The Alarming Rise of Political Violence in America

I wanted to come up with something about the targeted assassinations in Minnesota, which is where my two co-bloggers were located. It needs to be tied into what Luigi Mangione did and why that is not acceptable, even if you agree with his message. It's interesting that the act of political violence against politicians happened in Minnesota, even if that is only coincidental. On the other hand, political violence is a very disturbing trend. I agree with this commentator that it doesn't bode well for a country.

Armed mobs are more of a recipe for repression than freedom.

Stop defending Mangione...

This is what Karen Agnifilo Friedman had to say about him on the Anderson Cooper 360 Degrees That was aired December 10, 2024 - 20:00 ET  https://transcripts.cnn.com/show/acd/date/2024-12-10/segment/01:

His lawyer's exact words from this:

And I agree with much of what everybody is saying. But I think one thing I just want to point out is it looks to me like this -- there might be a not guilty by reason of insanity defense that they're going to be thinking about, because the evidence is going to be so overwhelming that he did what he did. 

This is truly an open and shut case.

But, to quote H.L. Mencken:

"No one in this world, so far as I know—and I have searched the records for years, and employed agents to help me—has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people. Nor has anyone ever lost public office thereby. The mistake that is made always runs the other way. Because the plain people are able to speak and understand, and even, in many cases, to read and write, it is assumed that they have ideas in their heads, and an appetite for more. This assumption is a folly."

It never fails to amaze me the people who support Mangione. 

Leopold, Loeb, and Luigi

Now that Mangione's handwritten confession, which it pretty much is, is out there, we see him talking about "normies". I've already described him as a 21st century Leopold and Loeb. A smart, rich kid who thought he could commit a the perfect crime and get away with it. Unlike Leopold and Loeb who tried to commit the perfect crime, this guy was a total bozo. He was way too obvious and didn't cover his tracks.

The notebook is basically Mangione talking about his preparation for the murder. I have to admit that it has me thinking about Leopold and Loeb who  thought they were clever enough to get away with murder, and they spent months plotting out what they considered to be a foolproof scheme. Mangione talks about Ted  Kaczynski, the unabomber. He also talks about how he failed because the "normies" thought he was a monster. But what is a "normie"? Someone who is normal? Which is another thing which makes me think of Leopold and Loeb:

Leopold was interested in psychology, particularly the concept of Übermenschen (“supermen”) put forth by German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche. Nietzsche suggested that there were certain members of society with superior intellect who were able to rise above the laws that were meant for ordinary people.

Soon, Leopold became convinced that he was one of these supermen and, as such, was not bound by the laws or ethics of society. Eventually, he convinced Loeb that he was one, too.

They thought they were immune from society's laws, and to prove that, they would commit the perfect

crime:

At the end of 1923, Leopold and Loeb started planning their “perfect crime.” They decided murder would garner the most attention, so they began plotting how they would get away with it. They chose a weapon, decided how they would dispose of the body, and drafted a ransom note. All they needed was a victim.

 Mangione is looking for a victim who won't be sympathetic so he can "finally feel confident about what I will do. The details are coming together. And I don't feel any doubt about whether it's right/justified," He picked his victim because he worked in the insurance industry: "The target is insurance. It checks every box." Even sicker is that he decided he should instead "wack [sic] the CEO" at the conference because it doesn't "risk innocents."

He may have book smarts, but he sure as fcuk lacks knowse. There were several bystanders and his homemade gun put them in danger of being shot. He also seems unaware that terrorism isn't about the amount or extent of the victims or damage, but is very much a crime of intent. He wrote himself into a death penalty. Toss in that most jurisdictions enhance extrajudicial killing if they show intent. And His confession is more than enough proof.

He should have stuck to gaming since reality isn't his strong point.

There is a big difference between Leopold and Loeb and Luigi as he is now.  Leopold commented on his and Loeb’s “perfect crime" in his autobiography:

“Looking back from the vantage point of today, I cannot understand how my mind worked then. For I can recall no feeling then of remorse. Remorse did not come until later, much later. It did not begin to develop until I had been in prison for several years; it did not reach its full flood for perhaps 10 years. Since then, for the past quarter century, remorse has been my constant companion. It is never out of my mind. Sometimes it overwhelms me completely, to the extent that I cannot think of anything else.”

Also, Leopold and Loeb plead guilty, their process was a sentencing hearing. Mangione isn't willing to admit he was caught.  I think his arrogance is clouding his judgement.

Anyway, these are just my observations from what I have seen of both cases. And like Leopold and Loeb, Luigi is going to go away. But I don't think he is going to escape the death penalty unless he pleads out, but his ego won't allow him to plead out.

And a jury nullifier might cause a mistrial, but that will only delay the inevitable that Luigi will never see freedom. I also wonder how many of these lovestruck people would want a homicidal stalker loose on the world?

Luigi Mangione and the real elephant in the room

OK, while I support gun regulation: I am on the outs with a lot of the groups who are "working" on this effort. This is due to their support for duopoly candidates, who caused the problem. But it has gotten even worse with this incident.

Legislators who denounce "ghost guns" use this as a springboard for a "discussion on healthcare". I would hope that the reaction would have been different had Mangione been a mass shooter, but I am not so sure. His admiration for the Unabomber and use of assassination seems to be passed over.

If anything, this incident is a side show to distract from the real issues out there. In this case, his use of a ghost gun, which is a definite issue in the "gun violence" sector.

According to the Department of Justice, the number of ghost guns recovered by law enforcement skyrocketed from 1,758 in 2016 to 19,344 in 2021, a surge of more than 1,000%. Nearly 700 of those weapons were involved in suspected homicides or attempted homicides.

OK, other than the gun rights crowd, not too many people are paying attention to this.

So, while I know the Second Amendment has been misinterpreted, I doubt that the US will ever be able to address its gun violence problem. (BTW, anyone for using "domestic violence", US Constitution Article 4, Section 4, for some fun?)

I would also add that the US's tendency toward violence is actually quite frightening.

What really explains Luigi Mangione fandom

I don't get how a rich, spoiled brat like Mangione can get sympathy for what he did, which is to plan out the killing of a person. He shoots his victim in the back and then runs because deep in his heart Mangione knows he committed a crime. Yet, there are people who support him. They way people found Ted Bundy attractive. Anyway, Reason pretty much sums up how I feel about all this:

Mangione committed a heinous crime: murder. And like an odious person is entitled to a legal defence, the victim is a victim of a crime whether we approve of their morality or not.

A smart kid like Mangione could have worked toward health care reform in a more constructive manner. I don't have sympathy for Mangione. And you need to examine your values if you do.

Got him!

 OK, while I believe that a lot of things in the United States need reform, healthcare in particular, using violence is totally counterproductive. I wonder how Jill Stein and the Greens would have fared in the last election if this clown had used his talents toward her campaign instead of a senseless act of violence.

He was caught. Not as quickly as I had thought he would be. He was also caught because of technology: CCTV in this case. The "surveillance state" isn't just big brother. It's also the mom and pop shops and homeowners.

He was a 21st century Leopold and Loeb. Smart kid who thought he could commit a crime. Unlike Leopold and Loeb who tried to commit the perfect crime, this guy was a total bozo. He was way too obvious and didn't cover his tracks.

And there was the "ghost gun". For all the experts guessing what type of gun it was: it appears to have been a 3D printed ghost gun. He wasn't a pro--the gun was a POS. I personally wouldn't use a gun I made from scratch. And I definitely wouldn't mess with one printed in plastic (polymer). I know what it takes to handmake a firearm and 3D printing is not it.

No sympathy from me for his killing someone.

I would have been more sympathetic if he had told his story as a reason for voting Green. Or to get the debate onto healthcare reform instead of which candidate is worse.

The end is near......in a matter of speaking I'm embarrassed by the MN GOP, again

Behold the right in all their glory, from Rump, our temporary president on down the food chain to the despicable MN GOP.

