ThinkProgress Logo

Politics

Mississippi Tea Party Chairman Calls For Open Rebellion Against Federal Government After Obamacare Ruling

By Adam Peck and Josh Israel on Jun 29, 2012 at 4:15 pm

Of all the right-wing meltdowns following yesterday’s decision by the Supreme Court to uphold the individual mandate in the Affordable Care Act, this statement put out by the chairman of the Mississippi Tea Party may take the cake:

When a gang of criminals subvert legitimate government offices and seize all power to themselves without the real consent of the governed their every act and edict is of itself illegal and is outside the bounds of the Rule of Law. In such cases submission is treason. Treason against the Constitution and the valid legitimate government of the nation to which we have pledged our allegiance for years. To resist by all means that are right in the eyes of God is not rebellion or insurrection, it is patriotic resistance to invasion.

May all of us fall on our faces before the Heavenly Judge, repent of our sins, and humbly cry out to Him for mercy on our country. And, may godly courageous leaders rise up in His wisdom and power to lead us in displacing the criminal invaders from their seats and restore our constitutional republic.

Despite Nicholson’s repeated charge that the Obama administration is guilty of high crimes, the only treason in play here is the suggestion of an open revolt against the federal government. Nicholson’s hardly the first Tea Partier to demand that people rise up in opposition to President Obama, in fact he’s not even the first to do so this week.

Matthew Davis, an attorney and former Michigan Republican Party spokesman, wrote yesterday that citizens might be justified taking up armed rebellion. In an email moments after the ruling with the subject line “Is Armed Rebellion Now Justified?” Davis wrote “There are times government has to do things to get what it wants and holds a gun to your head. I’m saying at some point, we have to ask the question when do we turn that gun around and say no and resist.”

While few comments go as far as either Nicholson or Davis’, Slate compiled several other funny and over-the-top reactions from prominent conservatives, like Sarah Palin who thanked God for firing up “the troops,” or Breitbart.com’s Ben Shapiro, who tweeted that the decision “is the end of America as we know it. No exaggeration.”

NEWS FLASH

Louisiana Governor: Health Care Ruling Could Force People To Eat Tofu | Gov. Bobby Jindal (R-LA) said the Supreme Court’s “frightening” ruling that upheld the Affordable Care as a tax is a “blow to our freedoms.” “What’s next?” Jindal asked, according to The Hill. He voiced concern for people who “refuse to eat tofu” or “refuse to drive a Chevy Volt” — even though the court ruled the individual mandate to buy health insurance was not constitutional under the Commerce Clause. Jindal said he expects opposition to the law to “escalate” before the presidential election and that Republican governors will not implement the law before November.

Related Posts

By Amanda Peterson Beadle on Jun 29, 2012 at 4:05 pm

NEWS FLASH

Rhode Island Will Vote On Marriage Equality Next Year | It’s hard to argue that the civil unions bill Rhode Island passed last year has been a “complete failure.” In the first nine months, only 52 couples bothered to get one of the sub-par unions. Now, Rhode Island House Speaker Gordon Fox (D) has promised that he will call a vote on marriage equality next year. That was the plan last year, but a vote was never taken and eventually the bill was compromised to only provide civil unions with religious exemptions so broad the unions have little value. Last month, Gov. Lincoln Chafee (I) signed an executive order calling on all Rhode Island state agencies to recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere.

Security

Nascent Arab Spring Protests Gather In Sudan: ‘Freedom, Peace, Justice And Revolution’

By Ali Gharib on Jun 29, 2012 at 3:30 pm

Arab Spring protests so far have toppled governments in Tunisia and Egypt, led to a government-toppling civil war in Libya, and what looks to become a protracted civil war in Syria where the dictatorial regime remains, by most accounts, firmly entrenched, for now at least.

Now the Arab Spring protests, more than a year and a half after their inception, are hitting another North African country: Sudan. Student demonstrations against Omar Al-Bashir’s government have been bubbling up over the past couple weeks. Activists called for protests on Friday, which so far appear to have drawn hundreds to various towns across the country, according to a map of reported demonstrations posted by The Atlantic.

The protests — referred to in Sudan as “elbow licking,” after a colloquial phrase for doing the impossible adopted by the government — were set off by student objections to austerity measures imposed by the government. As the protests have grown over two weeks, reliable details have been more difficult to come by because of a government crackdown against journalists and bloggers.

Authorities ignored U.N. warnings against “heavy-handed suppression” and used tear gas to break up demonstrations near the capitol Khartoum and in eastern Sudan. The protesters chanted, “freedom, peace, justice and revolution is the choice of the people,” according to the BBC.

