Liberal Dan Radio 7/30/2014: The Best Oyster Louisiana Ever Produced

On the July 30, 2014 episode of Liberal Dan Radio:

Hobby Lobby is in the news again. This time the pro-family organization is being called out for firing an employee that needed to take time off to give birth.

Gay marriage bans are dropping like flies. This time it is in the 4th circuit where 5 states in the central east coast are covered by the ruling. One has to wonder how long it will take for the courts to finally say that the gay marriage issue is settled and you cannot dicriminate. Hopefully that will be sooner than later.

Finally, I will have on as a guest Mark Moseley. Mark is a Louisiana blog publishier, journalist, and a guru of politics. I will have him on to discuss a variety of issues including if the Democrats can take advantage of the current fractured state of the GOP.

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

Liberal Dan Radio 7/16/2014: A bunch of random stuff…

On the July 16, 2014 episode of Liberal Dan Radio:

Virginia police are charging a boy with posession and creation of child pornography. I will go into why the charges are ridiculous and the ridiculous lengths that these police were willing to go to in order to obtain certain evidence.

Tennessee has implemented a controversial drug law that liberals are opposed to since it would punish any woman who gave birth to a child that was addicted to or harmed by any narcotics taken during her pregnancy. I will go into why I am not seeing the big problem here and the flaws in some of the arguments being made against the law.

Finally, Democrats need better wordsmiths. I will go over a recent fundraising request I received by the DSCC about a so called voter supression law. Their sloppy writing makes them an easy target. I will also review other examples, one from Louisiana, where Democrats have shown an inability to make the argument correctly.

All those, headlines, tweet of the week and more on Liberal Dan Radio, Talk From the Left That’s Right. Wednesdays at 8pm central on BlogTalkRadio.

Liberal Dan Radio 7/9/2014: Stephen VanderGast from Move the Middle

On the July 9, 2014 episode of Liberal Dan Radio:

Two weeks ago I was the guest of Steven VanderGast, host of Move the Middle on Blog Talk Radio. We had a really good discussion on several issues. This week I welcome him on my podcast for more of the same conversation. Any topic is fair game, so join the discussion.

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

Liberal Dan Radio 7/2/2014: Hobby Lobby and Freagle

On the July 2, 2014 episode of Liberal Dan Radio:

The horrible ruling by the Supreme Court came down pertaining to Hobby Lobby and the mandate for employer based coverage to provide oral contraception. I will go into why this ruling was terrible. (Check out liberaldan.com and @liberaldanradio on Twitter to see some of my initial criticisms).

Then, in the second half hour of the show, I will have on Niki Papazoglakis, founder of Freagle, the virtual town square. We will discuss why she started this venture, what her plans for it are, and how you can help get it off the ground.

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

Some brief points on the oral contraception madate ruling

A) It ignores science. Science has not shown any evidence that oral contraception is an abortifacient (even in the extremely wrong definition of abortion that includes preventing implantation)

B) I don’t want ANYBODY’S religious freedoms trampled on but if one makes a claim that a pill causes an abortion as part of their legal filings they should be required to prove that before it is accepted as an argument before the court. If you say “x harms me and as such I shouldn’t be required to do x” shouldn’t you have to prove the harm done by x? Or are we now allowing people to claim harm when none exists?

C) It doesn’t matter how many kinds of pills Hobby Lobby provides. Other companies take an even more restrictive stance and would ban all oral contraception. This ruling allows that.

D) the decision of what pill a patient should use should be up to her and her doctor only. Hobby Lobby (and other employers) should have no say.

E) The birth control, and any other benefit obtained in lieu of pay, should all be considered paid, IN FULL, by that employees labor and that employees labor alone.

F) This is not about religious freedom. Had an Islamic group complained under the RFRA Conservatives would not have come out in support of them. This is about forcing Christian beliefs on others using government.

G) Previously the way that we dealt with a bad ruling (Lily Ledbetter v Goodyear Tire) we elected a Democratic Congress to support this President and enable him to deliver on a change to the law via the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. It is time to rally the troops and do this again. If we edit the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and require persons claiming harm to establish that harm is actually happening before requiring government to prove why the actions causing the harm are necessary then we can return the law back to where it should be.

Hobby Lobby and The Food Babe share a “brain”.

