Politifact Reviewed Napolitanos Ridiculous anti-Lincoln (book hawking) Drivel

Re-post from Tampa Bay Times-Politifact Dot Com. Last week we posted a piece related to Jon Stewart’s interview with Andrew Napolitano. Napolitano is a noted Fox News demagogue who frequently sits with various Fox News hosts and spews Obama Derangement drivel like a burst Hoover Dam. He rarely speaks comment that is based in fact, and his comments about Abe Lincoln and US slavery follows suit.

Politifact performed a deep probe into Napolitano’s rhetoric and found complete rubbish. The picture posted by Politifact represents the same person in the Jon Stewart video (above). It seems the “judge” has applied some “made for TV” transformations.

_____________________________

The Truth-O-Meter Says:

 Says President Abraham Lincoln “tried to arm the slaves.”
Andrew Napolitano on Tuesday, March 11th, 2014 in a broadcast of “The Daily Show”

Napolitano: Lincoln tried to arm the slaves

In the libertarian view, it is the right of the oppressed to rise up against their oppressors. Accordingly, while Andrew Napolitano argued with host Jon Stewart on The Daily Show that President Abraham Lincoln should have avoided war with the Confederacy, he said the slaves should have fought.

Napolitano: “If the slaves had gone to war against their slave owners, and I had been alive, I would have been with them. I would have helped finance, fund and lead that revolt.” 

Stewart: Are you familiar with slavery?”

Napolitano: “I am very familiar with it.” 

Stewart: “That is not the option.” 

Napolitano: “No, no, no. Lincoln tried to arm the slaves.” 

We tried to find out what lies behind Napolitano’s claim that Lincoln tried to arm the slaves, but we never heard from the judge or his staff. 

We turned to Bruce Levine, a Civil War historian at the University of Illinois. 

“I know of no evidence — have never even heard it said — that Lincoln himself tried to arm those who were still slaves to enable a slave insurrection — and I very strongly doubt that any such evidence exists,” Levine said. 

Levine said an early draft of Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation included the idea that if the slaves rose up, Union troops would do nothing to stop them. But that disappeared from the final version. 

“Because even that was considered too politically incendiary,” Levine said. 

There is one way that the statement might be said to have some truth, though it’s a stretch. As the war got underway, some people in slavery were able to get away and seek refuge with Union troops. This created a legal quandary for some commanders because under federal law, these people were still the property of their owners. 

Congress provided legal cover in two steps. In 1861, it passed the First Confiscation Act, which allowed Union soldiers to treat these people as property seized by the government. The act did not set them free but it did strip the owners of any claim to them if they had been put to work on “any fort, navy yard, dock, armory, ship, entrenchment, or in any military or naval service whatsoever.” 

In 1862, Congress passed the Second Confiscation Act, which went further. For slaveholders who sided with the Confederacy, any slave that came under Union control “shall be deemed captives of war, and shall be forever free of their servitude, and not again held as slaves.” This step actually troubled Lincoln who was uneasy about its constitutionality. 

The act went further and authorized Lincoln to “employ as many persons of African descent as he may deem necessary and proper for the suppression of this rebellion, and for this purpose he may organize and use them in such manner as he may judge best for the public welfare.” 

Columbia historian Eric Foner, who appeared on the The Daily Show with Stewart and Napolitano, told PunditFact that Congress’ intent was clear. 

“Congress authorized Lincoln to use blacks in any capacity he chose — laborers, soldiers, etc.,” Foner said. “In the fall, the War Department authorized raising black troops on the Sea Islands of South Carolina, under the command of the white abolitionist Thomas Wentworth Higginson.” 

Because this preceded the Emancipation Proclamation by several months, it could be argued that these newly liberated people were slaves armed by the Union, but that seems like a legal stretch and hardly what people hearing Napolitano’s comments would conclude. 

In one interesting twist, the Confederacy did try to arm slaves, Levine said. It took place late in the war and was extremely controversial. A month before the South surrendered, the Confederate Congress allowed slave owners to donate their slaves to the cause. In contrast to the Union laws, these people would not become free. The effort remained small and went nowhere. 

Our ruling Napolitano said that Lincoln tried to arm the slaves. Napolitano provided no supporting proof and no historian we contacted knew of any such effort by the president. The Union efforts to strip Confederate slave owners of their legal claims to enslaved people ultimately led to the formation of units of black soldiers. While these men might not have enjoyed clear legal status as free men, they could not be called slaves.

We rate the claim Pants on Fire.