Justice

10 Ways John Roberts Is Still A Conservative’s Best Friend

By Ian Millhiser on Jun 29, 2012 at 3:30 pm

Yesterday, Chief Justice Roberts embraced a ludicrous, Tea Party reading of the two key provisions of the Constitution, tossing out nearly two centuries of established law in the process. Yet, after he also refused to join a deeply partisan decision tossing out President Obama’s signature accomplishment — agreeing with several leading conservative judges in the process — the right-wing did not waste any time drawing its knives upon him. In just 24 hours, he was accused of everything from caving to non-existent “bullying” to being mentally unfit for duty.

It’s tough to imagine a more flagrant display of ungratefulness than the pushback Roberts is now receiving from his fellow conservatives. The reality is that Roberts consistently advanced the right’s agenda from the moment he joined the Court:

1) Corporate Money In Elections: Roberts jonied the majority in Citizens United, holding that wealthy corporations should have a nearly unlimited power to buy and sell American elections. Roberts also voted to undermine public financing laws in a way that severely undermines candidates without well-moneyed backers’ ability to compete in elections.

2) Judges For Sale: Roberts wrote a dissent in Caperton v. Massey that would have allowed a wealthy coal CEO to pay $3 million to put a sympathetic supreme court justice on that court. The same justice would then go on to $50 million verdict against the big spender’s company.

3) Corporate-Owned Courts: Roberts consistently votes to give corporations a nearly unlimited power to force workers and consumers into a privatized, corporate-run arbitration system that overwhelming favors corporations.

4) Dividing And Conquering Ordinary Americans: Roberts voted in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion to allow corporations to strip their workers and consumers of their ability to bring class action lawsuits. Because of this decision, corporations now have a nearly unlimited power to cheat the people who do business with them — so long as they only do it a few dollars at a time.

5) Corporate Immunity To The Law: Roberts voted to give generic drug makers immunity to key state laws after one of their drugs caused a condition called tardive dyskinesia in many of the people who took it. Tardive dyskinesia is an horrific neurological condition that causes sometimes crippling, uncontrollable bodily movements, often in the face:

6) Abortion: Roberts also joined the Court’s decision restricting reproductive freedom in Gonzales v. Carhart, which reasoned that a woman’s right to choose must be cut back because “it seems unexceptionable to conclude some women come to regret their choice to abort the infant life they once created and sustained.”

7) Race: Roberts has also consistently resisted attempts to eradicate the legacy of racism in America. Most notably, in Parents Involved v. Seattle School District No. 1, he claimed that a plan to desegregate public schools violates Brown v. Board of Education.

8) Gitimo: Roberts twice sided with President George W. Bush on questions of detainee treatment — as a lower court judge in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, and as Chief Justice in Boumediene v. Bush.

9) Unequal Pay For Women: Roberts joined the Court’s discredited decision in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire rolling back women’s right to receive equal pay for equal work.

10) Older Workers: Roberts also joined the Court’s 5-4 decision in Gross v. FBL Financial Services limiting older workers’ ability to be free from age discrimination in the workplace.

Health

Leading Anti-Obamacare Congressman: ‘I Don’t Want To Hear Any Talk From Republicans About Preserving Any Aspect Of It’

By Scott Keyes on Jun 29, 2012 at 3:18 pm

Rep. Steve King (R-IA)

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Rep. Steve King (R-IA) has a message for those Republicans wavering on whether to repeal popular provisions of Obamacare: “it’s all or none.”

ThinkProgress spoke with King, who has been leading the fight against Obamacare since it was signed into law, at the Supreme Court following yesterday’s ruling. In an expectedly dour mood, the Iowa Republican pointed to the November election as their remaining chance to repeal the landmark health care law.

King promised that if Republicans took control, they would undo every part of Obamacare, even popular provisions like protections for people with pre-existing conditions and allowing young adults to stay on their parents’ health care plans. “I don’t want to hear any talk from Republicans about preserving any aspect of it,” King declared. “It’s all or none”:

REPORTER: It seems like as a practical matter, it’d be very tough to get rid of the law if he wins a second term.

KING: I agree. This is it. The battle is enjoined and it’s about Obamacare here to November. And if we seat a majority of the United States Senate of Republicans, hold this majority in the House and elect Mitt Romney, we will undo Obamacare and all of it. I don’t want to hear any talk from Republicans about preserving any aspect of it. It just dilutes the argument. It’s all or none. This is it, we’re all in and I’m ready for that fight.

Watch it:

As polls show an overwhelming majority of Americans support Obamacare’s provisions, many Republicans have begun to show their support for maintaining some of its protections. Even hard-liners like Rep. Allen West (R-FL) and Sen. Roy Blunt (R-MO) have pledged to protect certain aspects of Obamacare.

