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.

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!

The Liberal Majority and How To Win With It

The Liberal Majority and How To Win With It
By Ian Welsh Friday Sep 18, 2009 5:00pm One constant theme which needs dealing with is the idea that the country is more conservative than liberal and that centrists are needed to hold off horrible conservative things from happening.

More than that, this is an argument for oligarchy. What I see is that the majority of people, in poll after poll, want single payer. A huge majority want the public option, yet odds are decent you won’t even get that.

When people talk of left-center coalitions the center part include a large number of Senators (like Diane Feinstein) who won’t do what the majority of their constituents want them to do. At this point centrist = captured by monied interests.

Odds are if Obama wanted single payer, the House could pass it. It’d be close, but they could get it done. The House is the more representative body of the two bodies, the Senate is deliberately retrograde.

When I look at the US what I see is a banana republic, because it doesn’t act like a democracy. I see people who think that the Senate, or even the House, actually does what the American people want. Again and again, Congress does things that the majority disagree with. In 2006 the Dems were elected to end the war in Iraq, for example, and refused to do so (though again, the House at least went through the motion, the Senate didn’t even make an effort). Oh, Congress will sometimes do what the majority want—when that’s what it was going to do anyway.

The plan to fix this is simple enough and always has been.

Obama was a right wing democrat and this was clear early. This was clear even in the primaries and certainly into the election. Once he was chosen as the nominee the best idea was to not to work for him or give him money, because he could win or lose without netroots or progressive support (it was a drop in the bucket compared to what he was getting elsewhere and was not decisive for him), and to instead take that time and money and spend it on electing progressive members of Congress, where that amount of money and volunteers could be decisive.

People who hold progressive and liberal policy views are a much larger proportion of the population than the right wing crazies are, they are in fact a majority of the population, though you’d never know it from listening to the gnashing of teeth of some folks.

If the right wing crazies could capture the Republican party, liberals and progressives, who already make up the largest block in the House, and who massively outnumber Blue Dogs, can certainly do the same to the Democratic party.

If, of course, they stop telling themselves self-excusing lies about how the country doesn’t agree with them on basic issues like healthcare, when, in fact, the country does. Americans may not call themselves liberals, but when you look at their actual policy positions they are more liberal on most (not all, but most) issues than they are conservative. That’s a gap in self-perception it should be possible to jump.

It takes real work for the centrists and right wing to keep Liberals and Progressives down. Notice that almost all of Obama’s whipping is towards the left, towards progressives, not to the right. The right wing of the Democratic party is more or less doing what he wants (forget the rhetoric, again, look at who he and Rahm whip), it’s the left wing he’s scared of, because if they got their act together they could stop him from passing anything. The Blue Dogs in the House do not currently have a veto, the Progressives, if they want to use it, do. And that’s why they get the back side of Obama and Rahm’s hand so often.

The left is the most dangerous force in American politics today. The entire resources of the lobbying industry and of centrist Democratic interests are required to keep it in check, not just during legislative season, but during elections, when the DCCC and the DSCC do their very best to make sure that progressives don’t win primaries, and when they do, that they’re starved of resources.

So time to spine up. If you’re a left wing Democrat, you belong to the scariest force in American politics. The crazy right will have some good cycles yet to come, mainly due to Democratic establishment incompetence and preference for mushy middle candidates but demographics are against them. Don’t write Republicans off yet, but they are failing. You—the left—is the rising force, and everyone in the center and the right, is doing everything they can to keep you down.

Don’t let them, and don’t believe lies about how you’re some tiny minority whom the American people don’t agree with.


Digg!

Breaking Three Years of Silence: Alex Jones Interviews Charlie Sheen

Breaking Three Years of Silence: Alex Jones Interviews Charlie Sheen

Kurt Nimmo
Prison Planet.com
Wednesday, September 9, 2009

In the audio clip below, aired today on the Alex Jones Show, Charlie Sheen, popular actor and winner of the Golden Globe for Best Performance by an Actor In A Television Series, tells Alex Jones why he wrote “20 Minutes with the President,” an open letter to president Barack Obama calling for a new investigation into the September 11, 2001, attacks.

“Enough stonewalling,” Sheen told Jones, “enough media manipulation, enough media-mantra speak. The families deserve better, America deserves better.”

Charlie said he cannot sit idly by and hope that a new investigation will “fall out of the heavens and into our Congress.” We must demand Obama deliver “honest promises,” Sheen explained. We must demand a new investigation.

