{jcomments on}

Assault on the Constitution by GOP

 

Target: Women, poor, minorities, labor.

 

In just the last 4 years, states have enacted 231 abortion restrictions

When left with little or no safe options, women will turn to unsafe measures to terminate a pregnancy. “They’re going to find a way. Which means there might be an increase in infection, infertility, in death.” said Lucy at Whole Women's Health in Texas.

These laws are justified by politicians as necessary to protect women's health. Strange then that these same right wing politicians want to destroy Planned Parenthood which is all about women's health.  Not a dime of tax money is spent by that organization to provide abortions.

Bans on abortion present a greater risk to women's health than do abortions. Forgetting the fight to gain constitutional protection for a woman's right to choose, was littered with death and disability from unsafe, back ally abortions.  When asked, many politicians dismiss this danger.  They don't care. For them ideology is more important than women or their health or their individual rights to choose.

These same right wing politicians want to destroy affordable health care (Obama Care) which is also all about access to health care for all Americans.  Their complaint is that Government should not "stand between patient and doctor" among other false arguments. Yet they are sure that it is OK for government to stand between patient and doctor when the patient is a "mere" woman!

The scientific community is roundly opposed to these bans because they have no scientific basis. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), a national leader on gynecologic health and science, has denounced bans on abortion. Why? Because the actual experts at ACOG know that there is no scientific argument in defense of these bans.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists stated in their brief before the Supreme Court in objection to the Texas law said;

"Abortion is one of the safest medical procedures performed in the United States. The risk associated with childbirth is approximately fourteen times higher than abortion..."

Joan Rivers died as a result of a far more dangerous outpatient procedure, an endoscopy. Yet the same states who use "women's safety" and onerous zoning rules to regulate abortion clinics out of existence have not done the same for outpatient endoscopy procedures. Why?

The United Nations, as well as our own Supreme Court, make it overwhelmingly clear that women have a right to safe abortion, and that denying them access to safe abortion care is a violation of their human rights.

The GOP and those on the right will pound the table and declare no one shall tamper with the right to buy a gun, but they not only refuse to defend other portions of the same constitution, they are on the attack against many constitutionally protected rights. These are overwhelmingly targeting those who would likely not vote for them.  Women, minorities, the poor, LGBT, labor, and the middle class in general.

This attack on hard-won rights accelerated after the 2010 mid term elections.  If you don't like this trend of anti-rights remember that if you were a liberal or progressive voter and stayed home on that day, YOU let this happen.  Don't stay home on election day. ALL elections are important and often the mid-term elections are more critical than presidential elections.

GUNS: Now here's a thought to turn the same dirty tricks against the GOP.  Let's put restrictions on Federally Licensed Gun Dealers similar to those being placed on abortion clinics.  Limit of ten license issued per state when renewal comes due, or new applications are made. Require any licensed dealer who sells assault weapons to install a bank-type walk in vault to store those weapons for "safety" reasons. Require other building construction features such as "sally-port" type entries controlled from the inside be installed in existing stores. Extra thick walls in case ammo explodes. ( Never mind that almost never happens, just like GOP politicians ignore facts of abortion safety ) Perhaps even stipulate a separate license to sell ammo and that a firearms dealer cannot sell both weapons and ammo.

I bet the GOP will how well but then just remind them it is for safety and you still have your right to buy a gun from a safe place even if you have to drive 200 miles.

This is what happens to YOUR rights when you don't exercise your vote! This assault began after the 2010 Mid Terms when progressives stayed home.

 

Watch Samantha Bee take on one of the "male" Texas lawmakers
over the law being heard by the Supreme Court. He admits ignorance of the
procedures and safety issues he used to justify the legislation.

//

{jcomments on}

The SCOTUS Circus

Let's see how the Republicans in the Senate turn the death of Justice Scalia into a political circus.

Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 [The President] shall nominate, and, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint ... Judges of the supreme Court...

We already hear McConnell’s vow to refuse to do his job and accept any nomination from Obama. Candidates on the right are trying to make the argument that the next president should choose the person to fill Scalia's shoes.

The Constitution makes it very clear that it is the sitting president, not a future president who must do this. The language itself uses the word "shall", which in legal terms is mandatory language. This is a constitutional obligation of the current president and Senate, whether or not the Republicans like that fact.

I know...sometimes they are fact-challenged.

But I submit to McConnell and his fellow obstructionists a few points to ponder.

Is it any wonder Obama finds himself going it alone (executive action) when those on the right have at once, declared to obstruct him at every turn and then demand he work with Congress.

Is this a game of Russian roulette they really want to play? What if Bernie wins and the GOP loses control of the Senate...it's possible. Whose appointee would be more liberal, Obama's or Bernie’s?

We all know Obama is pretty conservative compared to Bernie. Take the appointment offered unless you prefer to risk a Bernie Sanders justice !! Personally, I'd like to see Bernie put a man on the court!

Show America you can do your job without political motivation...at least this once.

