With Seven Workdays Left, House Committee Holds Hearing On Space Aliens

The Huffington Post  |  By Shadee Ashtari

 
With only seven workdays left between now and the end of the first session of the 113th Congress, a full House committee has found time to hold a hearing on extraterrestrial life.
The Committee on Science, Space and Technology, chaired by Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), will meet for a hearing called “Astrobiology: Search for Biosignatures in our Solar System and Beyond” for two hours Wednesday to “investigate what methods are being used to determine if any of these planets may harbor life,” according to the hearing charter.
Republicans on the Science Committee may be open to the possibility of alien life on other planets, but Smith and many of his colleagues are much less convinced that global warming is happening on this one, or that it might be caused by humans.
Numerous sitting members of the Science committee -- all Republicans -- also maintain positions repeatedly rejected by the scientific community for decades. Paul Broun (Ga.), a member of the young Earth creationists, does not “believe that the Earth's but about 9,000 years old. I believe it was created in six days as we know them.” In 2009, Smith accused scientists of advancing false claims of man-made global warming. And Rep. James Sensenbrenner (Wisc.) has called climate change a "massive international scientific fraud" and evidence of "scientific fascism."
Smith's hearing Wednesday appears to be a serious effort to educate Congress, and includes an expert from NASA. A recent HuffPost/YouGov poll found that half of Americans believe alien life exists.

Do you think that there is life of some form on other planets, or not?

Yes, there is No, there is not Not sure

House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) was on the defensive earlier Tuesday amid criticism that the current Congress is the most unproductive in modern history. He told reporters, "Whether it's the economy, whether it's jobs, whether it's protecting the American people from Obamacare -- we've done our work."
"The House continues to do its job," he said. "It's time for the Senate to get serious about doing theirs."
As the least productive Congress in recent history, lawmakers have managed to pass 55 bills into law this year -- seven fewer than the 112th Congress had passed at this time last year. The Senate is currently scheduled to work through most of the month.

Non-Partisan Congressional Tax Report Debunks Core Conservative Economic Theory-GOP Suppresses Study

 Non-Partisan Congressional Tax Report Debunks Core Conservative Economic Theory-GOP Suppresses Study

via: Forbes

What do you do when the Congressional Research Service, the completely non-partisan arm of the Library of Congress that has been advising Congress—and only Congress—on matters of policy and law for nearly a century, produces a research study that finds absolutely no correlation between the top tax rates and economic growth, thereby destroying a key tenet of conservative economic theory?
If you are a Republican member of the United States Senate, you do everything in your power to suppress that report—particularly when it comes less than two months before a national election where your candidate is selling this very economic theory as the basis for his candidacy.
Initially released on September 14, 2012, the study—authored by Thomas Hungerford who is a specialist in public finance at the C.R.S.—correlated the historical fluctuations of the highest income tax rates and tax rates on capital gains dating back to World War II with the economic growth (or lack of the same) that followed.
The conclusion?
Lowering the tax rates on the wealthy and top earners in America do not appear to have any impact on the nation’s economic growth.
This paragraph from the report says it all—
“The reduction in the top tax rates appears to be uncorrelated with saving, investment and productivity growth. The top tax rates appear to have little or no relation to the size of the economic pie. However, the top tax rate reductions appear to be associated with the increasing concentration of income at the top of the income distribution.”
These three sentences do nothing less than blow apart the central tenet of modern conservative economic theory, confirming that lowering tax rates on the wealthy does nothing to grow the economy while doing a great deal to concentrate more wealth in the pockets of those at the very top of the income chain.
Not surprisingly, the results of the study caught the attention of a great many conservatives—so much so that, according to a New York Times piece, Republican’s in the United States Senate successfully pressured the Congressional Research Service to withdraw the report shortly after it was released. The withdrawal came over the objection of the CRS economic team and the author of the study.
The Times further reports that, according to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s spokesperson, Senator McConnell—along with additional GOP senators— “raised concerns about the methodology and other flaws,” adding that additional people outside of Congress were also criticizing the study.
The nature of these alleged flaws?
That the report included terms such as “the Bush tax cuts” and references to “tax cuts for the rich.”
Added Antonia Ferrier, spokesperson for the Republican members of the Senate Finance Committee, “There were a lot of problems with the report from a real, legitimate economic analysis perspective. We relayed them to C.R.S. It was a good discussion. We have a good, constructive relationship with them. Then it was pulled.”
While a spokesperson for the C.R.S. refused to comment on the discussions between the Senate Republicans and her agency, she did confirm that the report was no longer in ‘official circulation’. However, the New York Times reports that a source requesting anonymity confirmed that the decision to pull the study was done against the advice of the economics division and that the author, Mr. Hungerford, stood by the report’s findings.
On Thursday, Senate Democrats republished the study following a letter sent to the C.R.S. by the ranking Democratic tax expert in the House, Rep. Sander Levin (D-MI), which reads, in part—
“I was deeply disturbed to hear that Mr. Hungerford’s report was taken down in response to political pressure from Congressional Republicans who had ideological objections to the report’s factual findings and conclusion. It would be completely inappropriate for CRS to censor one of its analysts simply because participants in the political process found his or her conclusion in conflict with their partisan position. I would like your explanation as to why this report was removed from the CRS website, who made that decision and what considerations led to it.”
For almost 100 years, the Congressional Research Service has worked to assist Congress by providing well-researched and accurate data to be utilized in the creation of important public policy.  It has done so when Congress was controlled by Democrats and when Congress has been under the control of Republicans. No matter what party was in charge, the C.R.S. has always endeavored to keep politics out of their work in the effort to provide data that would inform and advance our public policy.
Apparently, solid, well researched data no longer matters—at least not when it comes to the Congressional Republicans.

