans say that.

3. Ronald Reagan Supported Gun Control

I do not believe in taking away the right of the citizen for sporting, for hunting and so forth, or for home defense. But I do believe that an AK-47, a machine gun, is not a sporting weapon or needed for defense of a home.”

~Ronald Reagan, at his birthday celebration in 1989.

As governor of California, Ronald Reagan signed the Mulford Act, which prohibited the carrying of firearms on your person, in your vehicle, and in any public place or on the street, and he also signed off on a 15-day waiting period for firearm purchases. “There’s no reason why on the street today a citizen should be carrying loaded weapons,” Reagan said at the time, according to Salon.com.

In 1986 as president, he signed into law the Firearm Owners Protection Act, which “banned ownership of any fully automatic rifles that were not already registered on the day the law was signed.”

After leaving the presidency, he supported the passage of the Brady bill that established by federal law a nationwide, uniform standard of a 7-day waiting period for the purchase of handguns to enable background checks on prospective buyers.

In 1991 Reagan wrote an Op-Ed piece in the New York Times stating his support for the Brady Bill and noted that if the Brady Bill had been in effect earlier, he never would have been shot. He also urged then President H.W. Bush to drop his opposition to the bill and lobbied other members of Congress to support the bill.

In 1994 Reagan wrote to Congress urging them to listen to the American public and to the law enforcement community and support a ban on the further manufacture of military-style assault weapons.

Vlogging Update: May 2017

BIG EYES & MOUTH FIREPAINT.png

Hey y’all,

Sorry for the long absence.

My computer died.

I gave it to my aunt to work on.

She does IT work for the local school district.

Unable to fix it, she gave me another one that a school was getting rid of.

I tried to salvage what I could from the old one.

But, most of my programs and files were lost.

I’ve been searching for the missing software and restoring what I can.

My scanner/printer didn’t want to cooperate with the new computer.

I tried replacing it.

But, the replacements didn’t work either.

After a couple of days messing with it, I finally got it running.

My van has a million problems.

But, at least I got the front tire fixed that kept going flat.

I’ve replaced that tire THREE TIMES and it still kept going flat.

I thought maybe the rim was bent.

I had it looked at and they found a piece of metal lodged inside.

They patched it up.

Now, it shouldn’t be a problem anymore.

Only cost me $15 bucks (thank God)!

I tried to repay my grandmother $700 dollars I owe her.

She forgave some of it.

My ex forgave the $200 I owed her, too, since I’ve been helping her relocate and move her stuff.

Not sure how I’ll get my other debts paid.

But, I try not to get stressed out about it.

That really fucks up my creativity.

Spring Has Sprung

20160328_110748

I was watching some YouTube videos lately.

I got very annoyed.

Other bands are doing stuff that I wanna do.

But, they keep beating me to it.

I hate when that shit happens.

Maybe it is just that everything has already been done to death and we keep repeating and reinterpreting what came before us.

I dunno.

I know that, financially, I am gonna be screwed for the foreseeable future.

I am robbing Peter to pay Paul for as long as I have to.

I seriously doubt that I will break even before summer begins.

I keep putting off working on and publishing the zine until I can get ahead a little.

But, that doesn’t look like it is going to happen very soon.

I may do a cheaper version, than what I had in mind, until it begins to pay for itself.

Just a thought.

I will probably raid my boxes of old tapes that I have in storage and dig around for some incomplete material to finish.

I have a lot of it, going back nearly forty years.

Since I have been tinkering with the analogue multi-track machine, maybe I will include some fresher stuff with it, too.

I dunno.

A guitarist whom I have not played with in years contacted me and is eager to jam again.

So, maybe he can give me a morale boost and help me get my shit done.

Maybe.

I am always willing to jam with other people if they are interested.

I need to find somewhere that I can paint and make loud noises too.

Maybe somebody can help me with that.

Jackie O., A “Conspiracy Nut”?

Jackie O., A “Conspiracy Nut”?

