May 12, 2014 by Michael A. Ventrella

Benghazi! It’s in Cuba, right?

A large percentage of Republicans, urged on by Fox News, are convinced that Benghazi is the worst example of corruption ever in American politics. Worse than Watergate, worse than Iran/Contra, worse than the Teapot Dome Scandal. Awful, terrible scandal.

They can’t quite explain what the scandal is, though. The best I have ever been able to figure out is that bad decisions were made. It’s not like there were accusations of bribes being taken or something.

“But the Obama administration is full of corruption!” they say, citing the fact that there have been exactly zero Obama administration officials charged with crimes (as opposed to Bush, or especially their hero Reagan, whose numbers dwarf even Nixon’s list).

These conspiracy lovers have convinced themselves that there is something there. They’re convinced it exists, even though there’s no evidence for it. Like Bigfoot. (The fact that most of the same people have no idea where Benghazi even is tells you something.)

They tried to tie Obama to it — remember Romney accusing Obama of not calling it a terrorist action even though Obama is on record the day after the incident calling it just that? Romney foolishly bought the conspiracy nut’s version of the story, which was clearly and blatantly not true. And they haven’t stopped! (You think it’s a coincidence that many of these people are the same ones convinced that Obama was born in Kenya?) These people have been caught lying more than once about Benghazi, which is why the rational media has mostly been ignoring them. (Fox, of course, left rationality long ago.)

Now they’re trying to tie Hillary to it, since she’s the latest threat. So far, it hasn’t worked … the hardcore crazies are riled up, but those people were never going to vote Democratic anyway. Polls show that the majority of Americans see this as the airless political stunt it is.

Editorial cartoon: Whether you believe it or not

May 10, 2014 by Michael A. Ventrella

Arkansas joins the 21st century

I love doing these posts, watching the dominoes fall.

In the last year, we’ve had decisions in Michigan, Illinois, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas, Utah, and Virginia. Meanwhile, Hawaii, New Jersey and Rhode Island have removed the prohibition without a court decision.

Not one court case has gone the other way. The breaking down of discrimination has been 100% effective.

It will be quite difficult for the Supreme Court to rule that all of these cases were wrongly decided when they are unanimous. This is especially true when all of these decisions rely upon and quote the Supreme Court’s decision striking down the Defense of Marriage Act to justify their rulings.

“This is an unconstitutional attempt to narrow the definition of equality,” Judge Piazza wrote in the most recent case. “The exclusion of a minority for no rational reason is a dangerous precedent.”

He compared the case to the 1967 Supreme Court case of Loving v. Virginia, which invalidated laws prohibiting interracial marriage. “It has been over 40 years since Mildred Loving was given the right to marry the person of her choice,” he wrote. “The hatred and fears have long since vanished and she and her husband lived full lives together; so it will be for the same-sex couples. It is time to let that beacon of freedom shine brighter on all our brothers and sisters. We will be stronger for it.”

Editorial cartoon: Cruel but not unusual

May 8, 2014 by Michael A. Ventrella

Insurance companies, under oath, tell the truth

It must be terribly frustrating to be an anti-Obamacare congressman these days.

Why, just take the Republicans who held a hearing this week about how terrible Obamacare is and how much it is failing. They subpoenaed insurance company executives who would testify about how less than half of those who had signed up had actually paid, how the bureaucracy was restricting care, how rates were going up, and how the entire program was terrible (because that was what Fox News kept reporting, and they’re never wrong).

Sadly, none of that came to be. The executives, evil as they are, realized they were under oath and reported that in actuality, things were going quite well. More people had signed up than predicted. The vast majority (80% – 90%) were up to date on their payments. Insurance company stock had increased and business was doing great, and because of all that, rates would not be going up.

Republicans at the hearing just couldn’t accept this, and complained that the executives weren’t being forthcoming. Clearly, Obama’s goons had gotten to them! Why, the goons were even able to somehow change all the statistical data in every single one of the insurance companies to make it seem that Obamacare was working. The fiends!

Editorial cartoon: The company you keep

May 7, 2014 by Michael A. Ventrella

She’s a witch! Impeach her!

Republicans here in Pennsylvania have started an impeachment drive against our Attorney General Kathleen Kane.

Impeachment, as you know, is available to remove politicians accused of “high crimes and misdemeanors.” So what did Kane do? Take bribes? Rob a bank?

She is refusing to defend Pennsylvania’s anti-gay marriage law in court.

I don’t need to mention that she’s a Democrat, do I?

You see, Republicans are claiming that she is obligated under the law to defend lawsuits against the state. This ignores the fact that Attorneys General have discretion, like all prosecutors, as to which cases to litigate.

Kane points out that there is no defense. The law is clearly unconstitutional. Every single state with a similar law that has been challenged in federal court has watched the law fall, domino-like, one after another. To waste taxpayer money defending something that has no defense is ridiculous. It’s unethical for her to make an argument before the court she knows is invalid. “If there is a law that I feel that does not conform with the Pennsylvania state constitution and the U.S. Constitution, then I ethically cannot do that as a lawyer,” she said.

The Republican legislators claim that she is mandated to do what the legislators want because they represent the “will of the people.” At the same time, the majority of people in Pennsylvania support gay marriage (57%). Further, if not for gerrymandering, a majority of our legislature would be Democratic. (Seriously: more people voted for Democrats in Pennsylvania in the last election but more Republicans won because of the way the districts were drawn.) Kane rightly points out that she is following the will of the people of Pennsylvania, not the legislature.

Pennsylvania Democrats walked out of the committee meeting where the Republicans tried to set up an impeachment proceeding, and rightly so.

Just like our anti-gay marriage law, the impeachment also has no legal merit.

Editorial cartoon: Size matters

May 6, 2014 by Michael A. Ventrella

Supreme Court once again ignores the Constitution

The Roberts Supreme Court has once again shown that it cares little for the Constitution, legal history, or precedent. It recently decided that it is perfectly fine for our government to favor one religion.

Yeah, I know, right? You’d think the explicit words of the 1st Amendment make it amazingly clear. You’d think anyone who could read would agree that wouldn’t be allowed. And, in fact, that’s the way it’s always been.

But just like how they decided that (a) the 2nd Amendment applies to individuals and not the military; (b) money is “speech” and the government doesn’t have the power to regulate campaign contributions; (c) schools cannot make their own decisions concerning admission policies; (d) the Environmental Protection Agency doesn’t have the power to protect the environment … anyway, I could go on. In case after case, a slim majority of the Court overturned years of precedent to promote its conservative agenda, and damn the Constitution.

And the public knows that this is political. It’s so blatantly clear that public support for the Court has dropped from 90% confidence to 44%. (Still higher than Congress, though.)

Anyway, the Court held that there is nothing wrong with a government leading everyone in a Christian prayer every day. The basis for this argument was “What Establishment Clause?” They also completely rewrote American history by arguing that many of the Founding Fathers were Christians and therefore would agree. (Well, yeah, but they specifically made sure that their religion stayed completely separate from the government by writing things like, oh, I don’t know, The Establishment Clause.)

Christians who rail against Sharia Law thought this was the greatest decision ever. They only object when it’s someone else’s religion being used. (And yes, I am aware that there are indeed many Christians who support the Constitution and disagree with this decision.)