CA Assembly GOP Puts Up Fake California Health Exchange Site

Home » Blogs » karoli's blog

December 02, 2013 11:00 AM

CA Assembly GOP Puts Up Fake California Health Exchange Site

By karoli

California Republicans are desperate and shameless. In the past two weeks, GOP Assembly members have sent mailings out on what appears to be the state's dime to their constituents about health insurance. Only, they don't direct those people to CoveredCA.com to sign up. Instead, they send them to their own astroturf version with the url CoveringHealthCareCA.com.
On their version, there are links to negative articles and twisted messages intended to sour people on signing up for health insurance before they ever land at the official health exchange site.
For seniors, this message:

Seniors on Medicare may not see changes immediately to their benefits or coverage. Down the line, however, the erosion and accessibility of care may become a problem.
To pay for other components of the Affordable Care Act such as expanding Medicaid and creating state health exchanges, Medicare providers will see rate cuts nearing $200 billion over the next decade. These cuts could potentially result in the exodus of doctors from the Medicare system and force Medicare recipients to find new providers, possibly facing longer wait times for care as that pool of doctors shrinks.

Eek! Rationing!
Likewise, the tab for "young adults" says this:

Young adults will end up paying for much of federal health care reform by subsidizing the cost of sicker people, or by paying a tax penalty if they do not obtain health insurance under the provisions of the individual mandate, which requires all Californians to have coverage beginning in 2014.

If you click on the "Don't have health insurance" tab on the front page, you're taken to a page that puts all the focus on the penalty and none on the benefits. In fact, they have a "penalty calculator" on that page, rather than a premium calculator.
And of course, they also manage to twist what is actually available on the exchange:

Covered California: Covered California offers four qualified health plans similar to those available on the private market today. These plans comply with the Affordable Care Act.

Not so much, Assembly Republicans. There are four levels of coverage, but inside those levels, there are many, many plans available. So many it takes some time to figure out which one works the best.
What we have here are elected officials intentionally trying to make California's health exchange fail, and using taxpayer dollars to misinform taxpayers, using the standard fear and loathing tactics as their linchpin. While I expect nothing less from Republicans in general, it does gall me that they're using "official mailings" to misdirect constituents and Assembly resources to register and build the website.
Just more proof Republicans don't give a damn about anything but their own bad selves.

About karoli

Card-carrying member of we, the people.

• Subscribe to karoli's feed

SCOTUS Rules Against Liberty University Challenge to Affordable Care Act

December 2, 2013

By Anomaly

FreakOutNation

On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear another challenge to the Affordable Care Act. The court rejected a suit filed by Liberty University, a Christian college in Virginia, which had raised various objections to the law, including to the key provision that requires individuals to obtain health insurance, Reuters reports.
The Christian college was founded by evangelist Jerry Falwell.


TPM reports, “The justices’ decision upholds the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals’ May ruling in the case, which dismissed as invalid Liberty’s argument that the law violated the Constitution in requiring employers to offer health insurance.”
The court agreed last week to hear two new cases — including Hobby Lobby — in which employers have made religious objections to regulations under Obamacare that require employers to provide health insurance that includes contraception for women. That case will be heard this term and decided by the end of June.

GOP Scandal Dies as Republicans Are Reduced To Whining About the Back End of ACA Website

GOP Scandal Dies as Republicans Are Reduced To Whining About the Back End of ACA Website

By: Sarah Jones 

Sunday, December, 1st, 2013, 12:50 pm

CNN’s Joe Johns updated Candy Crowley on the White House’s progress report on Healthcare.gov, which they say can now handle approximately 50,000 users at a time. This didn’t stop Rick Santorum from announcing on CNN’s State of the Union that ObamaCare is still disastrous because the “back end” is garbage.
Watch a short clip here via CNN:
 

Demonstrating how in touch he is with average Americans who’ve been denied healthcare by insurance company death panels, Santorum said that while the website might work better, the main question is “Is Obama competent?”
But also, you can talk to “anybody” — well, Santorum talked to some people in the insurance industry, and while most of the front end may be looking good, Santorum said insurance companies will struggle to sign people up for plans. “The information coming out the back end to the insurance companies is still garbage. It’s undecipherable.” Listing off the “misinformation”, Santorum went into his favorite area of moral superiority, “There’s husbands labeled as wives…”
We have no idea upon whose information Santorum based his intel regarding what comes out of the “back end” of the website other than his claim that it was people in the insurance industry (known for their honesty and love for being regulated by ObamaCare), but this is a man who calls a years old law a bill out of a partisan grudge, so chances are high that he’s exaggerating for partisan purposes.
 
In case you’re wondering, the “back end” is a real thing, and not more projection from the GOP. If the front end is the interface between the user and the back end, the back end is where things go that the user can’t see, like programming, databases, scripts and other automated functions the server performs.
A very concerned Santorum said worst of all was you may think you have signed up, but you may not. Yes, this is from the party who wants to repeal the entire law, now pretending to be upset because not everyone is getting signed up. TRUST.
It shocks no one with a working brain cell that the ObamaCare website is getting better. The website was overwhelmed and underfunded, due to Republicans refusing to run state exchanges as planned and then refusing to fund an expansion to the federal site to handle the overflow. This is like building a tunnel meant for 50 cars and flooding it with 5,000 cars. There’s going to be a long traffic backup getting into that tunnel.
This is the anatomy of yet another “scandal” dying. The only difference here is that this one had actual issues, but they weren’t scandalous. They were predictable, they were not done deliberately, and they were always going to be fixed.
You can tell the scandal is dying because Rick Santorum had to be hauled out to concern troll about the “back end”.

GOP Scandal Dies as Republicans Are Reduced To Whining About the Back End of ACA Website was written by Sarah Jones for PoliticusUSA.

