Liberal Dan Radio 1/29/2015: I’m just here so I don’t get fined.

On the January 29, 2015 episode, Liberal Dan Radio goes BEAST MODE (except I promise I will have more to say on the issues than Lynch). I will discuss Lynch and his desire to not speak. Should he be expected to give a meaningful interview? Or should they require him to speak and are his responses irresponsible?

The measels outbreak at Disneyland is spreading and is causing a renewed conversation about vaccinations and the harm that anti-vaxxers beleive they cause (despite scientists and the medical community stating otherwise). I will discuss my problems with anti-vaxxers and what we should be doing about them.

The scandal surrounding rape culture in colleges, especially at the UVA, has caused some surprising responses by national sorrorities. They have banned their members from going to fraternity parties at UVA. I will discuss why this action is plainly hurtful to victims and promotes rape culture.

Marissa Alexander, the woman who was denied “Stand Your Ground” when she fired a gun in the air near her abuser has been let out of jail and instead placed on house arrest. I will revisit these laws and explain why there are two justice systems.

Those issues, headlines, tweet of the week, and more at 8pm Central on Liberal Dan Radio: Talk From The Left, That’s Right.

I still have a GoFundMe campaign that I am running, please consider a contribution if you like the podcast or want to advertise on it.

Joni Ernst, the GOP Response, and extreme disrespect

The Republican Party has shown a massive amount of disrespect towards this President. From members interrupting the President by saying “you lie” in the middle of another State of the Union address to holding him to different standards than they hold President Obama the sheer amount of disrespect shown by them is just disgusting.

Another example of this was Joni Ersnt and her official response to the State of the Union. In stating that she was not responding to the State of the Union but was instead giving a “GOP Address”, she basically confirmed what many of us have known for a while now. She, and the rest of the GOP, will not respect the office or even address the President in any meaningful way. It doesn’t matter to the GOP what he actually says. They are going to constantly push for their agenda despite the fact that he won two Presidential elections (showing that the country actually wants him to succeed).

One might say, but the GOP won in 2014 and they won big. That is true. Of course, they won gerrymandered districts built to retain the GOP control. They claim a mandate for winning but never accepted Obama and his mandate when he triumphed in 2008 and 2012. In fact, in another one of those older versions of GOP disrespect to this President they started from day one planning on how they could work to prevent anything he tries to pass to come to a fruition.

It is my opinion that President Obama deals with more disrespect than any other US President in history. I wonder why that is? It shouldn’t take more than two thoughts to figure it out.

Liberal Dan Radio 1/22/2015: A Wizard Did It

On the Thursday January 22nd, 2015 episode of Liberal Dan Radio:

Inflategate has caused a lot of discussion of the alleged repeated cheating by the New England Patriots. I will give my opinions on the matter and correct a lot of confusion there seems to be about it.

The State of the Union took place on Tuesday as well. I will review some of the highlights.

And in the bottom half of the hour I will have Wendy and Brock from A Wizard Did It to discuss their project and the impact that actions like those that took place in Paris can have on artists.

Those issues, headlines, tweet of the week, and more talk from the left that’s right at 8pm central on Blog Talk Radio.

Remember, you can support the show by contributing to my gofundme campaign.

Finally, if you are listening after the live broadcast you can leave your comments at the show thread on LiberalDan.com.

Shunning Hardees

Andy Puzder is the CEO of CKE Restaurants. This company brings you Hardees, Carl’s Jr, Green Burrito, and Red Burrito. He had an article published in the Wall Street Journal about how his employees “shunned Obamacare“. He couldn’t be more wrong.

Of my company’s 5,453 eligible employees, only 420 actually enrolled. The other 5,033 opted to pay a penalty.

That is how the article starts. He has 5,453 employees who could sign up for “Obamacare” (a ridiculous statement in and of itself) and only 420 actually did. So what does he mean. What is he trying to say with the meaningless statement that only 420 of his employees “signed up for Obamacare”? In reality he later goes on and states that they signed up for Obamacare compliant coverage, a better explanation, but potentially dishonest.

But first let’s talk about who these employees are. Puzder states:

Among the Affordable Care Act’s many economic and political disruptions, the law has unintentionally encouraged employers to convert full-time jobs into part-time jobs. ObamaCare mandates that employers offer health insurance to employees who work more than 30 hours a week, or pay a penalty up to $3,000 an employee. But employers have no such obligation for employees who work less than 30 hours a week, making part-time employment less costly.