From the latest Wonkette piece on the MN GOP passing health care 'reform' legislation

"Minnesota Republicans Pass Health Insurance ‘Reform’ That Doesn’t Cover Any Actual Medical Stuff"

You betcha: If this thing went into effect, you could buy health insurance in Minnesota that excluded coverage for costly stuff you don’t need. Like diagnostic tests or cancer treatment. Or Emergency services. Or much of anything. In essence, it would allow a return to the good old days of “Junk Insurance” policies that had low premiums, low deductibles, and didn’t cover hardly anything. But they were inexpensive, and by golly, those were the policies you couldn’t keep when Obamacare went into effect. And it’s a preview of the glories of keeping costs down by allowing people to buy insurance policies across state lines — if the bare-bones coverage that this Minnesota bill would provide still cost too much, you could go buy your insurance in some state that doesn’t require insurance policies to cover, say, “doctor visits.” Just think how much you’d save on insurance, unless of course you actually needed insurance!
It’s unclear whether the bill would pass the state Senate, where Republicans only have a one-seat majority, and it would certainly be vetoed by Democratic Gov. Mark Dayton, who just had his own health scare yesterday — he passed out while giving his state of the state address, and while he’s back at work today, he revealed that he was diagnosed with prostate cancer last week. Oh, look at item 22 on the list of things insurance companies wouldn’t have to cover: “Prostate cancer screenings.”

I am assuming the model for this graphic is not temporary president Rump,
because while the overall size and shape are about right, the skin tones are not orange enough
unless, like so many other things, he's only concerned with what shows...

I used to believe, and still do occasionally, that the Republicans were simply clueless as to how to govern.  But they know; they just don't want to do it.

It might be more fundamental, that they don't grasp the proper role of government, which would explain why they keep trying to privatize everything.
But bottom line -- pun intended on the photo -- the right exists to redistribute wealth to the wealthy from the less wealthy, in whatever form they can devise, and the hell with the average citizen or the middle class. Like the soup nazi from friends, if I might slightly paraphrase -- NONE FOR YOU.No medical care. No education. No roads. No libraries. No voting.  No post office. No retirement. No safe and clean environment. No safe drinking water. No food or shelter for the poor.

There is no end to what the right wants to......end, except when it comes to corporate welfare and big bonuses and salaries for the obscenely rich.  Well.........maybe there is one naked end.......goal, that is.

GOP, This Is What Losing Looks Like; Pay Attention!

Going in such a short time from threatening, to whining that the opposition is doing to you what you did so prolifically to them.

Then:

and

and

and NOW:

Seriously, is there anything funnier than the party that claimed the Health Care Reform Legislation was going to pull the plug on Grandma now claiming the left is Demagoging THEM? What a bunch of hypocrites and whiners!  The difference between the Republicans and the Democrats is that the Republicans lied, lied blatantly up one side and down the other, shamelessly.  Theydistorted, and grossly misrepresented the Health Care Reform bill, while the Democrats have very accurately presented criticism of the Ryan plan as it seriously guts Medicare.

There is no threat of demagoguery, to demogog something is to "to treat or manipulate (a political issue) in the manner of a demagogue; obscure or distort with emotionalism, prejudice, etc. " per dictionary.com.  No, after having lied their asses off about the Obama Health Care Reform legislation, the Right is now claiming foul, calling demagoguery unfairly, for the Left telling the truth about their Ryan plan.

And the truth is sinking the Republicans, and will continue to cost them dearly, no matter how they tap dance, how they spin, how they lie.

Factcheck.org Busts Congressman Ryan, Including Lyin' Ryan Promoting False 'Mediscare' Claims

Ryan and the Right Continue to LIE about their Plan and Medicare, because they need to; they aren't listening to the people of the United States, they listen only to their big donors, particularly the big insurance companies.

Ryan and the Right is trying to do something bad, something wrong.  They keep saying we 'don't understand their plan'.  We understand it perfectly, and the overwhelming majority of us REJECT their plan. 

Lyin' Ryan and the Republicans, THEY are the ones who don't understand.  But as we have more elections where they lose, they will eventually get the message.  Or it will cease to matter if they understand because they will have been thrown out, beginning with the recall elections in states like Wisconsin and Michigan.

Ryan Revises History on Medicare Reform


May 23, 2011

Rep. Paul Ryan revises history when he says his Medicare plan is "in keeping with the Bill Clinton bipartisan committee" proposal in 1999. Contrary to the impression left by Ryan, the commission's final report failed largely along partisan lines. Clinton opposed it, and all four of his appointees voted against it.

It's true, though, that both proposals recommended providing a government subsidy for seniors to buy insurance — that's one of the issues that caused the plan to fail to win final approval. (my emphasis-DG)

Not Clinton's Committee

On "Meet the Press," Ryan called his Medicare plan "sensible" and compared it to the work of a "Bill Clinton bipartisan commission" — referring to a 1999 final draft report issued by the National Bipartisan Commission on the Future of Medicare.

Ryan, May 22: And the way in which we propose reforming for the next generation, it's in keeping with the Bill Clinton bipartisan commission that — to reform Medicare, it's an idea that's been around for a long time called premium support: guaranteed coverage options for Medicare where the government subsidizes the poor and the sick a whole lot more than the wealthy, and people get to choose.

He's right that both plans recommended "premium support payments" — or government subsidies — to help seniors buy insurance. Under Ryan's plan, future beneficiaries (those currently younger than 55) would use the subsidies to buy private insurance. Under the 1999 plan, seniors would have been able to apply the subsidies toward the traditional government-run Medicare program or buy private insurance. So, to that extent, his plan indeed is in keeping with the 1999 proposal.

But any attempt to cast the 1999 report as bipartisan or suggest it was Clinton's commission is misleading. (emphasis added - DG)

The commission was created by Congress as part of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. The New York Times reported that Clinton appointed just four of the 17 commission members, and all four of them voted against the report. Clinton himself opposed the final draft report. He issued a statement on the day of the vote that criticized the plan for, among other things, potentially increasing premiums for seniors who remain in the traditional government-run Medicare plan. Why? Clinton and other Democrats feared the subsidies would not keep pace with inflation.

Rep. John Dingell, a Michigan Democrat and commission member, voted against the report and criticized it in words that echo today's partisan criticism of Ryan's plan: "The proposal before us would convert Medicare from a universal guarantee to a Government voucher for private insurance."

The commission failed to get the 11 votes it needed to approve the final report. All eight Republican appointees and only two centrist Democrats, chairman John Breaux of Louisiana and Sen. Bob Kerrey of Nebraska, voted for it. The report failed by a 10-7 vote.

'Mediscare': A True Bipartisan Plan

Ryan is correct, though, when he blames both parties for engaging in what he called "Mediscare" — which we documented as recently as May 19 in the special House election in New York's 26th congressional district.

Ryan, May 22: Look, of course people are scared of entitlement reform because every time you put entitlement reform out there, the other party uses it as a political weapon against you. Look, both parties have done this to each other.

He proved his point when he engaged in, well, a bit of Mediscare himself.

Ryan repeated a false claim that the Independent Payment Advisory Board created by the new federal health care law will "ration" Medicare to cut costs.

Ryan, May 22: The alternative to this, David, is a rationing scheme, are the 15 bureaucrats the president's going to appoint next year on his panel to ration Medicare spending. We don't think we should give the government the power to ration spending to seniors.

As we have written before, the health care law specifically states that the advisory board “shall not include any recommendation to ration health care.” And the voting board members are doctors, economists and other outside experts, not Washington bureaucrats.