© PoliticusUSA, Sun, Dec 1st, 2013 — All Rights Reserved

Fox News host: Obamacare ‘touches so many people’s lives’ unlike ‘Katrina or the Iraq war’

Fox News host: Obamacare ‘touches so many people’s lives’ unlike ‘Katrina or the Iraq war’ (via Raw Story )

Fox News host Martha MacCallum on Monday suggested that President Barack Obama’s health care law was even worse than devastation caused by Hurricane Katrina or the Iraq War because it “touches so many people’s lives.” In a segment on America…

---

John Cornyn, Texas Senator, Says Iran Deal Is Obamacare Distraction

By Benjamin Hart Posted: 11/23/2013 11:51 pm EST  |  Updated: 11/25/2013 12:19 pm EST 

It was predictable that GOP hawks like Senator Lindsay Graham (R-SC) wouldn't love the historic deal the Obama administration reached with Iran on Saturday night.
But Texas Senator John Cornyn had a unique, if completely bizarre, take on the agreement:
 

Amazing what WH will do to distract attention from O-care
— JohnCornyn (@JohnCornyn) November 24, 2013

 Among the many politicians and journalists to counter Cornyn's wacky assertion was David Plouffe, Senior Advisor to President Obama:

No, a real distraction would be war. Like Iraq. RT@JohnCornyn: Amazing what WH will do to distract attention from O-care”
— David Plouffe (@davidplouffe) November 24, 2013

Ya Big Bully

By Daniel Kurtzman

Leaked: The Republican Obamacare Sabotage ‘Playbook’

Leaked: The Republican Obamacare Sabotage ‘Playbook’

posted by Dylan Hock November 23, 2013 

CNN recently obtained a copy of a House Republican strategy memo released late last month titled, “Because of Obamacare… I lost my insurance.” Referred to as the Republican Obamacare “playbook”, the memo contains samples for everything from talking points, social media, op-eds, videos… you name it, including a “fact” sheet for Republican lawmakers fighting the Affordable Care Act.

First reported by Roll Call, a GOP source responsible for providing the strategy memo to CNN stated that it would be updated as of Thursday.
“The administration now has a serious competence problem.  Healthcare.gov is so much more than a website.  The website should have been the easy part,” a portion of the playbook reads.  The conservative angle present in even that small section should come as no surprise.  Republicans have been quite clear and vocal about their disdain for the Affordable Care Act.
The playbook was drafted by the office of House Republican Conference Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers amid a Republican fairytale regarding the stumbled roll-out of the Affordable Care Act.  President Obama noted at a Wall Street Journal event last Tuesday, speaking to some of America’s top CEO’s, “One of the problems we’ve had is one side of Capitol Hill is invested in failure.”
White House spokesperson Eric Schultz echoed President Obama, stating that the Republican “18 page playbook of partisan attacks is 18 pages longer than their health care plan.”  He went on to say, “There’s not a single word devoted to helping constituents enroll or offering an alternative idea to help Americans gain access to quality, affordable care.”
Democrats plan to continue supporting the Affordable Care Act a spokesperson for House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi affirmed.
“While Republicans continue to fixate on sabotaging health reform and root for failure, House Democrats will continue to stand tall in support of the Affordable Care Act, work to strengthen the health reform law as implementation continues, and ensure that millions of uninsured Americans get coverage,” Drew Hammill stated.
Blind party politics is nothing new, but the Republican Obamacare “playbook” demonstrates the new depths of cynicism and partisanship of Republican efforts to sway the American perspective and dialogue.
Be sure to watch for similar Republican practices on every other important issue.  You can bet nothing is done without a playbook at the ready.
CNN reports on GOP playbook for Obamacare sabotage:

Cruz, comity, and comedy

11/25/13 10:04 AM

By Steve Benen

 

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) sat down with Bloomberg News’ Al Hunt the other day, who asked the Republican senator about the “nuclear option.” Alas, the message didn’t match the messenger (via Caitlin MacNeal).

HUNT: Will it complicate passing budgets or debt ceilings or anything?

 

CRUZ: Of course it will. I mean, it will poison the atmosphere of the Senate.

I should note that I’ve only seen the transcript, and therefore have no idea whether the right-wing Texan was able to say this with a straight face.

 

Either way, let’s not forget that this is the same Ted Cruz who helped oversee his party’s government-shutdown strategy. Cruz has repeatedly drawn the ire of his own Republican colleagues who’ve been the targets of his extremist tactics. Cruz won’t endorse his own Senate allies. A “remarkable number” of lawmakers in both parties have come forward “to say that they think Cruz is kind of a jerk.”

 

He’s the guy who wants to talk about poisoning the atmosphere of the Senate? Maybe someone else can take the lead on defending institutional comity?

 

House Speaker John Boehner successfully enrolled in Obamacare

November 21, 2013

By Anomaly

Congratulations House Speaker John Boehner for successfully enrolling in the Affordable Care Act; Aka: Obamacare.
It was about an hour after Boehner’s office said he couldn’t sign up for Obamacare coverage on the District of Columbia’s exchange, that his office said, he had officially enrolled.








Boehner’s office wrote, “Kept at it, and called the DC Health Link help line. They called back a few hours later, and after restarting the process on the website two more times, I just heard from DC Health Link that I have been successfully enrolled.”
Politico reports:

 Responding to Boehner’s earlier failed attempts to sign up for coverage, the District’s exchange — known as DC Health Link — said it recently identified some system errors after enrollment.
“We recently discovered the fact that after enrollment, some users have been receiving a random error message,” DC Health Link communications director Richard Sorian wrote in an email. “Despite the message, these individuals have been enrolled. Our call center has been able to quickly resolve these matters. We are working on a system-wide update that will eliminate this soon. Users will be able to verify their enrollment in their secure, online account.”
Boehner’s office on Thursday afternoon said he originally received an error screen when he tried to sign up for coverage. “Guess I’ll just have to keep trying…” his office wrote at the time.

I plan to enroll too, but I’m not a ‘shop on Black Friday’ kind of person. I’ve been waiting for things to settle down. After I enroll, it will be like Boehner and I are BFFs. Isn’t that exciting?
Stuff not covered: How long did it take to enroll for coverage by an insurance company before Obamacare?