Alex mentioned John Farmer, a senior counsel to the 9/11 Commission, who revealed earlier this year that the government agreed not to tell the truth about 9/11. Other members have said that the Pentagon and the government were engaged in deliberate deception about their response to the attack. Farmer’s book about his experiences working for the Commission is entitled The Ground Truth: The Story Behind America’s Defense on 9/11, and is set to be released this month (see Paul Joseph Watson, 9/11 Commission Counsel: Government Agreed to Lie About 9/11).

Charlie said the call for a new investigation will not be silenced by the corporate media. “This message will not be silence anymore by the media-fueled mantras insisting on how they feel and deciding for them [the American people and most importantly the victim family members] for eight long years what can thought, what can be said, what can be asked..”

Alex noted that even as the whitewash commission conducted its hearings, there were outraged family members in the audience demanding the truth be told. Charlie added that these family members were ignored by the commission and thus deeply offended. The questions they asked “never saw the light of day” and their words never found their way into the final report generated by the commission, itself a fraud as Farmer others have noted. “We know that [the families] have been calling for a new investigation,” Sheen noted.

The government is demanding the public suspend logical thought and dismiss all questions about the investigation’s report, which is a work of fiction, in essence a fairy tale, Charlie argued. The establishment, he said, demands we worship a new form of physics and accept a “new form of reality that is inconsistent with everything we know in each and every cell of our entire being.” The American people are instructed by the government to believe such obvious nonsense and then are systematically demonized for asking questions, he explained.

The official 9/11 story is “an absolute fairy tale,” Charlie declared, “a complete work of fiction, and not even a very good one.”

Sheen hopes “20 Minutes with the President” will get Obama’s attention. “If for some reason this doesn’t make it into his hands and I am never granted 20 minutes with my president, I would urge the American people — I would urge anybody and everybody that has a stake in this, which would be all of us — to continue to apply the pressure, to continue to ask the questions, to continue to demand the truth.”

Charlie Sheen will further expand on his open letter this Friday on the Alex Jones Show.


Digg!

Activist Releases Archive of Suppressed News Videos

Activist Releases Archive of Suppressed News Videos

James Corbett
The Corbett Report
Wednesday, Sept 2, 2009

In a move sure to send shockwaves through the online activist community, Jonathon Elinoff—activist, researcher, and the filmmaker behind the Core of Corruption documentary series—has released a video archive of dozens of network news broadcasts detailing controversial and suppressed news stories.

The archive, compiled over a period of several years, features actual network news coverage of the Trilateral Commission, the shadow government that went into operation on 9/11, the Bohemian Grove and numerous other topics that the nightly news almost never mentions. Many of the videos (if not all) are being released online for the first time.

Doctor Who & Scissor Sisters "I Can’t Decide"

Scissor Sisters
“I Can’t Decide” lyrics

It’s not easy having yourself a good time
Greasing up those bets and betters
Watching out they don’t four-letter
Fuck and kiss you both at the same time
Smells-like something I’ve forgotten
Curled up died and now it’s rotten

I’m not a gangster tonight
Don’t want to be a bad guy
I’m just a loner baby
And now you’re gotten in my way

I can’t decide
Whether you should live or die
Oh, you’ll probably go to heaven
Please don’t hang your head and cry
No wonder why
My heart feels dead inside
It’s cold and hard and petrified
Lock the doors and close the blinds
We’re going for a ride

It’s a bitch convincing people to like you
If I stop now call me a quitter
If lies were cats you’d be a litter
Pleasing everyone isn’t like you
Dancing jigs until I’m crippled
Slug ten drinks I won’t get pickled

I’ve got to hand it to you
You’ve played by all the same rules
It takes the truth to fool me
And now you’ve made me angry

I can’t decide
Whether you should live or die
Oh, you’ll probably go to heaven
Please don’t hang your head and cry
No wonder why
My heart feels dead inside
It’s cold and hard and petrified
Lock the doors and close the blinds
We’re going for a ride

Oh I could throw you in the lake
Or feed you poisoned birthday cake
I wont deny I’m gonna miss you when you’re gone
Oh I could bury you alive
But you might crawl out with a knife
And kill me when I’m sleeping
That’s why

I can’t decide
Whether you should live or die
Oh, you’ll probably go to heaven
Please don’t hang your head and cry
No wonder why
My heart feels dead inside
It’s cold and hard and petrified
Lock the doors and close the blinds
We’re going for a ride


Digg!