Posted by Eugene Kiely on Monday, May 23, 2011 at 6:29 pm

Filed under The FactCheck Wire · Tagged with medicare, Paul Ryan

Politifact.com Fact-checks the O'Reilly Interview with President Obama

As regular readers know, I am a big fan of politifact.com.  Here is their latest on the weekend's chat between Faux News' Bill O'Reilly and the POTUS.  I emphatically agree with the distinction that politifcact.com makes between procedural dismissals and wins or losses on merits.  But I also agree with the Obama side that those 12 losses add to the win side of the administration for the health care reform legislation.  I'm betting that this WILL survive the eventual SCOTUS decision. Too few Americans are aware of those twelve decisions on the plus side, so I'm glad to see them provided here - with links no less.  You're usual good job politifact.com!

Twelve judges have thrown out legal challenges to the health care law because they rejected "the notion that the health care law was unconstitutional."

Supplemental to the PSA in Defense of Women's Lives, and Against the Wrong-on-the-Right Extremists in Congress

The previous PSA contained a petition to be presented to Congress, as a whole.  I promised that if the opportunity came for links to individual members of Congress, to facilitate expressing your views to your own individual congressman or congresswoman, I would present it here.  Tell your Representative in Congress to stop waging culture wars, to stop over reaching any mandate they incorrectly believe they have to intrude and meddle in the lives of individual citizens. Tell them to get to the real business of Congress serving the people of this country, not the wealthy few, not the extreme fringe, and not corporations.  Every individual contact like this is a reminder of who elected them - and who cannot vote.

Do it by using the link embedded in the following message from the Center for Reproductive Rights.  You may or may not support any other positions of this organization, but using the link specifically addresses ONLY the issue of abortions to save the life of the mother, something  on which we can widely share a consensus.

NO human being in this country should have to face seeking medical care for a health problem where they could lose their life, only to be denied that care because of the unscientific, religious beliefs of a health care provider or institution being forced on them, or judging their morals.  We have medical ethics committees in every hospital in this country which competently and knowledgeably addresses these issues - and they don't do it like this legislation.

Attempts to Repeal Health Care Resume This Week, Continuing the False Claims of Job Killing

"The effect of the law on jobs is likely to be modest," said Katherine Baicker, an economic adviser to President George W. Bush who is now a professor of health economics at Harvard. "The most important effects of the law will be on health costs and coverage and the efficiency of the health care system, not on jobs."
- from an article by Robert Pear, in the New York Times

Even economic advisers to the most recent Republican president don't call the 'Obamacare' health care reform job killing.  Who is Katherine Baicker, and why should we care?  Here is a brief synopsis of her CV to explain why we should pay attention to her opinion:

From 2005-2007, Professor Baicker served as a Senate-confirmed Member of the President’s Council of Economic Advisers, where she played a leading role in the development of health care policy. She currently serves on the Editorial Boards of Health Affairs, the Journal of Health Economics, and the Forum for Health Economics and Policy; as Vice Chair of the Board of Directors of Academy Health; on the Congressional Budget Office's Panel of Health Advisers; and as a Commissioner on the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission.

Simply put, this woman appears to know what she is talking about,

The Label 'Job-Killing Law' Is Another Republican Lie; the Non-partisan Truth from Factcheck.org: Health Care Reform is Neither Job Killing NOR Budget Busting

This is the entire article as it appears at  Factcheck.org.  I could say more, but I couldn't say it better.  Thank you factcheck.org; thank you!

A ‘Job-Killing’ Law?

House Republicans misrepresent the facts. Experts predict the health care law will have little effect on employment.

January 7, 2011
Summary

When it comes to truth in labeling, House Republicans are getting off to a poor start with their constantly repeated references to the new health care law as "job-killing."

We find:

Independent, nonpartisan experts project only a "small" or "minimal" impact on jobs, even before taking likely job gains in the health care and insurance industries into account.

The House Republican leadership, in a report issued Jan. 6, badly misrepresents what the Congressional Budget Office has said about the law. In fact, CBO is among those saying the effect "will probably be small."

The GOP also cites a study projecting a 1.6 million job loss — but fails to mention that the study refers to a hypothetical employer mandate that is not part of the new law.

The same study cited by the GOP also predicts an offsetting gain of 890,000 jobs in hospitals, doctors’ offices and insurance companies — a factor not mentioned by the House leadership.

There’s little doubt that the new law will likely lead to somewhat fewer low-wage jobs. That’s mainly because of the law’s requirement that, generally, firms with more than 50 workers pay a penalty if they fail to provide health coverage for their workers. One leading health care expert, John Sheils of The Lewin Group, puts the loss at between 150,000 and 300,000 jobs, at or near the minimum wage. And Sheils says that relatively small loss would be partly offset by gains in the health care industry.

Analysis

Attaching misleading labels to legislation is a well-worn tactic in Washington. Conservatives got rid of most of the estate tax after labeling it a "death tax," as though it taxed death instead of multimillion-dollar fortunes. And liberals once won passage of an "assault weapons ban" that didn’t really ban fully automatic military assault rifles, which were already illegal for civilians to own without a very-hard-to-get federal license. Now House Republicans are seeking to repeal what they call "Obamacare: A budget-busting, job-killing health care law." That’s the title of a study issued by the House Republican leadership Jan. 6.

And the GOP is clearly pushing the "job-killer" claim. House Speaker John Boehner used the phrase "job-killing" to describe the health care law seven times on Thursday in a press conference that lasted less than 14 minutes — that’s once every 2 minutes. He also used the phrases "destroy jobs" and "destroying jobs" once each when talking about the law. Perhaps not surprisingly, the Republicans named their bill to repeal the health care law: "Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act."

But is the health care law really "job-killing" as claimed? We find that to be another case of exaggerated and misleading labeling.

Job-Killing?

To support its claim, the GOP report first cites the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office — but the report badly misrepresents what CBO actually said.
House GOP Leadership, Jan. 6: The health care law will cause significant job losses for the U.S. economy: the Congressional Budget Office has determined that the law will reduce the “amount of labor used in the economy by … roughly half a percent…,” an estimate that adds up to roughly 650,000 jobs lost.

In fact, CBO did not predict a 650,000 job loss. The Republican report cites a CBO report from August, which actually said that the economy will use less labor primarily because many people will choose to work less, or retire early, as a result of the new law. (See Box 2.1, pages 48 and 49.) What CBO projects is mostly a reduction in the supply of labor, which is not the same as a reduction in the supply of jobs.

CBO, August 2010: The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that the legislation, on net, will reduce the amount of labor used in the economy by a small amount—roughly half a percent—primarily by reducing the amount of labor that workers choose to supply.

CBO said one reason fewer people will choose to work is that many low-income people will have more money in their pockets as a result of the law expanding Medicaid and providing federal subsidies for many who buy insurance privately. "The expansion of Medicaid and the availability of subsidies through the exchanges will effectively increase beneficiaries’ financial resources," CBO said. "Those additional resources will encourage some people to work fewer hours or to withdraw from the labor market."

Another reason that people might work less is that the new law requires insurance companies to cover preexisting conditions, and also limits their ability to charge higher rates for older persons who buy policies for themselves. "As a result, some older workers will choose to retire earlier than they otherwise would," CBO said.

To be sure, some jobs will indeed be lost, CBO said. That’s because the new law requires many businesses to pay a penalty if they do not provide health insurance to their workers. That "will probably cause some employers to respond by hiring fewer low-wage workers," CBO said. But it also said these firms may hire more part-time or seasonal workers instead. CBO did not estimate the number of jobs likely to be affected either way.

In a more extensive look at the subject, CBO on July 14, 2009, said the effect of the employer mandate "would probably be small." The GOP report did not mention that.

Finally, CBO did not attempt to estimate the number of jobs likely to be gained in the health care and insurance industries. It has projected that the law will result in 32 million Americans gaining health insurance that they would not otherwise have, enabling them to buy more services from physicians and other health care providers. More about that later.

Others Estimate ‘Small,’ ‘Minimal’ Impact

As we have reported previously, The Lewin Group also has estimated a small impact on jobs as a result of the health care law. Senior Vice President John Sheils said Lewin’s analysis showed 150,000 to 300,000 jobs lost, all minimum wage or near minimum wage positions that would be lost permanently. That doesn’t account for increases in jobs in other sectors, mainly health care, that Sheils also expects but hasn’t quantified. All told, he estimates, a "small net job loss."