Fox News Pundit Says End Of Judicial Filibuster Could Lead To ‘Military Coup’

By Hayes Brown on November 21, 2013 at 3:41 pm

"Fox News Pundit Says End Of Judicial Filibuster Could Lead To ‘Military Coup’"

CREDIT: Shutterstock

Fox News commentator Charles W. Cooke on Thursday warned that the recent move from the Senate to end filibusters on judicial nominees could lead to a “military coup.”
Cooke, who is also a National Review columnist, was speaking to Fox News host Gretchen Carlson on Thursday afternoon when he made the leap of logic. “I think it is fairly clear they want to distract from the Obamacare disaster, but this is something they wanted to do for awhile,” Cooke said of the decision to allow for a simple majority to pass nominees through the Senate. “They are very frustrated that Republicans have been blocking their nominations as they blocked Republican nominees when Bush was president.”
After Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) pulled the trigger on the so-called “nuclear option,” President Obama addressed the press to defend the Democrats’ choice. “Over the past five years we’ve seen an unprecedented pattern of obstruction in Congress that’s prevented too much of the American people’s business from getting done,” Obama said. The result, Obama continued, is that his nominees have languished in the Senate two and a half times as long as those put forward under the George W. Bush’s administration.
Cooke did not take Obama’s comments well, paraphrasing the president as having said “the American business is far too important for the rules.” “Well, how far do you take that?” Cooke pondered aloud. “You could just ignore the House. You could have a military coup, you could have anything at the end of this.”
Watch his comments here:

In reality, the change to the filibuster’s sixty-vote threshold was one that is narrowly tailored and will not lead to tanks rolling through the streets of Washington. As ThinkProgress earlier pointed out, the number of times where cloture had to be filed to overcome a filibuster has skyrocketed since Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) took over as Senate Minority leader. In total, nearly 3 in 10 cloture motions in the history of the Senate have been invoked since then.
The new rule put into place through the nuclear option doesn’t affect legislation, instead only being relegated to nominees for federal positions and courts. This leaves it impossible that the House’s opinion will ever need to be ignored, as only the Senate has the advice and consent power under debate at present, meaning that further changes would be required to allow before it would come into play. While further changes to the filibuster are possible, ignoring the House or Obama colluding with his generals to usurp over democracy — unlike reforming the filibuster — would also violate the Constitution, making it unlikely for either scenario to come from today’s actions. (HT: Eric Boehlert)

U.S. Senate goes 'nuclear' on filibuster rules

Senate Democrats pushed through a controversial rules change known as the "nuclear option."

 

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.,
answers questions from reporters following
the weekly policy lunch of the Democratic
caucus on Nov. 19.
(Photo: Win McNamee, Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., pushed through a controversial change to Senate rules Thursday that will make it easier to approve President Obama's executive and judicial branch nominees.
Fifty-two Senate Democrats voted with Reid to reduce the threshold from 60 votes to 51 votes to approve executive and judicial nominees against unanimous GOP opposition. Three Democrats, Sens. Mark Pryor of Arkansas, Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Carl Levin of Michigan, opposed the change.
The rules change does not apply to Supreme Court nominees, who are still subject to a 60-vote filibuster threshold, or to legislation.
"The American people believe Congress is broken. The American people believe the Senate is broken. And I believe they are right," Reid said Thursday on the Senate floor. "The need for change is so very, very obvious."
The turning point in this latest showdown was Republicans' decision to block all three of Obama's latest nominees to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, the nation's second most powerful court with vast jurisdiction over federal agencies and regulations.
STORY: First Take: Could partisanship get worse? It just did
The court currently has four judges appointed by Republican presidents and four by Democrats, with three vacancies. But six "senior" judges, five of them Republican nominees, tilt the court to the right. Republicans claim no more judges are needed, so they have based their opposition on workload, not the qualifications of Patricia Millett, Nina Pillard and Robert Wilkins.
Democrats control the Senate 55-45, but the majority is at stake in the 2014 elections. Republicans warned that it would not only tear apart cross-party relationships in the Senate, but it will come back to haunt Democrats if they return to the minority. "You will no doubt come to regret this, and you may regret it a lot sooner than you think," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., warned Democrats.
Only 22 Democrats have ever served in the minority. Vice President Joe Biden, who opposed a similar rules change as a senator, said Thursday that he supports Reid's decision.
The move is informally referred to as the "nuclear option" because it blows up long-standing Senate procedure and protection of minority rights. It would be the most far-reaching change to filibuster rules since 1975, when senators eased the two-thirds requirement for ending filibusters to today's three-fifths requirement of 60 votes.
Progressive groups cheered Reid's move. "This was not a decision made easily or taken lightly. There was no choice. The Republican minority had turned the existing rules into weapons of mass obstruction," said Alliance for Justice President Nan Aron.
Conservative groups said it would undermine minority rights in Congress. "For Harry Reid and President Obama, this is not about a couple circuit court judges; this is an attempt to remake America to reflect their unworkable and unpopular progressive vision," said Michael Needham of Heritage Action, which urged senators to oppose the rules change if it comes to a vote. "If Reid and his colleagues continue down this path, they will set a precedent that fundamentally alters the role of the minority in American politics."
Contributing: Associated Press

 

Right-Wing Hackers Create ‘Destroy Obamacare!’ Program, Hope To Disrupt Website

Author: T. Steelman November 20, 2013 11:31 am

A new DDos tool looks to cripple or shut down the healthcare.gov website.
“Destroy Obamacare!” is highly illegal but the right will probably try to use it.

The right really, really wants to destroy Obamacare. Sure, the Obamacare website has had its problems since the roll-out. We’re all disappointed and discouraged that, after all the work we’ve done to get this up and running, we are having to defend the entire idea of health care reform. Because we all know that if a website ever has problems, it should immediately be shut down. Just like YouTube was Monday when it went down for a while. Oh, it wasn’t shut down? Well, I’m sure that was an oversight.