Let’s get this perfectly clear. The law does not “encourage” employers to only hire part time employees. The employers make the decision themselves to only hire part time employees to avoid having to either pay a per employee penalty or to cover their insurance. An employer that could hire X employees at full time but instead chooses to employ 2 times the employees at half the hours is not doing so because the law encouraged them to do so. They are doing so because they are cheap bastards who base their business decisions on greed. They do not wish to provide for the persons helping them make their profit. They want to pay out as little as possible and are using government regulations as an excuse to do so. They could hire these employees at full time and give them quality health insurance to make sure they can remain productive employees. However, they choose to do otherwise. That is their choice and no responsibility rests of government otherwise.

The last open-enrollment date for our company, CKE Restaurant Holdings, Inc., was Dec. 4, 2014. As of that date, our company had approximately 20,000 employees, 6,900 of whom worked 30 or more hours a week and were eligible for ObamaCare-compliant health insurance.

So 13,000 of their employees are part time who do not get a full time wage. Nice.

Of the 6,900 eligible employees, 1,447 already had ObamaCare-compliant insurance through our pre-existing company plans. That left 5,453 employees eligible to sign up. A grand total of 420 actually enrolled. That’s a mere 2% of total employees, or 6% of eligible employees.

What Puzder fails to do is give us is information on those other employees who were eligible. How many of the 5,033 employees who chose to not sign up have a spouse with coverage through his/her company? How many of them live in states where the medicaid expansion was accepted and because of their low wages qualify them for Medicaid which has no premium requirements. How many of them simply qualify for Medicaid without the expansion. How many of them are under 28 and have parental insurance? He ignores such possibilities and suggests that it all must be because they are “rejecting Obamacare”. If an employee obtained a Medicaid policy that would mean the employee accepted a policy that is Obamacare compliant and as such would not have rejected Obamacare at all.

But look at the numbers. His company hires 65.5% of its employees at the part time level and as such avoids the decision to provide health insurance or to pay the $3,000 per head penalty for them. He likely knows that by making that decision those employees will likely be obtaining some sort of needs based health coverage like Medicaid. So in reality, it is likely that at least 75% of his company has some form of Obamacare compliant coverage and the rest of them may very well have that coverage as well via Medicaid, spousal, or parental coverage. But he wont give us that information. So not only is he a cheapskate (for running his company in such a way that almost 2/3 of his company are part time employees) but he is misleading at best and a liar at worse for leaving out the other vital information that would give us a clearer picture of how many actual employees of his are not covered by an Obamacare compliant plan.

So no, I will no longer be dining at Hardee’s or Carl’s Jr. I encourage you to refrain from their establishments as well. Don’t try and pass off your behavior on Obama and the Affordable Care Act. It wont fly with this consumer.

 

 

Liberal Dan Radio 1/15/2015: The more things change…

… the more things stay the same. On the January 15th episode of Liberal Dan Radio:

George Zimmerman is back in the news. I will go over his current charges and bring us back to the case where he was acquitted of murdering Trayvon Martin and explain again why that was a travesty of justice.

Gay marriage is on the move again, this time in Louisiana where a panel of judges heard oral arguments over why the ban on gay marriage in the Louisiana Constitution violates the United States Constitution. They also heard counter arguments on why opponents to gay marriage feel that a state should be able to vote on rights. Those arguments will be explored in the show as well.

And finally, if there is time, I will go over yet another propaganda comic book that I received for the holidays. This time it is about the Tea Party.

Those issues, headlines, tweet of the week and more on Liberal Dan Radio, Talk From The Left, That’s Right.

Remember, I am currently running a fundraiser. Please support the show so I can start to expand it.

Finally, if you are listening after the live broadcast you may always respond over on the show page at LiberalDan.com.

Liberal Dan Radio 1/8/2015: Je Suis Charlie

Liberal Dan Radio returns to Thursdays at 8pm Central this week, January 7th, 2015.

A terrorist attack in France at the headquarters of the satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo has caused shock waves around the world. Muslim extremists attacked the paper for some cartoons it has done. Can one really claim to have faith if one is effected by simple drawings mocking ones religion? Shouldn’t ones faith be able to overcome such feelings if ones faith is strong? This story also revealed another item that Conservatives like to harp on. Conservatives believe that Liberals are soft on Muslim extremism and would allow so called “Sharia Law” to be enacted in the US. I will explain how that is absolutely untrue.

It is not just Muslim extremists who want to attack free speech. Kirby Delauter doesn’t seem to quite get that simple fact. I will talk about his claims and the hilarious response to them as well.

Finally, I will be discussing the Steve Scalise scandal that continues to run through the media and explain why his choice to knowingly accept an invitation to speak given to him by a person known to him to be a racist is the biggest problem here.

Those stories, headlines, tweet of the week and more this week on Liberal Dan Radio, Talk From The Left, That’s Right.