Kevin Trudeau: Sentenced to 10 Years. Did You Fall For His Shtick?

lucys6.blogspot.com Here we have a person who from the first sighting always appear as a crook. In fact, he reminds me of the many mega-church (supported with cameras) preachers who have television shows on your cable TV channels. I suggest one common thread among these people is money-grabbing charlatanism. People who have found and craved out a niche that garners millions for their opulent lifestyles. Kevin Trudeau carved his niche without the easy trappings of those who seek religion without thorough consideration of their messengers. He didn’t use his charisma to tap into the psyche of people who upon hearing the word “Jesus,” “God,” or “religion,” literally melt in the knees and fall into non-thinking subservience and worship.  He captured people for his multi-million dollar empire from the strength of his “charm” and off the gullibility of people willing to follow any smooth talker who successfully carves out a niche.      The Trudeau Castle

                            

On March 17th Huntington post reported The King of non-religious charlatan-ship, was sentenced to 10 years in prison.  

Huffington Post

CHICAGO (AP) – Best-selling author Kevin Trudeau, whose name became synonymous with late-night TV pitches, was sentenced to 10 years in prison Monday for bilking consumers through ubiquitous infomercials for his book, “The Weight Loss Cure ‘They’ Don’t Want You to Know About.” 

As he imposed the sentence prosecutors had requested, U.S. District Judge Ronald Guzman portrayed the 50-year-old Trudeau as a habitual fraudster going back to his early adulthood. So brazen was Trudeau, the judge said, he once even used his own mother’s Social Security number in a scheme. 

“Since his 20s, he has steadfastly attempted to cheat others for his own gain,” Guzman said, adding that Trudeau is “deceitful to the very core.” 

Trudeau, whose trademark dyed black hair turned partially gray as he awaited sentencing in jail, showed little emotion as the stiff sentence was handed down at the hearing in Chicago. 

Addressing the judge earlier in a 10-minute statement, Trudeau apologized and said he’s become a changed man. He said he’s meditated, prayed and read self-help books while locked up at Chicago’s Metropolitan Correctional Center. 

“I have truly had a significant reawakening,” said Trudeau, who was dressed in orange jail clothes. “If I ever do an infomercial again … I promise: No embellishments, no puffery, no lies.”

Read More 

John Boehner Obamacare: "a net loss of people with health insurance?" "FALSE"

Re-Post from Tampa Bay Times-Politifact Dot Com

The United States has seen “a net loss of people with health insurance” because of Obamacare.

John Boehner on Thursday, March 13th, 2014 in a press conference

John Boehner says more people are uninsured since Obamacare took effect

House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, discusses the Affordable Care Act at his weekly press conference on March 13, 2014

For a law that will be judged, in part, by how many uninsured Americans gain coverage, it’s a pretty bold statement when the most powerful Republican in Washington claims the Affordable Care Act is leading to more people without coverage.

In a press conference on March 13, 2014, House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, claimed “there are less people today with health insurance than there were before this law went into effect.”

A reporter later asked him if he really meant that. Boehner doubled down.

“I believe that to be the case,” Boehner said. “When you look at the 6 million Americans who’ve lost their policies, and (government officials) claim 4.2 million who’ve signed up — I don’t know how many have actually paid for it — that would indicate to me a net loss of people with health insurance. And I actually do believe that to be the case.”

There are a lot of holes in the administration’s data for new signups. Further clouding the stats are fluctuations in the existing insurance market caused when insurance companies canceled plans that didn’t meet Obamacare’s coverage standards.

Read more after the break below

But to say that has resulted in a net loss is a stretch.

The Washington Post Fact Checker beat us to the punch on this. He gave Boehner’s comment Four Pinocchios, his worst rating.

We have looked at similar claims before. We mostly heard it late last year, when several million Americans received notices from their insurance provider that their current policies would no longer be offered.

Since it came from Boehner, though, we decided it was worth looking into again.

Polls and projections

We took the issue first to Boehner spokesman Brendan Buck. He offered this explanation: “The speaker explained the statement at the presser: More people have had plans canceled than signed up, especially when considering how inflated the enrollment numbers appear to be.”

But that’s not what Boehner said. He twice claimed that the number of people with insurance overall is down since the health care law went into effect, a considerably more audacious statement.

While there isn’t a final tally that looks at those numbers yet, Boehner’s assertion goes against a recent Gallup poll, which said the number of uninsured Americans declined from 17.1 percent at the end of last year to 15.9 percent in the first quarter of 2014, the lowest level since 2008. Also, the Congressional Budget Office, the nonpartisan policy scorekeeper, estimates over time that the percentage of insured Americans will rise as a result of the health care law.