Chuck Baldwin
Aug 28, 2011
Tapes that were recorded within months of President John F. Kennedy’s assassination and that have been sealed in a vault at the Kennedy Library in Boston are soon to be released. In the tapes, former First Lady Jackie Kennedy reveals that she believed Vice President Lyndon Baines Johnson and other influential individuals orchestrated the Dallas shooting that killed her husband.
Jackie went on to marry Greek shipping tycoon Aristotle Onassis, of course. Mrs. Kennedy had ordered that the tapes should not be released until 50 years after her death. She died 17 years ago from cancer at the age of 64. Now, her daughter, Caroline Kennedy, has agreed to release the recordings early. According to press reports, the tapes will be aired by ABC and by British broadcasters as well. The tapes are also said to reveal illicit affairs by both President Kennedy and Jackie.
According to DailyMail, “Jackie Onassis believed that Lyndon B. Johnson and a cabal of Texas tycoons were involved in the assassination of her husband John F. Kennedy, ‘explosive’ recordings are set to reveal.
“The secret tapes will show that the former first lady felt that her husband’s successor was at the heart of the plot to murder him.
“She became convinced that the then vice president, along with businessmen in the South, had orchestrated the Dallas shooting, with gunman Lee Harvey Oswald–long claimed to have been a lone assassin–merely part of a much larger conspiracy.”
See the DailyMail report at:
http://tinyurl.com/3ovu7z4
So, now I suppose we can add Jackie-Kennedy-Onassis to the list of “conspiracy nuts.” Right? Isn’t that what anyone is called who believes that the federal government hides the truth about what happens and conjures up a convenient “official” story to sell to the American people? Isn’t that what the media calls anyone who dares to question any “official” report? Isn’t that what Glenn Beck calls them? Isn’t that what Joe Scarborough calls them? Isn’t that what Bill O’Reilly calls them? Isn’t that what Rush Limbaugh calls them? They are “conspiracy nuts.” Right? I wonder if we will now hear any of these talking heads call Jackie Onassis a “conspiracy nut”?
And since we are talking about conspiracies, I want to go ahead and just say up front: I believe that anyone who thinks that there are no conspiracies that many times involve people and agencies at the highest levels of government and business is downright simple minded, willingly ignorant, incredibly naïve, or has a personal, vested reason to remain clueless.
The John F. Kennedy Assassination
Is there really anyone reading this column who actually believes the “official” story that Lee Harvey Oswald assassinated President Kennedy in the manner in which he is purportedly to have done it: all by himself? Get real! Now we know that even Jackie Kennedy, who was in the limo when her husband was killed, didn’t believe it!
I further believe that the assassination of John Kennedy was a major turning point in US history. It was at this point that a criminal cabal wrested control of the federal government from the hands of “We the People” and turned it into a giant mafia. I don’t believe the people and their representatives in Washington, D.C., have had much to do with their federal government (especially at the executive level) ever since.
TWA Flight 800 “Explosion”
While we are talking about conspiracies, let’s just go ahead a mention a few more. Do you really believe the “official” story of the crash of TWA flight 800 in 1996? What if an American missile accidentally shot down that jetliner? Do you really think the federal government would come clean about it?
Read this report from The Washington Weekly, if you are willing to be enlightened:
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/twa.html
Oklahoma City Bombing
Do readers really believe the “official” story that Timothy McVeigh acted alone in igniting the explosion that took down the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, and that there was no cover-up as to what actually happened? I don’t.
Here are a couple places to get started on this one:
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/bomb.html
And:
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/key.html
A D V E R T I S E M E N T

9/11 Twin Towers and Pentagon Attacks
There has been so much written on this subject, I will let readers fend for themselves as to personal research on the matter. Without wading too deeply into this discussion (and for the sake of column space), let me ask just one simple question. Pray tell, what took down Building 7? To this good hour, I have not heard one single plausible explanation proffered by any government or media representative that explains why Building 7 collapsed.
Do I believe that the government is purposefully keeping the American people in the dark as to what really happened on 9/11/01? You bet I do! Do I believe that there is a cover-up of crucial evidence related to 9/11 by both the federal government and the national news media? You bet I do!
Haiti Earthquake
Another event that the “official” version is just completely unbelievable to me is the earthquake in Haiti in January of last year. I will always believe that there was so much to this story that we were not being told. It didn’t “smell” right to me when it happened; it doesn’t “smell” right to me now. If you’re interested, try perusing through some of this information:
http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/?page_id=855
Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syrian Wars
Let me round out my personal list of conspiracies with all the wars America is waging in the Middle East. I believe virtually every reason George W. Bush gave the American people for attacking and invading Iraq was a premeditated, bald-faced lie! I believe the so-called “war on terror” (and the “war on drugs,” for that matter) that justifies endless wars abroad and endless surveillance at home is completely manufactured by those in government and business for personal economic and political interests.
In fact, if you really want to get sick to your stomach over what this so-called “war on terror” is accomplishing, take a look at this report:
http://tinyurl.com/3wzo9mn
So, nearly 50 years since President John F. Kennedy was assassinated, we now learn that First Lady Jackie Kennedy believed that there was a conspiracy to kill her husband and that Lyndon Johnson was neck-deep in it. I wonder what future generations will learn about many of these other “official” stories of the federal government that just didn’t add up?
And wouldn’t it be nice if the national news media were actually honest and interested in the truth and would do their jobs to inform the American people as to what is truly going on in their federal government? Of course, if they did, the American people would probably tar and feather the whole bunch and start all over! Hmm. Sounds kind of inviting, doesn’t it? I bet Jackie would agree.
P.S. If readers are still skeptical of how many “conspiracy theories” are, in reality, “conspiracy facts,” I urge you to read this enlightening column:
http://tinyurl.com/3swqcka

Digg!