Lewin is a subsidiary of UnitedHealth Group but operates independently of the insurance company. The reason that some low-wage workers are expected to lose jobs, as CBO also said, is that some employers who are faced with penalties will pass along those costs to workers in the form of lower wages or reduced benefits. For low-wage workers, their wages can’t be reduced below the minimum wage, so those firms would hire less, lay off workers or use more part-time employment.

Sheils notes that there will be distributional effects, as some sectors gain jobs and others lose them, but the people gaining employment aren’t necessarily the same who lost jobs. He says there’s "a potentially painful process here in changes in employment in some industries … versus others." Skilled workers are likely to benefit.

When we reported on this issue in November 2009, the House was debating a health care bill with tougher requirements and penalties for employers than the law now has. Even under that bill, Elizabeth McGlynn, associate director of the health unit at RAND Corp., told us the effect on jobs "is likely to be quite minimal." McGlynn said: "Most large businesses already offer health insurance. And most small businesses are excluded from the mandate. So it’s relatively few firms that will be affected."

And small businesses — those with 50 or fewer employees — are likely to benefit under the law, Sheils says. "I think they actually could come out ahead," he says. "They don’t face the mandate and they could get a tax credit at least for a while for their health benefit. … It gives them an advantage in the marketplace," if they’re competing against larger firms.

Besides Sheils’ numbers and CBO’s estimate, we haven’t found other nonpartisan figures on the law’s impact on jobs. When we asked Sheils if he knew of others, he said no. He added that he thinks that a lot of economists believe the effect is small, and that’s why they’re not doing an analysis.
1.6 million lost jobs?
The second piece of evidence offered by the GOP report is a study by the National Federation of Independent Business, projecting a 1.6 million job loss. But here the GOP misrepresents the evidence again. The NFIB did not study the new law. Its report was based on a hypothetical employer mandate that bears little resemblance to what was actually passed — and it also projects a gain of hundreds of thousands of health care and insurance industry jobs.

House GOP Leadership, Jan. 6: A study by the National Federation of Independent Businesses (NFIB), the nation’s largest small business association, found that an employer mandate alone could lead to the elimination of 1.6 million jobs between 2009 and 2014, with 66 percent of those coming from small businesses.

That refers to a study by the NFIB’s Research Foundation. But that study was issued Jan. 26, 2009 — well over a year before the new law was actually enacted. NFIB has not issued any study of what actually became law, and one of this study’s authors, Michael Chow, told us by e-mail that it has no present plans to do so.

The GOP report refers to the NFIB’s analysis as "independent," but it’s hardly a neutral source. The federation is currently backing repeal of the new law, and has historically been opposed to any requirement that businesses provide coverage for their workers. NFIB also cosponsored with the Chamber of Commerce an ad criticizing health care legislation in 2009.

More important, what the NFIB foundation studied was not what became law. It gave its estimate of the effect of a hypothetical employer mandate that would cover all businesses, and require that they pay at least half the insurance premiums for their workers.

NFIB Research Foundation, Jan. 26, 2009: [T]he employer mandate would cause the economy to lose over 1.6 million jobs within the first five years of program implementation. Small firms would be most adversely affected by the mandate and account for approximately 66 percent of all jobs lost.

Even if that 1.6 million figure were accurate, it wouldn’t apply to the new law that was signed last March. The new law does not require all businesses to provide coverage. It exempts those with 50 or fewer workers. So the "small firms" that the NFIB study says would be "most adversely affected" by the imaginary mandate studied in 2009 will not be affected at all by the actual law. The 1.6 million figure is a gross exaggeration of the likely effect of the law, even using the NFIB’s study as a guide.
We’ve looked closely at the study. It’s not possible to say precisely how big a job loss it would have predicted had the 50-worker exemption been factored in. It predicts that the mandate would cause 467,182 jobs to be lost in firms employing 19 or fewer workers, so the 1.6 million figure is high by at least that much. (See Table 6, page 17.) In addition, the study estimates that 420,600 jobs would be lost in firms employing from 20 to 99 workers, so some large but unknown share of those would also have to be subtracted, possibly reducing the figure to 1 million or less.

And although neither the NFIB nor the GOP leadership report mentions it, this is a gross figure, not a net figure. It fails to account for job gains brought about by the new law, a point we’ve already mentioned. And buried deep in the NFIB’s own report is evidence that those job gains could be substantial.

890,000 New Jobs?

Here’s what the NFIB report said about job gains, on page 20:
NFIB Research Foundation, Jan. 26, 2009: The employer mandate would boost demand for healthcare goods and services, thereby increasing employment in healthcare-related sectors. The number of ambulatory healthcare professionals (physicians, dentists, and other healthcare practitioners) needed will increase by 330,000. An additional 327,000 staff will be required to work in hospitals. Some 157,000 more nurses (net of retirements) will be needed to staff doctors’ offices, outpatient clinics, and other provider locations. And payrolls at insurance companies will expand by 76,000 workers.

That comes to 890,000 new jobs.

Although the new law relies more on an individual mandate — requiring nearly everybody to obtain coverage on their own if their employers don’t provide it — the resulting increase in demand for health care services, prescription drugs and other goods would be the same. To repeat, CBO estimates that the law will result in 32 million additional persons with health coverage.

The NFIB study cautioned that some of those 890,000 new jobs might not be filled right away if the increased demand outstrips the health care system’s ability to meet it. But even so, it amounts to a sizeable offset to the jobs likely to be lost due to the employer mandate.

For the record, conservatives aren’t the only ones misrepresenting the law’s likely impact on jobs. The White House claimed in a blog post Jan. 7 that the law "could create more than 300,000 additional jobs" by "slowing the growth of health care costs." The liberal Center for American Progress said in a January 2010 report that "health care reform could increase the number of jobs in the United States by about 250,000 to 400,000 per year over the coming decade." But it remains to be seen whether the law will actually slow the growth of costs for employers and individuals, as the White House hopes it does. And, as we’ve pointed out, claims of large job gains have been contradicted by nonpartisan experts who estimate a small impact on the labor market.

Budget-Busting?
So what about the "budget-busting" label that House Republicans are also trying to apply?

The Congressional Budget Office officially scored the new law as self-financing, projecting that it would actually reduce the deficit over the first 10 years — and beyond. And so it should surprise nobody that CBO said Jan. 6 that repealing the new law, as Republicans propose, would increase the deficit. CBO’s latest figures project that repealing the new law will increase the deficit by a total of $230 billion over the next 10 years (through fiscal year 2021). So keeping it in place would help the budget, not bust it.

Republicans have a point, to this extent: The CBO is forced by law to rely on assumptions that may not turn out to be true, and which Medicare officials say probably won’t happen. The Medicare system’s chief actuary, Richard Foster, issued a report soon after passage of the law saying much of the projected savings "may be unrealistic," and that the law could cause 15 percent of hospitals to become unprofitable unless Congress eases up. "If these reductions were to prove unworkable within the 10-year period 2010-2019 (as appears probable for significant numbers of hospitals, skilled nursing facilities, and home health agencies), then the actual Medicare savings from these provisions would be less," Foster said.

If that happens, the law could well turn out to increase the deficit rather than trim it. But that remains to be seen.

A partisan analysis by the GOP staff of the House Budget Committee claims that the law is loaded with "gimmicks and double-counting" and that the net effect will be a "fiscal train wreck" and a big increase in the deficit. We will examine those claims at a later date.