The Obamacare website is being attacked by hackers

Last week, Department of Homeland Security official Roberta Stempfley told the
monkey circusHouse investigative committee that the Healthcare. gov website had been the target of at least 16 cyber-attacks. These occurred between Nov. 6th and Nov. 8th and are currently under investigation.
But things may escalate if some on the right have their way. Recently, Arbor Networks, an online security firm, discovered a tool called “Destroy Obamacare!” It is being distributed (by whom is not yet known) so it can be used to overload the Obamacare website. According to Arbor, the program is written to perform constant, layered requests to get on two healthcare.gov web pages: the home page and the “contact us” page. The tool is a Distributed Denial of Service program. My IT friends tell me that…
“… the extra D in DDoS that makes a DDoS attack so effective — the first D stands for “Distributed” and means that the attacks would be coming from a variety of different IP addresses, making it hard to block the traffic without completely turning off the website (which is the goal of a “denial of service” attack to begin with).”
In other words, tens of thousands (or more) of computers will try to use the website over and over and over again, automatically. Think of having thousands of cars trying to use the same exit on the highway at the same time and you’ll get the idea.

“Destroy Obamacare” isn’t too much of a threat unless…

As it stands, this “Destroy Obamacare!” tool wouldn’t be able to do much to the Obamacare website. But, of course, there are a couple of caveats:

“… if this were developed into something more malicious (and rewritten to fire off more requests, more regularly), spread throughout servers and users online without adequate security, and launched from machines worldwide simultaneously, it would be catastrophically effective (especially if the program was smart enough to change IP addresses when blocked).”

The IP address issue, while not insurmountable, presents a problem for the people who would be using “Destroy Obamacare!” Their computers can be identified and blocked and the users prosecuted. But, as my sources say, if an enormous number of people (say, several million) decided to run the program or if someone with enough money were to rent a bot-net (a robot network), then they could wreak havoc. But, unless that were to happen, these website requests would maybe slow the site down a little. But everyone who ran it would be easily found and blocked.

It’s obvious the program came from someone on the right

Though it is rather like “one-legged dogs trying to take down a pride of lions” (as one of my sources compared it), “Destroy Obamacare!” could still be troublesome. But anyone who wishes to use it should know that it is highly illegal and easily traced. As you can see by the text which accompanies the tool, those who use it may not be smart enough to realize either of these things.

Looks like a Tea Party thing to me. Arbor says on their website coverage of this subject that they have no information on the active use of this software — yet — but that they have:

… seen site specific denial of service tools in the past related to topics of social or political interest.  This application continues a trend ASERT is seeing with denial of service attacks being used as a means of retaliation against a policy, legal rulings or government actions. (source)

They may be referring to Anonymous, who has targeted websites before. But this is, as far as we know, the first time that the right-wing has tried to use cyber-attacks.

My IT sources say it’s poorly written

For the coders among you, here is a screen shot of some of “Destroy Obamacare!” code:

My very smart IT sources assure me that this is nothing to worry about. Any well-written high-capacity website could easily handle this. Unless, of course, the Koch brothers decide to rent that bot-net…
What is frustrating for me, and for many of you, is that the media is focusing on the healthcare.gov website having problems. Yet nobody mentions the attacks that have already occurred nor this nascent, though probably toothless, concerted attack. “Liberal media” my arse.
 