Sotomayor Issues Challenge to a Century of Corporate Law

Sotomayor Issues Challenge to a Century of Corporate Law
By JESS BRAVIN
WASHINGTON — In her maiden Supreme Court appearance last week, Justice Sonia Sotomayor made a provocative comment that probed the foundations of corporate law.

During arguments in a campaign-finance case, the court’s majority conservatives seemed persuaded that corporations have broad First Amendment rights and that recent precedents upholding limits on corporate political spending should be overruled.

Sonia Sotomayor

But Justice Sotomayor suggested the majority might have it all wrong — and that instead the court should reconsider the 19th century rulings that first afforded corporations the same rights flesh-and-blood people have.

Judges “created corporations as persons, gave birth to corporations as persons,” she said. “There could be an argument made that that was the court’s error to start with…[imbuing] a creature of state law with human characteristics.”

After a confirmation process that revealed little of her legal philosophy, the remark offered an early hint of the direction Justice Sotomayor might want to take the court.

“Progressives who think that corporations already have an unduly large influence on policy in the United States have to feel reassured that this was one of [her] first questions,” said Douglas Kendall, president of the liberal Constitutional Accountability Center.

“I don’t want to draw too much from one comment,” says Todd Gaziano, director of the Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at the conservative Heritage Foundation. But it “doesn’t give me a lot of confidence that she respects the corporate form and the type of rights that it should be afforded.”

For centuries, corporations have been considered beings apart from their human owners, yet sharing with them some attributes, such as the right to make contracts and own property. Originally, corporations were a relatively rare form of organization. The government granted charters to corporations, delineating their specific functions. Their powers were presumed limited to those their charter spelled out.

“A corporation is an artificial being, invisible, intangible,” Chief Justice John Marshall wrote in an 1819 case. “It possesses only those properties which the charter of its creation confers upon it.”

But as the Industrial Revolution took hold, corporations proliferated and views of their functions began to evolve.

In an 1886 tax dispute between the Southern Pacific Railroad and the state of California, the court reporter quoted Chief Justice Morrison Waite telling attorneys to skip arguments over whether the 14th Amendment’s equal-protection clause applied to corporations, because “we are all of opinion that it does.”

That seemingly off-hand comment reflected an “impulse to shield business activity from certain government regulation,” says David Millon, a law professor at Washington and Lee University.

“A positive way to put it is that the economy is booming, American production is leading the world and the courts want to promote that,” Mr. Millon says. Less charitably, “it’s all about protecting corporate wealth” from taxes, regulations or other legislative initiatives.

Subsequent opinions expanded corporate rights. In 1928, the court struck down a Pennsylvania tax on transportation corporations because individual taxicab drivers were exempt. Corporations get “the same protection of equal laws that natural persons” have, Justice Pierce Butler wrote.

From the mid-20th century, though, the court has vacillated on how far corporate rights extend. In a 1973 case before a more liberal court, Justice William O. Douglas rejected the Butler opinion as “a relic” that overstepped “the narrow confines of judicial review” by second-guessing the legislature’s decision to tax corporations differently than individuals.

Today, it’s “just complete confusion” over which rights corporations can claim, says Prof. William Simon of Columbia Law School.

Even conservatives sometimes have been skeptical of corporate rights. Then-Associate Justice William Rehnquist dissented in 1979 from a decision voiding Massachusetts’s restriction of corporate political spending on referendums. Since corporations receive special legal and tax benefits, “it might reasonably be concluded that those properties, so beneficial in the economic sphere, pose special dangers in the political sphere,” he wrote.

On today’s court, the direction Justice Sotomayor suggested is unlikely to prevail. During arguments, the court’s conservative justices seem to view corporate political spending as beneficial to the democratic process. “Corporations have lots of knowledge about environment, transportation issues, and you are silencing them during the election,” Justice Anthony Kennedy said during arguments last week.

But Justice Sotomayor may have found a like mind in Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. “A corporation, after all, is not endowed by its creator with inalienable rights,” Justice Ginsburg said, evoking the Declaration of Independence.

How far Justice Sotomayor pursues the theme could become clearer when the campaign-finance decision is delivered, probably by year’s end.

Write to Jess Bravin at jess.bravin@wsj.com

Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page A19
Copyright 2009 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved

This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. Distribution and use of this material are governed by our Subscriber Agreement and by copyright law. For non-personal use or to order multiple copies, please contact Dow Jones Reprints at 1-800-843-0008

And here’s a link to Stephen Colbert’s video bit, “Corporations Are People Too”:

The Colbert Report Mon – Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
The Word – Let Freedom Ka-Ching
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Protests


Digg!