If Republicans prevail in November, there will almost certainly be a showdown between Tea Partiers like King who want to scrap even Obamacare’s popular provisions and more sensible legislators who recognize the importance of maintaining those protections. Unfortunately, given the rightward lurch of Republicans over the past decade, it’s not difficult to guess which side will prevail.

Steven Perlberg contributed to this report.

LGBT

How Obamacare Protects Same-Sex Families And Transgender Patients

By Guest Blogger on Jun 29, 2012 at 2:54 pm

Our guest blogger is Andrew Cray, health policy consultant for LGBT Progress.

Yesterday the Supreme Court issued its much-anticipated decision in the lawsuit challenging several key provisions of the Affordable Care Act. The justices’ ruling, upholding much of the law, will bridge the coverage gap for gay and transgender people through the creation of health insurance exchanges and the option for states to expand Medicaid program eligibility.  But the decision doesn’t stop there – the justices also upheld all of the law’s key consumer protections, which will continue to serve as a lifeline for millions of Americans to receive the health care they need and deserve.

In particular, Court’s decision retains two key part of the law that were not front in center in the spotlight of the litigation, but that are of vital importance to the LGBT community: the extension of coverage to young adults, and the consumer protections incorporated in the Patients’ Bill of Rights.

Requiring that insurers offer coverage for young adults up to age 26 under their parents’ insurance makes it much easier for LGBT young adults to get access to necessary care. Through the requirement, the Affordable Care Act will continue to open up access to insurance for thousands of youth with gay and transgender parents, as well. In less than two years since this part of the law was implemented, over 80,000 young adults raised by LGBT parents have maintained access to insurance through their parents’ coverage – over one and a half times as many people as can fit into Yankee Stadium. That number will only grow after yesterday’s decision.

The second major victory following from the Court’s decision is the retention of the law’s Patient’s Bill of Rights. This provision creates new protections outlawing many of the insurance industry’s worst abuses by:

  • Ending lifetime limits on coverage, starting in 2010;
  • Phasing out annual limits on coverage by 2014, which is particularly important for people with long-term or chronic conditions such as HIV or cancer;
  • Starting in 2014, prohibiting insurance companies from denying coverage on the basis of a pre-existing condition, such as HIV or a transgender medical history;
  • Preventing insurers from arbitrarily canceling a sick person’s coverage, starting in 2014.

These essential protections will continue to ensure insurance access for many gay and transgender people by prohibiting insurers from unfairly targeting those who need access to care the most. For example, before the passage of the Affordable Care Act, one insurer denied a transgender woman coverage for routine treatments related to a cut on her hand and a deviated septum. When she appealed these coverage denials, she was told by the insurer that she was being denied coverage because of her “condition,” a reference to her gender identity.  The laws’ prohibition on unfair and discriminatory insurance practices will prevent this type of abuse.

Recognizing the great importance of these protections for LGBT people, Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius has stated, “the Affordable Care Act may represent the strongest foundation we have ever created to begin closing LGBT health disparities.” Having survived a trial by fire, we can look forward to a promising future with a revitalized health care system supporting healthier communities built on the foundation of healthcare reform.

 

Education

Romney: Students Should Get ‘As Much Education As They Can Afford’

By Pat Garofalo on Jun 29, 2012 at 2:50 pm

On the campaign trail Wednesday night in Virginia, Mitt Romney took on the topic of education. While extolling the virtues of America as “the land of opportunity for every single person,” Romney said that he believes students should only be able to get as much education “as they can afford”:

I think this is a land of opportunity for every single person, every single citizen of this great nation. And I want to make sure that we keep America a place of opportunity, where everyone has a fair shot. They get as much education as they can afford and with their time they’re able to get and if they have a willingness to work hard and the right values, they ought to be able to provide for their family and have a shot of realizing their dreams.

Watch it:

This is similar to other comments Romney has made regarding higher education, such as when he told students to simply borrow the money for college from their parents or when he told them to “shop around” or join the military to get an education. But the crux of the matter is that Romney’s policies would make college less affordable for low- and middle-income students. So what they “can afford” is going to be a lot less.

For starters, Romney supports the radical Republican budget, authored by Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI), which would cut Pell Grants for more than one million students, at a time when Pell Grants are already covering the smallest percentage of tuition in their history.

Next, Romney supports undoing the student loan reforms that were included in the 2010 health care bill. Those changes cut billions of dollars that were being wasted paying bank middlemen to service federal student loans, and instead plowed the money back into student aid. Repealing the measure, as Romney would like to do, would simply spend money to put banks back between students and their federal loans.

Finally, Romney is a staunch supporter of predatory for-profit colleges, which are much more expensive than public schools, and often leave their students buried in debt and without the credentials necessary to obtain a good job. Of course, this should come as no surprise, since the for-profit industry is donating heavily to Romney’s campaign.