You can support Liberal Dan Radio by going to the gofundme page.

Judged by the company you keep

With Mary Landrieu losing the Louisiana Senatorial runoff election last year, one could say that the conservative tidal wave that started by the “Southern Strategy” implemented by Nixon and Reagan is now complete. Liberals like myself have been critical of the GOP and the utilization of the “Southern Strategy”. Nixon and Reagan targeted disenfranchised white southerners who used to be registered as Democrats but became disenfranchised after the Democratic Party started supporting civil rights legislation. Reagan would say things like “I didn’t leave the Democratic Party, the Democratic Party left me”. Reagan went so far as to discuss “states rights” in Philadelphia MS. That was the location of the murders of several civil rights workers. The people who murdered them, and others who felt like them, believed that “states rights” enabled Jim Crow and other laws meant to keep black persons as second class citizens.

Typically when you try and reach out to a group and want to convince them to vote with you, the idea is that you want them to keep voting with you. This means you need to give them reasons to continue voting for you and as such you will have to pass laws and support policies that they like. So Reagan creating a coalition that included white southern racists meant that he would have to pander to those people if he wanted to keep their votes.

Now we have Steve Scalise and his speech at the Landmark Hotel in Metairie Louisiana. There are a lot of conflicting stories about the nature of his talk including what was spoken about and who was the targeted audience. I am not going to go into all of those items in this post. However, one thing has been made pretty clear. Steve Scalise accepted an invitation from Kenny Knight to speak that day. Kenny Knight is a David Duke ally and a known racist and anti-semite. According to Knight, Scalise knew about Knight and his feelings on people who are black on the topic of the “Jewish Question” (his words). If Scalise knew of these things then why on earth would he accept a speaking invitation from him?

I was raised Jewish and have many friends who are black. Steve Scalise is the 3rd ranking member of the House. It concerns me greatly that someone with that much power and influence would be pandering to racists and anti-semites. Scalise should be judged by the company he keeps. And it seems pretty clear that he had no problem accepting a speeing engagement where he was invted by a racist and anti-semite.

Political Prostitution: The underlying problem of the new Steve Scalise news

Louisiana has some history with politicians and prostitutes. Just look at David Vitter. However, that is not the prostitution I am writing about. I am referring to political prostitution, the willingness to do whatever it takes to be elected. The willingness to basically have no personal values and instead go where the wind blows you and be willing to accept any speaking engagement or endorsement without giving it a thought.

Take Joseph Cao for example. The former Congressman from Louisiana’s Second Congressional District was willing to take all endorsements regardless of who they came from. One group he accepted an endorsement from was the Louisiana Family Forum. The LFF is the Louisiana offshoot of the Family Research Council, a group that the Southern Poverty Law Center has deemed a hate group. When I called the Jeff Crouere show to ask him about his acceptance of that endorsement, Joseph Cao said that he didn’t know much about the group but was happy to accept their endorsement. This was enough for me to reject him in the jungle primary and instead vote for another candidate who seemed to have more character than Cao.

I have also rejected other candidates for blindly accepting endorsements. Many politicians in New Orleans have accepted endorsements from the “Regular Democratic Organization”. When I ask them if they know anything about the history of the RDO, they often do not. Well, the RDO split from the Orleans Parish Democratic Party when Mayor Moon Landrieu and his allies in the Democratic party endorsed civil rights and integration.

So now the blog CenLamar has made national news for uncovering the fact that when House Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-LA) was a State Legislator, he accepted a speaking engagement at a EURO convention. EURO stands for the European-American Unity and Rights Organization. They stand for so called “white civil rights”. Basically they are a horrible organization tied to David Duke and anybody living in Louisiana at the time, especially politically active persons, should have been aware of this. Scalise has been criticized for failing to know this simple fact when he spoke in front of them. Some have even suggested that he should have known upon entering the convention that something was not right at this speaking engagement. Others suggested that he was understaffed and would not have had the time to fully vet each speaking engagement. Unless something in writing turns up where Scalise informs David Duke that he would love to attend the event and completely endorses its purposes, the only person who will really know the limit of Congressman Scalise’s knowledge of the event and who was putting it on is Congressman Scalise.

That being said, this is just another example of political prostitution. If Scalise did know who he was speaking in front of, he just proves that he will speak in front of anyone for political gain. If Scalise didn’t know who he was speaking in front of, he just proves that he doesn’t care who he speaks in front of for political gain. This proves that he has no principles. All one really has to do is listen to his political stances to realize this. When he was on WWL Radio previously discussing several issues, including the Affordable Care Act, Scalise just parroted all the same points that every other GOP rep makes. There is no new thought there. There is no divergence from his party. There is no “unlike some people in my party, I would keep x even though I dislike y and z”. He, like many other politicians these days, is just an empty shell filled with canned rhetoric and willing to do whatever it takes to win. And that is ultimately why he spoke in front of EURO. I cannot say that Scalise is a racist, but I will say that he is a political whore.