25 Ridiculous Conservative Ideas In Their Own Words

February 8, 2013

Posted by: Samuel Wynn

1. Armed rebellion is a viable alternative to elections: ”Our nation was founded on violence. The option is on the table. I don’t think that we should ever remove anything from the table as it relates to our liberties and our freedoms.” —Tea Party-backed Texas GOP congressional candidate Stephen Broden, suggesting the violent overthrow of the U.S. government if Republicans don’t win at the ballot box, interview with Dallas’s WFAA-TV, Oct. 21, 2010
2. Banning abortions for high-risk pregnancies can be a positive experience for women: “I have been in the situation of counseling young girls… who have had very at risk, difficult pregnancies. And my counsel was to look for some alternatives, which they did. And they found that they had made WHAT WAS REALLY A LEMON SITUATION INTO LEMONADE.” — Sharron Angle on abortion
3. Bringing your gun to crowded public events is normal: “It’s not unusual in political rallies, it’s not unusual in parades, to see that type of thing.” — Joe Miller on guns at his rallies
4. Carbon Dioxide is safe: ”Carbon dioxide is portrayed as harmful. But there isn’t even one study that can be produced that shows that carbon dioxide is a harmful gas.” —Rep. Michelle Bachmann
5. Climate change is a myth: “I absolutely do not believe in the science of man-caused climate change. It’s not proven by any stretch of the imagination…It’s far more likely that it’s just sunspot activity or just something in the geologic eons of time. Excess carbon dioxide in the atmosphere ‘gets sucked down by trees and helps the trees grow.”’ – Ron Johnson
6. Corporations are people: ”Corporations are people, my friend… of course they are. Everything corporations earn ultimately goes to the people. Where do you think it goes? Whose pockets? Whose pockets? People’s pockets. Human beings, my friend.” —GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney
7. Discrimination on the basis of race is desirable: “I don’t want to be associated with those people, but I also don’t want to limit their speech in any way in the sense that we tolerate boorish and uncivilized behavior because that’s one of the things freedom requires is that we allow people to be boorish and uncivilized, but that doesn’t mean we approve of it.” —Rand Paul, taking issue with the Civil Rights Act of 1964 while arguing that government should not prevent private businesses from discriminating on the basis of race
8. Evolution is a myth: “You know what, evolution is a myth….Why aren’t monkeys still evolving into humans?” —Christine O’Donnell
9. Geography is not important: ”I’m ready for the ‘gotcha’ questions and they’re already starting to come. And when they ask me who is the president of Ubeki-beki-beki-beki-stan-stan I’m going to say, you know, I don’t know. Do you know?” —Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain
10. Government has no role in job creation: “People ask me, ‘What are you going to do to develop jobs in your state?’ Well, that’s not my job as a U.S. senator.” —Sharron Angle
11. Higher education is elitist: “President Obama wants everybody in America to go to college. What a snob … Oh, I understand why he wants you to go to college. He wants to remake you in his image.” –Rick Santorum
12. Hitler coined the phrase “separation of church and state”: “The exact phrase ‘separation of Church and State’ came out of Adolph HItler’s mouth, that’s where it comes from. So the next time your liberal friends talk about the separation of Church and State, ASK THEM WHY THEY’RE NAZIS.” — Glen Urquhart
13. Inciting violence is acceptable: “I hope that’s not where we’re going, but you know if this Congress keeps going the way it is, people are really looking toward those Second Amendment remedies and saying my goodness what can we do to turn this country around? I’ll tell you the first thing we need to do is take Harry Reid out.” —Nevada GOP Senate candidate Sharron Angle, floating the possibility of armed insurrection in a radio interview
14. Intelligent Design is a viable scientific theory: “There are hundreds and hundreds of scientists, many of them holding Nobel Prizes, who believe in intelligent design.” – Michele Bachmann
15. Lawyers are Un-American: “the ABA is about as far left as the Communist Party, so those who usually get those awards are lawyers committed to socialism, not freedom.” – Tea Party Nation Founder Judson Phillips
16. Marriage is related to national security: ”Isn’t that the ultimate homeland security, standing up and defending marriage?” —Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA), on congressional efforts to pass a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage (July 2004)
17. The media is a threat to national security: “The greatest threat to America is not necessarily a recession or even another terrorist attack. The greatest threat to America is a LIBERAL MEDIA BIAS.” — Lamar Smith
18. Minimum Wage created unemployment: “If we took away the minimum wage-if conceivably it was gone-we could potentially virtually wipe out unemployment completely because we would be able to offer jobs at whatever level.” —Michele Bachmann
19. Most Americans cannot accept gay marriage: “Gay marriage is probably the biggest issue that will impact our state and our nation in the next, at least, thirty years. I AM NOT UNDERSTATING THAT.” — Michelle Bachmann
20. Obama is the enemy: “He has no place in any station of government and we need to realize that he is an ENEMY OF HUMANITY.” — Trent Franks on Obama
21. The rise of the Soviet Union is cause for concern among Americans: ”What people recognize is that there’s a fear that the United States is in an unstoppable decline. They see the rise of China, the rise of India, the rise of the Soviet Union and our loss militarily going forward.” —Michele Bachmann (R-MN), unaware that the Soviet Union collapsed more than two decades ago (August 2011)
22. Sexual Revolution created AIDS: “We had the 60s sexual revolution, and now people are dying of AIDS.” —Christine O’Donnell, Politically Incorrect. August 1998
23. Trees have a proper height: ”I love this state. The trees are the right height.” —Mitt Romney, campaigning in Michigan (February 2012)
24. We should use prisons for low-income housing: “THESE ARE BEAUTIFUL PROPERTIES with basketball courts, bathroom facilities, toilet facilities. Many young people would love to get the hell out of cities” — Carl Paladino on housing poor people in prisons
25. Women are disposable: ”She’s not young enough or pretty enough to be the wife of a President. And besides, she has cancer.”’ —future House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA), reportedly speaking to a friend in 1980 about why he was divorcing his first wife

Follow us on Twitter @TheBigSlice1 and on Facebook at The Big Slice
 

New Bill Would Force Congress To Stay In Washington Until It Passes A Budget

Posted: 11/20/2013 1:26 pm EST  |  Updated: 11/20/2013 1:51 pm EST

WASHINGTON -- New York Rep. Louise Slaughter, the senior Democrat on the House Rules Committee, introduced legislation Wednesday that would prevent Congress from skipping town for the holidays if the House fails to pass a budget agreement by mid-December.
The "No Budget, No Vacation" bill would hold lawmakers accountable for their pledge to reconcile the vastly different House and Senate budgets by Dec. 13, which was one of the key components of last month's deal to end the 16-day shutdown of the federal government. Since then, members of the Budget Conference Committee, led by the House and Senate budget chairs, have twice convened publicly, but there's been little indication that they're headed for a breakthrough.
Democrats will thus attach a vote on Slaughter's resolution to a procedural motion known as "the previous question" on Wednesday. The maneuver is one of the few ways in which the minority in the House can attempt to take control of the floor briefly away from the majority, but it's unlikely to succeed because it would need Republican votes.
Democrats are hopeful, however, that the vote will be tricky for Republicans amid reports that House GOP leaders are done legislating for the remainder of the year and have distributed a blank agenda for 2014 to their members. In a press release, Slaughter cites such articles and points out that House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) reportedly joked in a private meeting with Republicans that the House shouldn’t even remain in session in December.
"This Republican House has redefined the term unproductive by setting records for futility with its glacial legislative pace and then shutting down the government when they don’t get their way," Slaughter said. "Now, after this dismal record, the Majority is planning to go on a vacation before fulfilling our most basic role to fund the government. It is time to stop governing crisis–to-crisis and finally give the American people and American businesses the certainty that comes with passing a federal budget. No budget, no vacation."
Slaughter voiced similar frustration over the lack of legislative action in the House on Tuesday when a second vote series was canceled. "Oh did we work too hard today?" she quipped, according to BuzzFeed's Kate Nocera.
As The Huffington Post reported earlier this year, the 113th Congress is on track to be the least productive in modern history, a tough record to beat given the 112th Congress was already the least productive since the 1940s. Boehner has called such reports "total nonsense," and said the American public would like to see Congress repeal laws rather than simply pass them.
But the House GOP has been scrutinized for stalling on comprehensive immigration reform and failing to pass spending bills at the levels set by Republican appropriators.
In terms of a budget agreement, Boehner and Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), the House Budget Chair, have ruled out any budget deal that includes new tax increases. Democrats have maintained that the federal budget cuts known as sequestration must be replaced with a combination of tax revenues and targeted spending cuts, setting up a possible stalemate ahead of the mid-December deadline.
Boehner nonetheless expressed optimism Tuesday that both sides could agree on a spending level for 2014, a day after top Republican appropriators warned against keeping sequestration in place in a letter to Ryan and Senate Budget Committee Chair Patty Murray (D-Wash.).
"It’s important that we do appropriations bills here to fund the government," he said at a press conference. "The idea that we should operate under what are called continuing resolutions is a poor way to do business."
Read the 'No Budget, No Vacation' bill below:
Resolution: No Budget, No Vacation