I have A LOT of thoughts on the horrible Supreme Court ruling pertaining to the oral contraception mandate. This is just one of many posts on it.

In the past I have discussed my issues with the “Food Babe” and her stances that she takes on food. One of the most egregious items was when she said that Subway sandwiches should eliminate a certain chemical from their bread because that same chemical is found in yoga mats and who wants to eat yoga mats? Seriously, she is that stupid. Well, her argument unfortunately worked and Subway caved.

So how is Hobby Lobby like the “Food Babe”? Well, in their argument they are saying that they are opposed to “their money”* being spent on abortifacients. They then claim that these oral contraceptive measures cause abortions. They provide no proof of this. They offer no scientific evidence that these pills cause abortions, They just believe it to be so, much like the Food Babe believes it to be so that you are eating yoga mats when you ate a Subway Sandwich. Just as the Food Babe didn’t provide evidence that the ingredient in the bread was harmful and instead used beliefs to push her agenda, Hobby Lobby never provided evidence that coverage of these pills harms them under their freedom of religion since they never proved abortions are caused by these pills.

These kinds of nitwit arguments are dumbing down our country and they need to stop.

Bad Supreme Court Rulings P2, Abortion Clinic Buffer Zones

I have A LOT to say about the Supreme Court ruling against the oral contraception mandate that was made today and expect many posts to come about that issue in the days to come and as half of the podcast on Wednesday. But I didn’t want to overlook the horrible ruling the Supreme Court made the other day about buffer zones.

A lot has been said about this already. My main argument is this. The court seems to believe that people have the right to give counsel to others on the sidewalk. I disagree. The people should have the right to OFFER counsel to those who wish to hear them. People should also be free to not listen. You do not have the right to have me as a captive audience. If I am trying to get from point A to point B you should not be free to impede my way nor should you be free to force the words that you want me to hear into my ears. Your offer of counsel can be provided at a distance with a big sign that says :”if you want to talk to me about your choice to have an abortion, please come over here”. Individuals seeking an abortion would then be free to walk over to the person and engage in a conversation if they so choose. If they do not choose, then they can just walk into the clinic for whatever business they wish to conduct.

Bad Supreme Court Rulings Pt 1, Recess Appointments

The Supreme Court made a good ruling this week and I discussed it on my show. It required that law enforcement obtain a warrant before searching a cell phone and that it was not the same as searching a wallet. That was a good ruling. But we had two bad rulings. One was the ruling that President Obama violated the Constitution by his appointing three people to the National Labor Relations Board during what he believed was a Congressional recess. The other ruling struck down a buffer zone law that required people protesting abortions to stay back a certain number of feet even if they were on public property (like a sidewalk). I will deal with that second ruling in another post.

In the ruling of the non-recess appointments the Supreme Court had ruled that a 3 day recess was not a long enough recess to justify a recess appointment. Arbitrarily Justice Breyer said that a recess less than 10 days would be too short. I am not exactly sure where that figure comes from, since no where does the Constitution place a requirement on the number of days a recess might be. There has been a tradition of Presidents not making such appointments during breaks less than 10 days. That tradition is not found in any law. However, I guess a line has to be drawn somewhere so that isn’t my issue with the ruling.

My issue with the ruling is the trampling or even usurpation of the Presidential authority to make recess appointments by making bogus “pro-forma” sessions in order to block such appointments. What happened in this case is that the House required the Senate to have meetingsĀ called “pro forma” sessions of the Senate every third day in order to keep the President from saying that the Senate was actually in recess. What happened during these sessions? One Senator came in and banged a gavel. That’s it. No business was conducted. So how on earth can the Supreme Court justify calling such meetings an interruption of a recess? It is just absurd.

The ruling could have been worse. According to the minority opinion they believed that recess appointments should only happen if the vacancy starts during the recess. This is the wording of the Constitution on the matter:

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

It seems to me that all that the Constitution requires is for the vacancy to exist during the Recess of the Senate (i.e. it must be happening during the recess). It doesn’t require the vacancy to start in that vacancy. But saying it could have been worse does not make me feel better about a bad ruling. The idea that one person banging a gavel in the Senate because the House requires it is enough to call it no longer a recess is a trampling of a constitutional authority of the President and that the court couldn’t see that disturbs me greatly.