Boehner claimed the math, though, is simple. According to him, there were 6 million people told their policies were canceled because they didn’t meet the health law’s minimum benefits and coverage. And the administration announced that through February, 4.2 million had purchased insurance through the state and federal marketplaces. (A few days after Boehner spoke, the administration announced enrollment through the marketplace surpassed 5 million.)

By that logic, 1.8 million people must have lost insurance.

But Boehner misses a lot of important factors. We’ll go through them one by one.

What happened to canceled plans

There were many Americans notified that their insurance plans were canceled because they did not meet Obamacare’s standards of coverage, despite promises that wouldn’t happen. Boehner puts this at 6 million. It’s a hard figure to pin down exactly.

Through an extensive reporting project, the Associated Press found at least 4.7 million Americans received notices about canceled policies; it could be higher.

Some of those policies, about half, were restored when Obama administratively allowed canceled plans to continue for another year and later through 2016.

Many others were moved to new plans, either through their insurance company or by purchasing a new policy on the marketplaces set up for Obamacare. The administration estimated that of the people with canceled plans, just 500,000 were left without coverage, and catastrophic coverage was extended to those individuals.

That’s not to say this wasn’t a difficult ordeal for people who lost their plans, especially if they thought the law would allow them to keep their coverage. But most of them were able to find new plans, meaning Boehner’s 6 million uninsured people basically vanishes.

We could probably stop there, but let’s dissect the rest of the numbers, since this is a debate that won’t subside any time soon.

Marketplace signups

Boehner also casts doubt that the administration’s figures for new insurance purchases is inflated, which they put at 4.2 million (now 5 million).

He does have a point there.

First, many of the people who lost coverage due to Obamacare were shifted to the marketplace to buy coverage. Just as those individuals shouldn’t be included in Boehner’s figure of people without insurance, they also don’t count as a net gain, since they previously had insurance.

It’s ultimately difficult to tell how many people who bought insurance didn’t have coverage last year. A survey by McKinsey & Company found that 27 percent of the people who reported buying a new policy in February for 2014 were previously uninsured.

It’s equally difficult to know how many of the people who bought plans actually paid their premiums. The New York Times reported that 20 percent of people buying insurance on the exchanges never made their first payment. The McKinsey & Company survey reported similar results for the previously uninsured.

So Boehner’s skepticism toward that 4.2 million figure is not misguided. But even if it includes a lot of people who didn’t pay their premiums or people who were previously insured, there were some previously uninsured people who found and paid for policies. That alone makes it a net gain.

It also doesn’t include the people who are buying insurance directly from insurance companies or through other Obamacare approved third-party sites. In Washington state, for example, 184,000 of the 300,000 projected new enrollees bought coverage outside the marketplace.

Medicaid

Boehner also completely ignores individuals who gained coverage through the expansion of Medicaid, the federal-state health care program.

The administration says 4.4 million people were deemed eligible for Medicaid when signing up for coverage through the marketplace.

That doesn’t count all of the people who signed up through local state offices, not through an exchange. But it also includes those who were assessed as eligible but didn’t complete the sign up. There could be duplication in the process as well.

But whatever the actual number is, it still points toward a net gain in insured Americans.

Kids up to 26

One of the earliest provisions of the law to take affect allowed children to stay on their parents’ insurance until age 26.

The administration has estimated 3.1 million young adults took advantage of this change. TheWashington Post Fact Checker noted the number hasn’t been updated for a number of years and questioned whether it was that high.

Not all of those children were previously uninsured. And presumably some of those initial sign ups could have aged out of their parents insurance by now. It’s possible many were included among the previously insured who transitioned to the marketplace.

But like the Medicaid number, for the purpose of this check the actual number isn’t as significant as knowing there are a lot of young adults that gained insurance through this provision.

Our ruling

Boehner said the Affordable Care Act so far has caused “a net loss of people with health insurance.” Boehner’s logic is based on reports that about 5 million had their insurance policies canceled while 4.2 million signed up for policies on the state and federal marketplaces. It’s bad math for two reasons.

First, most of the people who lost their insurance have seen those policies extended to them through an administrative fix, or they received new coverage through their previous insurer or they bought a new plan.

Second, he ignores the millions of people who bought coverage off the exchange, those who gained coverage through Medicaid and the under-26 crowd able to remain on their parents’ insurance.

We don’t yet know how many new Americans will ultimately gain coverage. But every indicator right now suggests it will be a net gain. We rate Boehner’s statement False.

Cybercriminals And Malaysia Airlines MH370

Certainly, we do not have to remind you of the ever-present dangers associated with the Internet. The Internet as post 1990s media has provided a “stage coach” like opportunity for bandits, crooks, thieves, or those who seek excitement from conniving acts. You already know with every purchase on the web your credit card numbers are potentially exposed to the unscrupulous. 