A ‘Job-Killing’ Response
When we laid out some of our findings to House Majority Leader Eric Cantor’s office, spokesman Brad Dayspring, told us: "This is a job-killing law, period. Anyone who argues otherwise is ignoring the construct of the health care law and the widely accepted facts."
–by Brooks Jackson and Lori Robertson

[As wrong as Cantor's office was - at least someone answered the inquiry - for a change; they usually don't respond at all - DG]

Second Round Win for Health Care Reform in the Court Challenges

Virginia's federal judge Norman Moon ruled on Monday that the Health Insurance Reform legislation passed last year is legal under the Commerce Clause of the constitution.

Judge Moon also categorized the fines as “penalties,” stating that they are not intended to raise revenues, but to “enforce the requirement that individuals and employers purchase or provide health insurance.”

That is the second win, out of some twenty challenges to what critics call 'Obamacare', wins that had been predicted.    In the Michigan decision in October,

Judge George C. Steeh of Federal District Court in Detroit ruled that choosing not to obtain insurance qualified as an example of “activities that substantially affect interstate commerce.” That is the standard set by the Supreme Court for Congress’s compliance with the Commerce Clause.

Judge Steeh, who was appointed by President Bill Clinton, agreed with the federal government that not obtaining health coverage is effectively an active decision to pay for medical care out of pocket. “These decisions, viewed in the aggregate,” Judge Steeh wrote, “have clear and direct impacts on health care providers, taxpayers and the insured population who ultimately pay for the care provided to those who go without insurance.”

While I am pleased that these decisions have been on the side of health care reform, I'm much more interested in the 'big one', the court challenge filed in Florida by conservative state Attorneys General, where it was anticipated to have the greatest chance of success.  Ultimately, this is an issue that is more likely than not to be decided in front of the SCOTUS, the question remains........when?

Where There's Smoke.....There Is Smoking

Thanks to FindLaw.com for the idea for this post.  If you follow the Slate.Slate.com link for this story, you will find an excellent interactive map of the United States showing how smoking habits vary by both age and geography.  There has been an overall decline in smoking, attributed in part to smoking bans.  However that decline leveled off in 2004; in response, the Federal government has proposed changes in the warning labelling and packaging of cigarettes.

I appreciate smoking bans. Having grown up in a household where both adults smoked, fairly heavily, I was surrounded by cigarette smoke.  I developed allergies to cigarette smoke, and I am one of those individuals who cannot express how much relief there is in being able to enjoy retail establishments of all kinds without having to suffer from the smoke of others. 

Smoking seems to define the essential conflict of competing rights in a microcosm that reflects other issues.  There is the legal right of the smoker to enjoy a legal activity.  But I have yet to see any smoker who was able to control the smoke he or she enjoys so that it is not an irritant, or worse, a health hazard, for others.  If it is true that one person's right stops at the end of another person's nose, then clearly smoke does not stop short enough to avoid irritating my nasal sinuses.  Nor does another person enjoying cigarette or cigar smoking stop short of making non-smokers' hair and clothing smell like an ash tray.

For all the screams about some people paying for the health care expenses of others, no individual has ever to my knowledge successfully paid out of pocket for health care costs related to smoking illnesses.  We have all paid and will continue to pay; the only question at issue is how direct or indirectly.  Smoking is a legal practice which to a high statistical degree has been shown to contribute to people becoming ill.  It is voluntary air pollution for pleasure.  An important issue is not only keeping safe the rights of smokers to enjoy their legal activity, but the question presents - would reversing the smoking ban, if only partially, send a mixed message, a public policy contradiction?

Our esteemed commenter and sometimes contributor, Dr. Michael Kirsch was kind enough to post something on this topic in an especially timely manner with the FindLaw post; his post this week is entitled "Can CAT Scans Prevent Lung Cancer? Smoke and Mirrors";

TPaw, Obamacare Litigation, Crickets? Where are you now, Governor Pawlenty?

Update: On Thursday, October 14th, federal Judge Roger Vinson greenlighted the challenge to the Health Care Reform legislation which was signed into law last spring to go forward to trial. Florida had been selected for the filing by the group of filing parties as being more likely to give a favorable ruling. A similar challenge was thrown out by a federal judge in Michigan last week, Judge Caram Steeh ruling in Detroit.

Now that the constitutional challenge is definitely going forward, it is even more appropriate than ever to ask Governor Pawlenty if he is going to follow through on his media-slut appearances last spring, much of it contributing to fund raising.  This becomes a more interesting question in view of Pawlenty's interest in being a presidential candidate in 2012, in the midst of that position declining in popularfity by all but the more ultra-conservative base.  

A cynical person, like myself, wonders if this is because it is no longer expedient for Palwenty to try to profit from this particular 'Moral Panic'.  If that is the case, then it is all the more entertaining to press the question, what is TPaw going to do about his much promoted health care legal challenge?  Tick tock tick tock tick tock.....
_________
Last spring, Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty was all over the media, especially Fox News, making boastful claims that he was going to sue on behalf of Minnesota, that he was joining the legal challenge by 20 other states to the Health Care Reform Legislation.

Minnesota Attorney General Lori Swanson, said "Whoa!" and "NO!"  She is the only constitutionally designated,  elected, legal member of Minnesota State government who could make that decision ---- and she supported the health care reform.

The World Did Not End After Any of These Events, despite dire predictions about what would happen to the world as we know it:

from the New York Times, This Day in History, July 5th

-1935 President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the National Labor Relations Act, which allowed labor to organize for the purpose of collective bargaining.

-1946 The bikini made its debut during an outdoor fashion show at the Molitor Pool in Paris. (trivia - this first French bikini was designed by a man, an automotive engineer not a fashion designer, named Louis Reard; this was what it looked like - DG)

-1948 Britain's National Health Service Act went into effect, providing government-financed medical and dental care.

(Some of us even think these were changes for the better!)

Get Your Paws Off, T-Paw!

“I have been thinking that I would make a proposition to my Republican friends... that if they will stop telling lies about the Democrats, we will stop telling the truth about them.”

“All progress has resulted from people who took unpopular positions.”
- Adlai E. Stevenson
American Politician, Governor of Illinois 1949-53, U. N. Ambassador 1961-65
1900-1965

There is a quiet, very polite conflict going on in the executive branch of Minnesota state government, over who legally represents the state and who calls the shots about going to court over the recent health care reform legislation; there are parallel conficts in states across the country. After the partisan politicizing of the Department of Justice in the Bush Administration, I think we all need to consider very seriously the intrusion of a chief executive into the activities and authority of the applicable Attorney General, especially for self-serving reasons.

from the official web site of Minnesota Attorney General Lori Swanson (D):
http://www.mn.ag.state.mn.us./Office/Default.asp

"About the Attorney General's Office:The Attorney General is the chief legal officer for the State of Minnesota. ... The Office represents the state in state and federal court, as well as in administrative adjudication and rulemaking hearings. ... In addition, the Office issues formal opinions interpreting statutes for the agencies and political subdivisions of the state. ... The Office is the state’s chief policy maker and law enforcer in the important areas of consumer protection, antitrust enforcement and charities’ regulation. "

The topic was covered by the Christian Science Monitor in an article back in March, just after it became law, in response to the same conflcit happening in many other states as well:
“State attorneys general are constitutionally independent state officers and have autonomy in their decisions to take action on behalf of their states,” according to Steven Schier, a political scientist at Carleton College in Northfield, Minn."

A position which has not stopped Minnesota's Republican Governor Tim Pawlenty, who appears to have strong 2012 presidential ambitions, from grandstanding to the arch-conservative GOP base. "T-Paw" boasted to the media from Fox News to Minnesota Public Radio in early April about joining, on behalf of the state of Minnesota, in the AG litigation in Florida challenging the new Health Care Reform law.

Last September, in an interview on ABC's "This Week" with George Stephanopoulos, Pawlenty sang a different tune. He didn't think health care reform merited a legal challenge.

Stephanopoulos: "So, just to be clear, are you suggesting that any parts of the plan as the president has laid it out are unconstitutional?"
Pawlenty: "Well, I wouldn't go so far as to say it's a legal issue."