Health

Five Health Care Mandates Republicans Support

By Annie-Rose Strasser on Jun 29, 2012 at 2:10 pm

Republicans are in complete upheaval over Obamacare, fired up by the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the law yesterday. They have continuously claimed that the government is ramming this legislation down the throats of the American people, and now they are calling it an unwanted financial burden on everyday Americans. In fact, the individual mandate — the portion of the law that Republicans most vociferously oppose — wouldn’t even affect most Americans.

It might be time for Republicans to take a look back at their own record of health care legislation that they did like — and that forced American people, particularly women, into a lot of things:

Forcing women to get transvaginal ultrasounds: Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell wanted to force every woman seeking an abortion to go through the extremely uncomfortable and medically unnecessary procedure of a transvaginal ultrasound — sticking a medical wand far into a woman’s vagina to get a clearer ultrasound image.

Ordering women to cremate and bury their miscarried fetus: A huge abortion omnibus bill in Michigan could force women who miscarry to cremate the miscarried fetuses. This comes at no small expense to the woman: cremation of a fetus costs hundreds of dollars, and interment can be additional thousands. The bill has been passed by the Michigan House, and is awaiting a vote by the Michigan Senate.

Requiring doctors to lie to female patients: In Kansas, Republicans tried to force doctors to tell women that they faced risk of cancer from having an abortion. That is patently untrue, and making doctors say that it was true would be, in effect, requiring them to lie to their patients.

Making a dying woman consult two doctors before she can get a life-saving abortion: The New Hampshire legislature just overrode a veto by the Governor, forcing through a law that bans “partial birth” abortions. The law only reinforces federal law, but has the additional requirement that any woman who is exempt from the abortion ban because her life is at risk must visit not one but two doctors before she can get the procedure to save her life. For many rural women, especially those facing life-threatening conditions, this is near impossible.

Mandating people pay extra to give medical device companies a tax break: Rep. Erik Paulsen (R-MN) worked so hard to protect medical device companies from having to pay, that he has instead passed their costs onto the consumer — regular Americans — by increasing the cost of health coverage.

Climate Progress

Three Ways Robots Can Help Us Deal With Environmental Catastrophes

By Climate Guest Blogger on Jun 29, 2012 at 2:02 pm

by Max Frankel

In the last few years, we’ve seen an increase in extreme weather events and environmental disasters — costing us money, and far more importantly, human lives.

Some have been natural (or indirectly caused by humans due to climate change), and others, like BP’s Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, have been directly caused by us.

With scientists warning that the frequency of wildfires, floods, drought and other catastrophes will only increase as the planet warms, engineers are now focusing on how to use robots and other mechanical gadgets to aid in disaster response. Some of these bots vacuum up oil, some sort rubble and rescue earthquake survivors, and some help battle wildfires. Here’s a look at three of the coolest robotic defenders, both in use and on the horizon.

Illustration: John MacNeill

Firebug: Right now in Colorado, the Waldo Canyon Wildfire is burning out of control. As of Thursday, 30,000 people had been evacuated and firefighters had only 5% of the blaze contained.

Enter the firefighting robot army. Three groups — one at University of Magdeburg-Stendal in Germany, an American duo, and the makers of the Segway — are all working on a revolutionary and potentially life saving technology.

The German group has plans for an insect-inspired bot called the OLE. The Saint-Bernard sized bugs are covered in fireproof armor and carry sensors that help them find fires. Once they get to the heat source, they can spray it with water or other fire extinguishing materials. The bots have legs instead of wheels, helping them to navigate over downed trees, rocks, and other forest impediments that rolling machines would have trouble with and lets them get to fires faster. (Interestingly, these OLE’s look kind of like Pine Beetles, the ferocious bugs wreaking havoc on western forests.)

Marching into battle alongside the OLE’s (and possibly a lot sooner) could be Segway’s design. Armed with a water cannon that can launch up to 10 gallons per second and Segway’s motors that let it travel up to 18mph, this robot is the heavy artillery of robo-wildfire fighting. Though it’s fast, it’s wheels make it less maneuverable than the OLE; however, this bot has the ability to haul injured or exhausted human firefighters out of harm’s way.

Behind the OLE and the Segway bot, a transformer-like robot could be clearing trees at a frenzied pace, creating the firebreaks that are so vital to containing a blaze. Though the robot looks like something out of science fiction, its creators have already built a prototype. The robot uses its four arms and massive cutting blades to completely deforest an area rapidly. Clearly, these bots could be dangerous for forests if used the wrong way. But in emergency scenarios they could help save thousands of lives and homes.

Read more

Older

Newer

Switch to Mobile
ThinkProgress Signup Overlay Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress

Sign Up