If you recall the unfathomable vulnerability of US retailers regarding credit card purchases, you know the danger. If you do not recall the danger Targets (tm) stores and a few other retailers reported credit card number theft (last pre-Christmas) in the high multi-millions.  

I would be hard pressed to think you are not aware of reports of shady groups soliciting on the web with a legit appearing front (Phishing). They look legit on the surface, but the front has a back-room of slimy criminals (possibly working as hourly wage piece-work employee) working at securing your private or financial information.  

How about the front that seeks to take advantage of our empathy for people suffering stress or suffering dire levels of strife. I offer the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina and the Aftermath of Hurricane Sandy as examples of the unscrupulous who seek to take advantage our kind hearts and able wallets.

Wouldn’t you know criminals have taken up leveraging Malaysia Air MH370 as catalyst for cyber crime. 

RePost.US

Cybercriminals use fake MH370 websites to steal data (via AFP)

Cybercriminals are exploiting the disappearance of a Malaysia Airlines plane by luring users to websites purporting to offer the latest news in order to steal their personal information, an Internet security firm warned Tuesday. Trend Micro urged Internet…

South Dakota Republican Legislator Joins In Showcasing Core Party Ideology

Click image for source

As we move away from Paul Ryan’s revealing comments about “inner city men” (code for African-American men), The GOP has provided another example of why the GOP is not representative of our diverse nation.  South Dakota State Sen. Phil Jensen (R) believes business owners (members of the Ku Klux Klan) should have the right to deny service to black people. Jensens honest remarks are shared by those who openly espouse “State’s Rights” and certain GOP politicians who would be president.

It is important to keep-in mind Rand Paul’s stumbling, mumbling and incoherent on-camera appearance with Rachel Maddow of May 19th, 2010.  Linked here (shorten segment of a longer video). The current front-runner for the GOP nomination for a 2016 presidential run, believes property owners should have the right to deny service (no problem). And, he seemed indifferent that such a right could ‘cut’ along racial lines problem).

Jensen is a state representative. He doesn’t hold a seat in the US House of Representatives or  the US Senate. However, US politics starts at the local level, has deep fissures at the local level and bed rock legislation resides at the state level. In reality have you ever heard the often stated GOP mantra and Libertarian core value of “State’s Rights?”  If State’s Rights is a core value of the GOP and conservative America, how do you divest Jensen’s commitment to racist based in property ownership? Secondarily, yet ever more important, the Koch brothers funded American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) focuses its extensive development of “model legislation” efforts on state legislators and state law.  It should be stated, I am not connecting Jensen’s support for “property based racism” and the Koch brothers. Of course, I would be remiss if I failed to remind of reports the Koch brothers have supported school segregation (issue) in at least one North Carolina school district. That battle centered around public and private schools. It seems the nation’s uber wealthy Libertarians do no care for public schools. 

Remember, the TPI credo, “isms come in bundles!”

Now, let’s move to The Raw Story and the South Dakota Legislator who is OK with racial and LGBT discrimination.

Linked: Should embed fail:  
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/03/17/south-dakota-gop-lawmaker-kkk-business-owners-deserve-right-to-ban-blacks-and-gays/

South Dakota GOP lawmaker: KKK business owners deserve right to ban blacks and gays (via Raw Story )

South Dakota state Sen. Phil Jensen (R) believes that a recently-killed bill that would have let companies discriminate against LGBT people should have also let businesses owners in the Ku Klux Klan refuse service to African-Americans. Last week, the…

---

---

Additional Information (If you care)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/17/……

The Daily GOP Ignominious: Al Sharpton, MSNBC Politics Nation, Reminds Of A Political Party Gone Rogue

Deny, deny, deny…Life sustaining benefits to people while placating the Koch brothers. How sad is this man and his GOP?

How about a quick Politics Nations journey into GOP insanity and insensitivity?

Forty-five percent (45%) of Food Stamp recipients are children. While listening to NPR (yesterday), I heard forty-five (45) million women live at or below the poverty level. Yet, the GOP laden House of Representatives cut SNAP Benefits with more cuts to come.

http://on.msnbc.com/1cSq4qo

Many GOP governors are denying medical care benefits via the Affordable Care Act. Bobby Jindal  (R) Governor Louisiana is a prime example, and he denies benefits to his constituents while campaigning against a billboard.  

http://on.msnbc.com/1cSsPrG

Who votes for these people?
….AND THE BAND PLAYS ON….