A change in position Newsweek's Alan Romano mocked when he wrote, "Pawlenty Flip-Flops on Health Care", asking "Is T-Paw the new John Kerry?" in his April 6, 2010 column, The Gaggle.

Why the change? Presidential ambitions.

Or, maybe instead of the suit he has boasted about, as T-Paw asserts much more quietly, he will just file an amicus curiae ("friend of the court") brief on behalf of Minnesota, an opinion / advisory document opposing the legislation.

T-Paw was at one time a practicing attorney and is in his second term as governor. So he should be aware that he is NOT the legal representative for the state of Minnesota in federal court or any other court. We Minnesotans ELECT the Attorney General to do that job, and to exercise that authority.

Given how long it has been since he has practiced law, I'd expect T-Paw to be seeking expert legal ghost writing instead of relying on his own legal qualifications to draft an amicus brief. If so, I don't imagine that service will come cheaply. As a resident of Minnesota, which has seen serious deficits in our state finances resulting is harsh cuts to important budget spending, I particularly would be irked if Governor 'T-Paw' uses any of our state money to get good legal help for his self-serving brief, given recent state budget cuts.

AG Swanson, in a savvy display of what we like to call "Minnesota nice", (which is not always quite as sweet as it seems on the surface), refused to file suit opposing the new law or to join the Republican AGs doing so. But she did write a formal letter to Governor T-Paw giving her official blessing for him to go ahead with his amicus brief.

AG Swanson's letter is available in its entirety here:
http://.minnesota.publicradio.org/features/2010/04/documents/swansonletter.pdf

It's much less impressive to merely offer a formerly practicing attorney's legal opinion to the court, one of many - which the court can ignore. I think Swanson may have politely cooperated with the Governor, giving him enough scope to embarrass himself, and just enough rope to hang himself, leaving him twisting in the wind if he fails. Given the number of states joining the litigation in Florida, T-Paw may be bringing too little too late to the party to impress the GOP hard core with his presidential potential.

Swanson has also indicated to the Governor she will be offering the court her own amicus brief, which she has a more legitimate right to do than Pawlenty on behalf of the state of Minnesota.

Swanson, however, will be supporting the health care reform law, and opposing Governor T-Paw. Personally, I think she will make him look ridiculous; she is arguably a better lawyer than he is. Her legal opinion is based on the law, not on ambition to be a candidate for the White House in 2012.

The judge could still reject Swanson's amicus brief, and T-Paw's. In a mid-April ruling against birther queen Orly Taitz when she tried to join the AG litigation against the health care reform law, senior federal judge for the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida, Roger Vinson, denied Taitz intervener motion stating "the representation by the Attorneys General must be deemed adequate".

Judge Vinson concluded his decision with the statement "The Parties to this litigation, and, indeed, the citizens of this country, have an interest in having this case resolved as soon as practically possible. That task will be made exponentially more difficult if all those who have an opinion or an interest in the outcome of the case were allowed to intervene and to join in those proceedings." In another part of the Taitz decision, Judge Vinson indicated numerous individuals had sought to join in; from his concluding statement, I get the impression the judge would like everyone not directly involved kindly to 'butt out' so he can get on with it. Too bad about Taitz losing out in joining the litigation in one respect; she always provides comic relief to any proceeding in which she is involved.

Numerous other state Attorneys General and their Governors are in conflict over filing litigation of their own, or joining the existing litigation filed by a number of Republican state Attorneys General (with one exception). AG James "Buddy" Caldwell (D) , from the state of Louisiana, is the only Democrat in litigation which is highly partisan, a filing otherwise exclusively along party lines. In the case of the Louisiana AG, the Governor, a Republican, is reported to have threatened to cut the funding for at least half the staff of the AG if he did not join in the litigation on behalf of Louisiana - essentially, gaining state participation by means of a threat which suggests an abuse of power.

In Nevada, Governor Jim Gibbons (R), yet another Republican politician embattled in a sex scandal, pressured Nevada AG Cortez Masto to challenge the recent health care reform in federal court. AG Masto was resisting the pressure, on the basis that there is no legal justification for joining the litigation, a position taken by the majority of states AGs.

In Michigan, the opposite situation is unfolding, with Governor Granholm ordering AG Cox to intervene on behalf of the health care reform legislation, while AG Cox has come out on the side of the litigation opposing the health care reform legislation. In Wisconsin, Republican AG Van Hollen requested permission to join in the litigation challenging the health care reform law. Van Hollen had also requested permission from the Wisconsin state legislature, which is not likely to be given. In Montana, it is the state legislature that is pushing for the AG to pursue litigation over health care reform, and the AG is refusing. In Washington, Governor Chris Gregoire (D) is fighting the Washington AG, Rob McKenna (R) for joining the suit.

In Georgia, AG Thurbert Baker (D) refused to pursue litigation, so instead Governor Sonny Purdue (R) used his state constitutionally provided authority to appoint a special AG to pursue litigation on behalf of the state of Georgia, and named Frank C. Jones to take on the job.

In Oregon, Governor Kulongoski is on the same page with AG Kroger - both are Democrats. Oregon is supporting the legislation in the litigation, filed in Florida. So far as I have been able to determine, this is the only state where both the AG and the Governor are not only in agreement, but willing to expend state funds to defend the health care reform bill in court.

As of this writing, the states with Attorneys General participating in the litigation to overturn the Health Care Reform law are:Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, and Washington. Virginia, again acting on partisan lines, is filing separate litigation from the group action.

Florida AG Bill McCollum (R) has spearheaded the litigation filing in Florida, and is also running for governor in that state. Recent polls in Florida show McCollum losing ground against his democratic opponent, where a recent Quinnipiac poll indicated 54% of Florida voters oppose the suit, while only 40% are in favor of it.

The named Defendants in the suit are the U.S. Dept of Health and Human Services, & Sec. Kathleen Sebelius; U.S. Dept. of the Treasury, & Sec. Tim Geithner; and the U.S. Dept. of Labor & Sec. Hilda Solis.

The Other Charlie Wilson's "War"

Update -

April 9th - US District Judge James Hutton set bail for Charles Alan Wilson in the amount of $20,000, determining he was not a flight risk. If Wilson is able to post the bond, he would be under a curfew from 6 pm to 8 am, cannot have firearms, cannot use alcohol, and is restricted to eastern Washington except for court apperances in Seattle.

April 7th -The man accused of making death threats against Representative Eric Cantor and other members of Congress including Nancy Pelosi, Norman Leboon, has been found by prosecutors unable to stand trial for those threats, because he suffers from multiple personality disorder. Like Leboon, the man arrested recently for making threats against Rep. Pelosi, Gregory Lee Giusti, also has a history of mental illness, and is undergoing an evaluation to determine if he can stand trial.
Charlie Wilson was not a recognized member of the Yakima, Washington Tea Party group, "Remember Us, We the People", but Wilson did participate in a 120 person protest by the group over recent health-care reform legislation, held near a Yakima hotel where Senator Murray was speaking. "We the people" was a recurring phrase in Wilson's threats, as were references to other people sharing his sentiments. According to the Yakima Herald, organizers of the Tea Party protest indicated they did not know Wilson, and that they did not advocate violence.

-----------

This post is about the Charlie Wilson who was arrested for making 'true threats' to the two senators from Washington state, not the Charlie Wilson profiled in the Oscar-nominated bio-pic movie in 2007, "Charlie Wilson's War".

THIS Charlie Wilson is the man arrested in Washington, and his "War" is the acts of aggression referred to by Wilson throughout the transcribed threats that are listed in the FBI complaint : www.justice.gov/usao/waw/press/2010/apr/pdfs/WILSON%20COMPLAINT.pdf
Wilson is being charged with violating Title 18, United States Code, Sections 115 (a)(1)(B) and (b)(4) - a felony.
What I intend to do with this post is to excerpt the statements by Wilson, listed in the FBI complaint transcripts of his words, and to cross-reference them with statements from the Right in relation to Health Care Reform legislation, and other subjects.