//

Trump demands loyalty to attend meeting

Trump booked a 1,400 seat venue in Vermont for a campaign event.  

Trump passed out 20,000 tickets to attend that event. This of course caused a lot of safety concerns among law enforcement, expeting huge crowds waiting with tickets in hand when only a fraction would be admitted. Less than one in ten of those tickets would be honored.

"...at least 6,500 people had told the campaign as of Monday that they wanted to attend..." Far less than the 20,000 tickets but still far more than could expect to get in. 1

He would only allow those who signed a pledge to vote for him to attend, meaning he only wanted to "convince" those who were already supporters?  I thought one purpose of a political rally was to encourage new supporters but it seems Trump is content talking only to those he no longer needs to convince.

Of course this was a private event at a private venue so he can do what he wants, but does it seem strange to anyone else that excluding those people you may want to sway to your position is a good way to accomplish that?  I would think the effect would be opposite.

"When Trump polled the crowd to see if they liked him, many in the audience booed..."

 

 

When it was evident some who got in were not supporters Trump had them thrown out.  Sure way to gain support...right?

This reminds me of the George Bush "free speech" sections where anyone opposing him was required to stay outside the main event. Seems the notion of free speech is lost on GOP candidates when it involves hearing anyone who does not agree with you. 2  Is this what GOP candidates really think of the First Amendment?  (It is, you know, before the 2nd Amendment and is the tool used to protect all the rest of the Constitution!)

The ACLU said it had seen a significant spike in such incidents under the Bush Administration, prompting it to charge officials with a ""pattern and practice"" of discrimination against those who disagree with government policies.

This took place when Bush was actually president...what would Trump do to anyone who does not fall in line with his ideas?

What an ego! What a danger! -->

trump-800.png

 

 

 

--

He is one of "those" who's message includes "If you like your health care, you cannot keep your healthcare"

 

 1. Boston Herald

2. No Free Speach/GOP

 

{jcomments on}

GOP story vs. actual facts.

The GOP candidates are always looking for a way to bash Obama even though he is not running for office.  It seems to have been their hobby since he was elected.

Try quilting.

Here are some ACTUAL facts that reveal one of two sad truths about the GOP candidates.

  1. They are ignorant and uninformed
    or
  2. They lie.

Which of the above do you think would make for a good president?

growth1.png

employment.png

insured1.png

 

Kim Davis is in jail.

GOP CANDIDATES FLOCKS TO HER SIDE.

Her "crime" contempt of court for refusing to obey the law as a government official.

As the Clerk of Courts for her county in Kentucky, she has a legal and moral obligation to serve the people of her county in all proscribed duties including issuing marriage licenses.

The Supreme Court recently held that all citizens regardless of sexual orientation have the same rights to marry the person of their choice. This settled once and for all the constitutional principle that equal protection of the laws applies to ALL citizens, not just to select groups of citizens such as straight couples as Davis believes.

The notion of gay's marrying each other triggers a primal anger among certain religious communities. This objection is within their rights and no church has ever been told they must sanctify any marriage.

The Clerk of Courts simply issues a license to couples. They do not perform any ceremony, they are not compelling any church to do so. This is simply granting a CIVIL RIGHT to marry.

Kim Davis is a public servant when she goes to work, accepting the oath of office and taxpayer money to serve the people of her county which included obedience to the US Constitution and our laws.  All of them.

That Davis has a strong religious conviction can be considered honorable but that she has taken it upon herself to violate her oath of office to place her personal beliefs ahead of those of the people who elected her and the law of the land, is not honorable.

Honor would dictate that she must choose between her beliefs and her day job. She cannot have both.

Instead of mustering the courage to resign as clerk, she chose to refuse to obey the law and even refused to let her deputy clerks obey the law.  This is a clear obstruction of justice under color of law, hence her new living accommodations, also paid for by the people.

The judge gave her an option, let the deputy clerks handle gay license, leaving her hands "clean" of personal involvement. She had a chance to keep her faith and her job.

She refused. She is in jail while her deputies issue licenses in keeping with the obligations of the office.

Now we see GOP presidential candidates flocking to her side.  One could think this predictable but what does it say about these candidates in particular?

These are men who see American as a Theocracy, not a democracy. They ignore our founding fathers specific intent to keep religion out of politics.

Rather than supporting the law or the Constitution of the United States, these men support a form of religious anarchy in which religious beliefs should dictate how we must all live.  I don't want that kind of person in public office of any kind. It indicates to me that our Constitution is not safe if someone of such power were to place their personal religious beliefs ahead of the supreme law of the land.

It seems almost a given that many conservative politicians are willing to ignore our laws when it suits their personal belief, and that their followers are equally willing to agree, when it suits them. This is what is so dangerous about this kind of politics, it subverts the intent of our laws in favor of a political objective and a personally held belief system.

We deserve better. Politicians who's agenda omits religious intervention into our civic lives.

 

 

 

More Articles ...

  1. 2016 Race to the bottom