Why SCOTUS is wrong on HEIEN V. North Carolina

The Supreme Court ruled on Heien V North Carolina on Monday and the ruling to me is ridiculous by itself and also goes against stare decisis.

You can read the details of the case in the link. Basically a police officer stopped a car for having a broken brake light. However, had that police officer understood the law he was pulling the individual over on, he would have known that North Carolina only requires a car to have a singular working tail light. The only legal way for that officer to pull the car over would have been for both brake lights to be out. After the officer illegally pulled over the vehicle he determined that something was fishy and decided to conduct a search on the car. A passenger of the car had cocaine yet Heien was charged with attempted drug trafficking. Heien tried to suppress items found in the search because the search was not a legal search. A later court agreed but the Supreme Court reversed that decision and said that the search was reasonable.

So why is this ridiculous on its face? Well, clearly had the officer followed the law the vehicle would not have been pulled over and as such no search would have been conducted on the vehicle. The law should act as if no search was conducted since officer took actions that were not in compliance with the law. But the Supreme Court stated otherwise and in that decision stated:

And neither the Fourth Amendment’s text nor this Court’s precedents offer any reason why that result should not be acceptable when reached by a reasonable
mistake of law

SCOTUS, meet Arizona v Gant, a ruling  you made in 2009. Rodney Gant was detained and handcuffed in the back of a squad car. Police then searched his vehicle and found cocaine in the back seat in a jacket pocket. Now, the law allows for a search of a vehicle if an individual is not detained for reasons of officer safety and to protect the scene of any evidence they feel someone might try to discard. However, since Gant was already detained, there was no threat to the officers or any potential evidence and as such a warrant should have been required to search the car. So why did the officers search the car anyway? Well, according to one of the officers at the scene (Officer Griffith) “Because the law says we can do it.”

Under the ruling in Heier, it would seem to be such an argument would be valid because they are not supposed to be perfect, right? He believed the law allows for such searches and as such anything found by such a search should be admissible. But that was not the case in Gant. The Gant ruling talks about stare decisis and privacy rights. The Gant ruling talks about the dangers of how a law could be too broad and be harmful to the public good. Yet SCOTUS could find no precedent why the search in Heier was not acceptable? Really? Do they have short-term memory loss?

So what is the problem here? Some have said to me that if you don’t want the police to search your car and find drugs, don’t have drugs in your car. That may very well be a smart practice but it doesn’t deal with the main problem here and that is individuals dealing with a police force that is given more and more powers by government and by courts to take actions that should be considered unconstitutional against persons in this country.

What has this ruling done? Well, at its worst this ruling has basically said that as long as the officer is reasonable in his misunderstanding of the law that his searches can be considered reasonable. But since this search was actually an unreasonable search because it never should have happened, who is to say at what level is an officers understanding of the law is reasonable or not? In 2008 there were just under 800,000 police officers in this country. This ruling basically means that people living in the united states are subject to 800,000 interpretations of the law, regardless of how correct those interpretations are, as long as those interpretations are deemed “reasonable”. Instead of persons living here having to deal with 1 set of laws and their actual meaning, we have to deal with the 800,000 interpretations of them. And even if their actions are taken outside of the law, that doesn’t matter to SCOTUS. To them, the ends justify the means. And if a search that should not have been done was done, so be it. This is a horrible ruling and another slicing away at our freedoms and liberties. Or as SCOTUS put it in Heier:

Whether an officer is reasonably mistaken about the one or the other, the result is the same: the facts are outside the scope of the law.

Indeed. We should all be terrified.

Liberal Dan Radio 12/17/2014: Freedom loses

On the December 17, 2014 episode of Liberal Dan Radio:

Freedom has taken several hits this week. A Supreme Court ruling, Heien v North Carolina, has ruled that a search conducted after a police officer misapplies the law is a legal search. This, however, was not the case in Arizona V. Gant. I will discuss both cases and why I believe this is an elimination of freedom.

Sony pictures caved today and is refusing to release the movie after a group threatened to attack movie theaters that showed the movie. Several chains had already said that they would not be showing the movie previous to this anouncement. I will give my thoughts on this as well.

In other news, the GOP has shown their hypocrisy yet again. I will discuss how and why as well.

Those issues and more on Wednesday at 8pm central on Liberal Dan Radio, Talk From The Left, That’s Right.

I have made a change with my crowdfunding attempts and this year I am going with gofundme. Please check it out.