Excerpting the threats, chronologically:

from March 22, 2010
"There are many people out there who want you dead. Just remember that, as you are politicing[sic] for your reelection.... Now that you've passed your health-care bill, let the violence begin....We the people will not subside, succumb, to socialism. ... Let the violence begin. You have awakened a sleeping giant. The American people will not put up with it."

Wilson, in using the words "many people out there want you dead", and in his references to "people not succumbing to socialism", "sleeping giant" and "American people" clearly believes, despite his insistence that he is an "Independent", and despite attempting to give the impression he is somehow not aligned politically, Wilson clearly sees himself as belonging to a larger group of people who share his views, and perhaps a shared affinity with the people who have shaped his beliefs.

The reference "We the people" is clearly a reference to the opening words to the Preamble of the United States Constitution. I have been struck by the number of groups on the Right who try to cloak themselves in the mantle of the Constitution, as if they, and only they value it. Too often these very people seem either to be ignorant of its actual content, or to be ignorant or have a twisted view of how our Constitution has been applied throughout our history. Some of them seem to come up with their own distorted ideal of the Constitution, entirely different from the reality. This seems to be one more link between Wilson and the political Right; Wilson's own words provide compelling insight into his beliefs.

from March 23rd, 2010:

"With the passing of your health-care bill, it is living proof now that....This great country that believes in God and guns. Since you've done this, there's going to be some bigger targets on your (expletive) back. I hope somebody kills you, and I hope somebody kills [the President]. Yes, die, dead. You're signing my death warrant, so I want to sign yours (more expletives)."

This excerpt reiterates the notion that Wilson believes he is not alone in his views on health-care reform, but rather that he is part of a group of similarly minded people, including Second Amendment proponents. It repeats his mistaken belief in the lie perpetuated by Sarah Palin and others about death panels, and the misrepresentation on end of life counseling such as making provisions for wills and living trusts. Clearly, Wilson has bought the premise seen on so many of the protest signs, including the Tea Party signs, without knowing or making the effort to fact-check the Right's talking points for validity. This misapprehension, in turn, is used as a justification for assassinations; and frankly, anyone promoting these lies has to be a fool to expect otherwise.
www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/aug/10/sarah-palin/sarah-palin-barack-obama-death-panel/

approximately an hour later, excerpted from a much longer voice mail,
on March 23rd, 2010:

"...you are going to have a target on your back...for voting in socialism into this country, with your health-care reform bill, and cap n tax....How long do you think you can hide?...By your attempts to overtake this country with socialism, somebody's gonna get to you one way or another and blow your (expletive) brains out....If I have the chance, I would do it...You have created a hatred in this country against socialism.... politicians are going to be held accountable... with your life....with your life." Wilson goes on to claim he is not a 'tea party bagger'[sic], not a Republican or a Democrat, claiming he is an Independent voter, however he clearly appears to have sympathies for the politics of the Right, and fairly far to the Right. Wilson goes on in his voice mail threat " I want to (expletive) kill you (more expletives). We will not be socialized (many more expletives)."

www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2010/mar/18/top-ten-facts-to-know-about-health-care-reform/


Anyone who has fact-checked the many allegations that the recent health-care reform legislation constitutes some kind of a socilialist government take over would understand that the health care and the insurance industries remain private, that the current legislation is fundamentally different from the health care provided in places like the UK. For example, politifact.com awarded a "pants on fire" rating to Sarah Palin's claims during the 2008 presidential / vice presidential campaign that Obama wanted "to experiment with socialism", the worst rating for lies they have - except for the 2009 Lie of the Year award they gave to Palin for the false death panel claims.

www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/3008/dec/03/sarah-palin/the-mccain-campaign-experiments-with-dishonesty/

Wilson went on to make many, many calls on March 23rd, 2010, and continued to make multiple calls through April 4th, 2010. While removing the obscenities and expletives cuts the transcribed language more than by half, those transcribed messages are still too long to include in total here. I encourage Penigma readers to read all of them for yourselves in the complaint. Further proof that Wilson had believed false statements by the Right, including those made by people like Sarah Palin, and Republicans from both the House and the Senate, are illustrated by the following excerpts from the transcribed threats in the complaint,

also from March 23rd, 2010:

"I do believe that every one of you (expletive) socialist democratic progressive (expletive) needs to be taken out...There is a growing hatred, my dear, for you progressive socialist democrats. Socialism will not work. There is growing hatred....my hatred is coming for you. Since you are going to put my life at risk, and some bureaucrat is going to determine my health-care, your life is at risk, dear. Your life is at risk....your life is at risk.... There are a lot more of us. Your life is in danger, since you are putting my life at danger. Turn about's fair play."

Wilson, age 64, believes, from these statements, the horrendous lie that Palin circulated, that "seniors and the disabled" will have to stand "in front of Obama's death panel so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgement of their level of productivity in society, whether they are worthy of health care". Palin has never repudiated her lie, and she has continued to spread misinformation about health-care reform provisions to her unquestioning, blindly accepting adherents. This excerpt is further evidence that while not a formal member of any group, Wilson clearly does not consider himself a lone wolf, he believes he is one of many who have these beliefs - on the Right.

and later, still on March 23rd, 2010:

"Expletive you socialists up the expletive ass. ....baby killer....you baby killing expletive bitch.....baby killer....We will not be socialized, you expletive expletive."

Wilson clearly believes the lie that was yelled out by Rep. Randy Neugenbauer on the floor of the House on the day of the health-care reform vote, a lie that has been widely, frequently, loudly repeated by the Right, like Texas Republican Representative John Carter, that the health-care reform bill has provisions paying for abortion. It does not: www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2010/mar/28/john-carter/rep-john-carter-says-health-care-law-provides-full/

on March 24th, 2010:

"put a (expletive) gun to your head....blow your (expletive) brains out.... You are ruining this country. You have awakened a sleeping giant, and we are coming after you. Yes, we the people. As you trash our Constitution, you tried to lead us into a socialist nation, we're gonna (expletive) you up....blows your fucking brains out."

As to 'ruining this country':
www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/mar/15/virginia-foxx/foxx-blames-recession-democratic-congressional-tak/

from another call on March 24th, 2010:
"The old saying goes, my dear, all's fair in love and war. This is war, so everything is fair. Cover your back....Cover your back, all's fair in love and war. Nobody comes out a winner. You may think you are a winner now. You're gonna be the biggest (expletive) loser. You have a horrendous amount of people that dislike you and your policies, and since we are, you have declared war on the American citizens, and we are declaring war upon you."

This is the 'war' in Charlie Wilson's war. It repeats the same core theme that Wilson is part of a larger group, possibly something he needed to believe to boost his courage to make the threats. If Wilson believes he is part of a group, it raises the question who that group would be. Clearly it is not the left, not the Democrats, not the Progressives.

from the transcribed calls on March 26th:
"Now that you have finally screwed the people of this State, and helped screw the people of this country....your policies and your ideas suck."

These lies about the provisions of the health-care reform bill, about the Obama administration, about Democrats in Congress - that there is rampant socialism, that health-care reform is a government take-over, that it pays for and encourages abortions, that it is a threat to the elderly and disabled through death panels, that it runs rough-shod over the Constitution, all of these claims - these LIES - come from the Right. They come from Palin and Bachmann, they come from Boehner and Cantor and McConnell, and all of their associates. They circulate to the Right from Beck and O'Reilly and their Fox news colleagues, they spread from talk radio, like Limbaugh and all of his imitators. They are repeated by the Right wing bloggers and commenters. Had these influential people not lied, deliberately, loudly, and often, had they not chosen to use irresponsibly their First Amendment protected free speech to inflame and incite, it is far less likely that the Senators from Washington and their staffs would have been threatened, instead of receiving the usual level of legal but offensive calls they receive about hot issues.