 

  ..................................................................... (Original Signature of Member)
113TH
CONGRESS 1ST
SESSION

H. RES. ll

Prohibiting the consideration of a concurrent resolution providing for adjourn-ment unless the House has adopted a conference report on the budget resolution.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Ms. S
LAUGHTER
submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on
lllllllllllllll

RESOLUTION

Prohibiting the consideration of a concurrent resolution pro-viding for adjournment unless the House has adopted a conference report on the budget resolution.
Resolved,
That it shall not be in order to consider a
1
concurrent resolution providing for adjournment unless
2
the House has adopted a conference report on S. Con. Res.
3
8, establishing a budget for the United States Govern-
4
ment, by December 13th, 2013.
5
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:34 Nov 19, 2013Jkt 000000PO 00000Frm 00001Fmt 6652Sfmt 6201C:\DOCUME~1\NLWOFSY\APPLIC~1\SOFTQUAD\XMETAL\5.5\GEN\C\RULES2~1.XMLH
November 19, 2013 (2:34 p.m.)
F:\NLW\DEM\RULES2013.XML
f:\VHLC\111913\111913.131.xml           (564885|1) 

PFAW Memo: GOP Exceeds Expectations…on Executive Branch Obstruction

To: Interested Parties
From: Marge Baker, Executive Vice President, People For the American Way
Date: November 18, 2013
Re: GOP Exceeds Expectations…on Executive Branch Obstruction

Earlier this year, People For the American Way released an analysis showing the unprecedented level of obstruction faced by President Obama’s nominees to the executive branch. At that time, 16 of the President’s nominees to the executive branch of government had faced filibusters from Republican senators and were the subject of cloture votes after Republicans refused to allow an up-or-down vote on their nominations. That number was on pace to reach 28 nominees by the end of President Obama’s second term.

Since then, things have only gotten worse.

In the last four months, eight additional executive branch nominees have faced filibusters from Republicans intent on blocking their nominations. These include Kent Yoshiho Hirozawa (National Labor Relations Board member), Nancy Jean Schiffer (National Labor Relations Board member), Mark Gaston Pearce (National Labor Relations Board Chairman), Byron Todd Jones (Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives), Richard F. Griffin (National Labor Relations Board General Counsel), Alan F. Estevez (Assistant Secretary of Defense Logistics and Materiel Readiness), Katherine Archuleta (Director of the Office of Personnel Management), and Congressman Melvin L. Watt (Director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency). Notably, the filibuster of Congressman Watt represented the first filibuster of a sitting member of Congress for an executive branch appointment since before the Civil War.

Importantly, the rate of obstruction has increased considerably, and Republicans are now on pace to filibuster a full 40 nominees before the end of the Obama administration in January 2017.

Not only do these filibusters hinder the work of a wide range of agencies and departments, they are also part of a larger Republican agenda to nullify existing laws through obstruction. Many of President Obama’s executive branch nominees have faced filibusters not because Senate Republicans objected to their personal qualifications, but because they do not wish to allow the agencies and departments to which they have been nominated to do their work.

This nullification strategy is part of the same wrong-headed philosophy that forced the government to shut down last month, and which is currently preventing three impressively qualified nominees for the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals from receiving confirmation votes.

The ultimate victims of Republican obstruction aren’t the Senate’s Democratic leadership or even President Obama, but the individual Americans who depend on a government that operates effectively and addresses the needs of real people.

Michele Bachmann on CNN: ‘I Lost My Health Insurance Under Obamacare’

 Michele Bachmann on CNN: ‘I Lost My Health Insurance Under Obamacare’

by Josh Feldman | 6:30 pm, November 14th, 2013
During a lively debate with Paul Begala on CNN, Congresswoman Michele Bachmann told Begala and Wolf Blitzer that she lost her health insurance under Obamacare and is going to have to sign up for the D.C. exchanges, but wants to wait until the website, with the glitches and information errors, gets properly fixed.

When asked by Blitzer if she’s going to sign up for the exchanges, Bachmann first said, “Are you kidding? I’m not gonna waste an hour on that thing!” before telling him “I lost my health insurance under Obamacare.”
She said her husband has some personal health issues and they need insurance, at which point Begala jumped in to say, “And now you can’t be denied! Thanks, Barack Obama!” Bachmann shot back, “We were just fine before.”
She explained to Blitzer that “we are forced to go on the website and purchase the health insurance plan from the D.C. health exchange.” And while she’s going to do it eventually, Bachmann said she doesn’t want to waste her “time and frustration” on a website that doesn’t even work yet.
Watch the video below, via CNN:


– –
Follow Josh Feldman on Twitter: @feldmaniac

House Republicans to try to impeach U.S. Attorney General Holder

16 hours ago

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Republicans in the House of Representatives plan to introduce articles of impeachment against Attorney General Eric Holder on Thursday, in the hopes of removing a cabinet member they say has lied to Congress as well as failed to uphold federal law.