In researching this story, to demonstrate this connection between the Right, and Charlie Wilson, just a quick look on the Fox News website for "glenn beck, obama, socialism" produced 68,240 entries. That was just Glenn Beck, just Fox News; not performing a full search engine search.

The following is from Tuesday, April 6, 2010, an example of just one source where Charlie Wilson got the false idea that Obama is a socialist, and by extension, Democratic Senator Patty Murray. I want readers of this post to think about what Beck says, and then to remember Wilson's words, how vehemently Wilson wants President Obama dead over this notion of socialism, and how he wants Murray dead for socialism. And then I want you to think about that number of entries for "Beck, Obama, Socialism" on the Fox News site: 68,240.

http://video.foxnews.com/v/4139297/barack-obama-socialist

Clearly, these statements in the threats by Charlie Wilson directly connect to the actions and statements of the Right. They cannot distance themselves from these threats, they cannot repudiate his actions; they share fully in all the threats to the members of Congress and others made by Charlie Wilson and the yet-to-be-arrested others who have generated similar threats. They share that responsibility because they put the ideas in his head and then they made a deliberate effort to agitate his emotions. Lies are dangerous things.

ACROSS THE GREAT DIVIDE III

"Abatement in the hostility of one's enemies must never be thought to signify they have been won over. It only means that one has ceased to constitute a threat."
Quentin Crisp
1908-1999

"All violence consists in some people forcing others, under threat of suffering or death, to do what they do not want to do."
Leo Tolstoy
1828-1910

“Successful politicians are insecure and intimidated men. They advance politically only as they placate, appease, bribe, seduce, bamboozle or otherwise manage to manipulate the demanding and threatening elements in their constituencies.”
Walter Lippmann
1889-1974


In the days preceding the vote on health care reform on March 21, 2010, and the days following, there has been an avalanche of violence and threats directed at Democratic legislators who voted for health care reform. In contrast, there has been exactly one reported instance of anything similarly directed at a Republican legislator, Congresswoman Jean Schmidt was called racist for being Republican. I don't count the factually deficient public whining of 2nd minority whip Eric Cantor that misrepresented events surrounding an accidentally broken window.

Embarrassed by the threats (and they should be), and fearing political fall out that will even further diminish their declining political fortunes that have taken such a solid beating in the last two election cycles, the Right is attempting to deny the existence of these threats and to repudiate the contributing role of their rhetoric. Some individuals are even claiming that the events they are trying not to name as threats are actually stunts by the left against the left to gain sympathy. Some, in the conspiracy theory tradition of the right fringe mouth-frothers, are even claiming that the SEIU is responsible. In fact, masquerading as 2nd Amendment Rights advocacy is an attempt to use weapons at protest events as a very real threat - I draw your attention to the third interview in this video of a Tea Party protest event in Alamogordo New Mexico in January 2010:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=XqjVWifq4Kc&feature=player_embedded#

This denial of any threats clearly ignores the protest signs, like this one, which appears to make a very overt threat, in both words and images. "Brown" is newly elected Senator Scott Brown, from Massachusetts, previously viewed as the savior for those against the health care reform legislation in the senate who did not derail health care reform legislation as hoped on the right. "Browning" refers to the fire-arms designer and manufacturer; in the instance of the protest sign, it appears to be the very famous semi-automatic 9 mm model Hi-Power, designed by the legendary Mormon US arms designer, John Browning. I recognize this weapon; I learned to shoot with this kind of weapon, I was taught range safety with this weapon, to be proficient not only firing it accurately but to field strip this weapon blindfolded. My reaction is not an anti-gun response, it is anger at such blatant, egregious offense to our 2nd Amendment Rights and Responsibilities advocated by this sign. This is a widely available, widely produced hand gun, with an impressive history behind its use. The border tape "FIRE LINE DO NOT CROSS" admonishes those who see these signs not to venture between those who intend to shoot, from a position designated as the fire line, and the intended target, clearly represented by the image of the Capitol on the sign. The language, the visual imagery, clearly have a meaning beyond metaphor. This is a sign promoting threats of violence against elected officials, our fellow citizens, not merely oppositional words and ideas.

This is not an isolated sign; clearly there were others. The signs were held by tea partiers outside congress. Republicans, like Michele Bachmann, left the floor of the House of Representatives during the Sunday Health Care Reform vote session, to stir up these very sign-carrying protesters, to whip up their emotions.

After the threats began to come to light, these same people, these Tea Party courting Republicans, tried to deny they had any part in this.

They are liars.

They have a long participation in false, inflammatory statements. There was Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley, who claimed loudly to his base that the Democrats were going to "pull the plug on Grandma" with the health care reform legislation, repeating the Palin popularized premise that won her the 2009 Lie of the Year award. North Carolina Republican Congresswoman Virginia Foxx claimed that our government was going to kill seniors. Republican Congressman Randy Neugenbauer rudely yelled out "Baby Killer" on the house floor, and despite his tepid apology, is reputed to have used the notoriety for his rudeness to attempt to fund raise on his demonstrably untrue statement.

And we have perenial off-the-deep-ender Michele Bachmann of the 're-education camps' and 'armed and dangerous' citizens claims, boasting she's the new Nostradamus for claiming Obama is un-American, now bragging how prescient she was on "Hardball with Chris Matthews", after she tried in 2008 to deny ever having made the statement. Caught in her rant, she has tried to 'clarify' that she means Obama's policies, a distinction which eludes me. If Obama's policies are Un-American, is not Obama Un-American for embracing and promoting them? And we have Bachmann's appearance on Sunday, March 29th's airing of Face the Nation, proclaiming in her usual refrigerator-magnet and bumper sticker 'slogan-thinking' that Americans are suffering under "Tyranny", that over 50% of the private sector of our economy has been taken over by the government, while 100% of the private sector was private before 2008, and my personal favorite, that doctors would abandon their profession like crazed lemmings according to the New England Journal of Medicine.

Except that, no surprise, her numbers and her conclusions and her claims about doctors and the New England Journal of Medicine are not true. But those lies play well, very well indeed, to her radical right base. A base which does not seem to care if Bachmann is accurate or not, a base which will, as they do with Palin, embrace and praise anything she says, no matter how stupid, now false, how calculated to push her base over the edge of reason.

Congresswoman Bachmann on "Face the Nation"
fact checked by CBS, "Bachmann Offers Big Numbers, Little Proof" :
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/03/28/ftn/main6341007.shtml

The Republicans are talking big, with their futile law suits by the state Attorneys General, and their boasts, like those of Michele Bachmann, that the Republicans are going to repeal the health care reform legislation. It is precisely because those efforts have no reasonable chance whatsoever of success that the Republicans and the Tea bagging militia members and other right wing extremists must continue their threats and their harrassment. The alternative is to accept that they do not have a majority. They do not reflect the prevailing opinion. After the signing of the health care reform legislation, the poll numbers support the legislation. Of the approximately 40% who do not support it, 18% to 20% disapprove because they wanted even stronger reform, not less, and therefore the poll numbers do not argue for the citizenry supporting the efforts of the right. If this assessment is correct, projecting from the trend during the 2008 election and the 2009 debate over health care reform, we will see an increase in threats, not a decrease.

On the face of this, those who do not embrace fact are clearly equally unable to embrace reason, or moderation, or apperntly in at least some instances, decency and self-control. We need to oppose inflammatory rhetoric on the right, and we certainly need to oppose it on the left as well; I think we can safely define the centrists as not extreme in this regard by definition. We need to demand accountability for the factual content of statements by our leaders and elected representatives in both chambers of Congress. We need to express our feelings not only about legislation but also about how we conduct political discourse. We do this with our words, and with our votes. I believe that all that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good people to stand by and do nothng. Join with me in condemning intimidation. Whatever your ideology, join with me in opposing false statements and inflammatory rhetoric, everywhere you find it.