"This was not a decision that I made lightly. Since the House voted in 2012 to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt, the pattern of disregard for the rule of law and refusal to be forthright has only continued," Texas Representative Pete Olson, who drafted the articles, said in a statement provided to Reuters on Wednesday.
"The American people deserve answers and accountability. If the attorney general refuses to provide answers, then Congress must take action."
The Justice Department did not respond to requests for comment on the possibility of an impeachment move.
The resolution could pass the Republican-dominated House but would likely sputter in the Democratic-dominated Senate, which would have to hold a trial to remove Holder, who has been attorney general since 2009, from office.
Still, an impeachment drive would further fuel the tensions that exist between the federal government's top law enforcement officer and conservative lawmakers. According to the media firm CQ Roll Call, 10 other Republicans would co-sponsor the articles of impeachment, five of whom are from Texas.
According to an outline, the first article is based on "Operation Fast and Furious" a bungled attempt to build cases against major gun traffickers who supplied firearms to Mexican drug cartels, while electing not to immediately prosecute low-level traffickers even as they bought 2,000 potentially illegal guns.
The operation came to light after two of those firearms were found in Arizona at the scene of the fatal shooting of U.S. Border Patrol agent Brian Terry.
After Holder refused to give a congressional committee subpoenaed documents about the Justice Department's involvement in "Fast and Furious" he was found in contempt of Congress. The House oversight committee has also sued for the documents.
The other impeachment articles rest on issues that have raised conservatives' ire in recent years, including Holder's decisions not to enforce laws on same-sex marriage, on prison sentences for certain drug crimes and not to prosecute an official in the Internal Revenue Service for targeting conservative political activists.
They also say Holder lied to Congress about a Justice Department investigation into Fox News correspondent James Rosen.
(Reporting By Lisa Lambert; Editing by Paul Simao)
 

GOP’s unparalleled radicalism: Time for Democrats to go nuclear on judges!

Republicans are nullifying vacancies on a key law-making court so they can subvert the law. They must be stopped

Brian Beutler

Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa,
on Capitol Hill in Washington,
Monday, May 20, 2013. (Credit: AP/J. Scott Applewhite)

When last we checked in, Senate Republicans were vowing to effectively nullify three vacant seats on the ultra-powerful D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals by denying confirmation to all of President Obama’s nominees — to prevent Obama from giving the court a more liberal balance.
These filibuster threats were disconnected from all juridical merits. They were instead the tactical core of a subversive plan to preserve the conservative status quo on a court that will settle a tremendous amount of administrative law between now and the end of Obama’s presidency. Put another way, Republicans were threatening to use the Senate’s filibuster rules to improve the statistical odds that the court will upend Obama administration regulations — to unilaterally change law from their minority position in the Senate.
Democrats were obviously unhappy about this, and began threatening — once again — to nuke the supermajority cloture rule, this time as it pertains to judicial nominees.
A week and a half later, Republicans have successfully filibustered two D.C. Circuit Court nominees, and are promising a hat trick. They seem inclined to call the Democrats’ bluff, and are using political psy-ops as a kind of deterrent against the threat that Dems will go nuclear.
But the nullification strategy is radical, and entirely new. It transgresses the semi-stable norms — regarding professional qualification and ideological temperament — that had previously governed which nominees were subject to rejection by the minority. And so the persuasive power of GOP threats are self-limiting.
“Be careful what you wish for,” Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, the senior Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, said on the Senate floor Tuesday. “[I]f the Democrats are bent on changing the rules, then I say go ahead. There are a lot more Scalias and Thomases out there that we’d love to put on the bench. The nominees we would nominate and confirm with 51 votes will interpret the Constitution as it was written. They are not the type who would invent constitutional law right out of thin air.”
This is a bizarre warning. If Democrats change the rules, then future Republican presidents will flood the judiciary with … precisely the kind of conservative jurists they’ve been nominating and getting confirmed for years and years.

When Clarence Thomas was confirmed, Democrats held the majority in the Senate. It’s not just that there was no filibuster. Democrats controlled the chamber and allowed the minority to confirm him with an up or down vote. Most Dems voted no, but he was confirmed 52-48. On Tuesday, Cornelia Pillard got 56 votes in the Senate, more than Thomas but four short of the 60 required to overcome a filibuster.
Republicans controlled the Senate when Ronald Reagan nominated Antonin Scalia, but not only did Democrats decline to filibuster him, he was confirmed unanimously.
Things had become significantly more polarized and contentious by the time George W. Bush became president, but his two Supreme Court nominees (not counting Harriet Miers, an outlier whom Republicans sank on their own) were both confirmed pretty easily. John Roberts on a 78-22 vote, facing no filibuster; Sam Alito by a vote of 58-42 after a bunch of Democrats helped the GOP break a symbolic filibuster. At no point in George W. Bush’s presidency did Democrats try to moot court vacancies by refusing to confirm a category of nominees, or accuse Bush of court packing simply by trying to fill those vacancies.
But that’s where we are today.
It’s true that the elimination of the judicial filibuster would allow a future Republican president to fill vacancies more expeditiously. But it would give Obama the same power.
For Grassley’s threat to have any teeth, he’d need to warn Democrats that Republicans will confirm hyper-radicals whom they’ve been too timid to nominate in the past, or would unilaterally add seats to appellate courts and pack them with right-wing judges. But that would be crazy.
Alternatively, Republicans could just agree to confirm some of Obama’s judges. I think Democrats would probably drop the nuclear threat if Republicans cleared two of Obama’s three D.C. circuit nominees. Maybe Republicans could secure the confirmation of a third, more conservative judge, or get the remaining seat on the court eliminated legislatively.
But their current position — daring Dems to go all the way nuclear or cave completely — gives Dems almost no choice but to pull the trigger. If Republicans had meritorious objections to any of these nominees, the nuclear threat would be a disproportional escalation. Obama could find other judges. What they’re doing instead is a judicial replay of their unacceptable bid to unilaterally gut Wall Street’s consumer watchdog office and void the National Labor Relations Board. Democrats didn’t stand for that, and won. Republicans caved and confirmed several waylaid executive branch nominees over the course of just a few days. They should run the same play again. And if Republicans don’t fold, they should go nuclear.
Sen. Pat Leahy, D-Vt., chairman of the Judiciary Committee, is on the same page.
“I think we’re at the point where there will have to be a rules change.”

Brian Beutler is Salon's political writer. Email him at bbeutler@salon.com and follow him on Twitter at @brianbeutler.