Anti-Choice Extremist Scott Walker Would Sentence Women To Death (Sez No To Life Of Mother Abortion Exemption)

You cannot have maternal health without reproductive health. And reproductive health includes contraception and family planning and access to legal, safe abortion ~ Hillary Clinton (dob 10/26/1947) 2016 potus Democratic candidate.

Of the 10 top-tier GOP potus candidates, which is the MOST radically anti-choice? Jeb Bush, Ben Carson, Chris Christie, Ted Cruz, Mike Huckabee, Paul Kasich, Randal Paul, Marco Rubio, Donald Trump, and Scott Walker all describe themselves as "pro life", but is there one who stands out as being the most rabidly anti-choice?

The following transcription from the Fox Nooz 8/6/2016 prez debate at the Quicken Loans Arena in Cleveland OH.

Megyn Kelly: Would you really let a mother die rather than have an abortion? And, with 83 percent of Americans in favor of a life exception, are you too out of the mainstream on this issue to win the general election? Scott Walker: I'm pro-life. I've always been pro-life. I've got a position I think is consistent with many Americans out there [audience cheers] ...in that I believe that an unborn child is in need of protection. I've said, many a time that the unborn child can be protected and there are many other alternatives that will also protect the life of the mother.

Thom Hartmann remarked (on the 8/7/2015 edition of his radio program) that Scott "apparently has some magical medical knowledge that the rest of us don't know about". Which is correct. The question, re the life of the mother, has to do with situations where there are "no other alternatives". I mean, Scott could have said he's wary about doctors claiming a "life of the mother" excuse and maybe doing something about people lying so they can get an abortion... but if the mother's life REALLY is in jeopardy, then, YES, they can get an abortion.

But he didn't say that. His answer indicated that he's a solid NO in any conceivable scenario.

Conditions that might lead to ending a pregnancy to save a woman's life include severe infections, heart failure and severe cases of preeclampsia, a condition in which a woman develops very high blood pressure and is at risk for stroke... "There are certain cases where ending the pregnancy is the only option..." Cecily Kellogg, 44... says that was the situation she faced when she was nearly six months pregnant with twin boys in 2004 and developed severe preeclampsia. One fetus had already died and "my liver had shut down, my kidneys had shut down and they were expecting me to start seizing at any minute"... The doctors said they had... perform an abortion to save her. "...they told me I would die — that it was either me and my son or just my son". (Doctors say abortions do sometimes save women's lives by Kim Painter. USA Today 10/22/2012).

Scott Walker has got to know this. I mean, surely he did some research when deciding what his position on this important issue (to him as a governor and presidential candidate) would be? He probably spoke with some doctors to make sure what he was saying about these "many other alternatives" was correct, no?

Apparently not. Obviously this is just a political position. He wouldn't really condemn women to death, would he? I think he would. And, if elected, Scott could appoint SCOTUS justices that would overturn Roe V. Wade. It's scary that someone with such a radical notion re condemning a woman to death could possibly be elected president.

As for the other 9 candidates, none of them are that much better when it comes to respecting a woman's privacy. Below I have ranked below in order of most to least extreme (in my opinion). Walker being the most extreme, while Rubio (despite having previously sponsored legislation that included exceptions) now seems to be as extreme as Walker. (in which case they tie).

[2] Marco Rubio does not support an exception for rape, incest or the life of the mother. During the debate Rubio said "I believe that every single human being is entitled to the protection of our laws... whether they have a birth certificate or not". (source).

[3] Mike Huckabee, who says "that if he were elected president he would consider using the FBI or National Guard to end abortion by force", is (almost?) as nuts on this issue. In disregarding Roe, he'd trigger a constitutional crisis.

Huckabee said "I think the next president ought to invoke the Fifth and 14th Amendments to the Constitution now that we clearly know that that baby inside the mother's womb is a person at the moment of conception". Although he has said (in the past) that he would allow an exemption for the life of the mother. (source).

[4] Randal Paul also holds the un-Libertarian view, that "human life begins at conception and should be granted legal protection from that moment on". Although he does support the idea of exemptions for medical reasons. (source). He wants to defund Planned Parenthood, and says he will "use all legislative vehicles at his disposal"... meaning government shutdown. (source).

[5] John Kasich is "pro-life" and opposed to abortion with exceptions for rape and incest (as well as the life of the mother... I presume). He also believes there should be a litmus test. (meaning Republican candidates for office should be rejected unless they are "pro-life"). As governor of Ohio Kasich signed legislation to defund Planned Parenthood (John Kasich Defunds Planned Parenthood in Ohio The Blaze, 2/22/2016).

[6] Jeb Bush would "ban abortion after 20 weeks, while making exceptions for the life of the mother, rape or incest". Jeb believes "the next president should defund Planned Parenthood". (source).

[7] Chris Christie, who used to be pro-choice, now thinks there should be a ban abortions after 20 weeks with exceptions. He wants to eliminate family planning funding from the state budget.

[8] Ted Cruz says that companies can deny insuring birth control and is in favor of a "partial-birth abortion" ban. Is threatening to shut down the government unless Planned Parenthood is defunded. (source).

[9] Ben Carson says "the thought of abortion for the sake of convenience does not appeal to me". What that means, policy wise, is not clear. Depending on whether or not he thinks abortions should be banned (when, with exemptions or not) would affect his ranking. (souce).

[10] Donald Trump (probably realizing there is a litmus test) changed his mind and is now "pro-life" (after years of supporting the pro-choice position).

[End Anti-Choice Extremist Rankings]

Being willing to let pregnant women DIE so their babies will be born is about as extreme as you can get, which is why I rank Walker as the MOST extreme. Rubio has previously sponsored legislation that allowed for exceptions. But now he appears to have changed his mind?

Even Huckabee, with his totally wacko idea of calling out the National Guard to stop abortions, has said there should be an exception to save the life of the mother.

As for this 20 week abortion ban, which that wanker Scott asked the Wisconsin state legislature to author and send to him for his signature (which they did), the reasoning behind it is because "anti-abortion-rights groups claim... that's the point at which fetuses experience pain". But the scientists reject this claim.

And there are other reasons to oppose the 20 week cut off.

...women terminate their pregnancies due to fatal fetal anomalies. Often, those conditions aren't recognizable until the fetus is at least 18 to 20 weeks old. "Say it's a serious heart defect", says Daniel Grossman, a member of the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. "There isn't a blood test for that. The fetus needs to be a certain size before you can see that. And then it may take a while for a woman to make up her mind about what to do". (20-week abortion bans explained by Molly Redden. 1/23/2015 Mother Jones).

I say abortion should be between a woman and her doctor and find Repubs pandering to anti-choicers for their votes to be sickening. Congress needs to repeal the Hyde amendment because it punishes poor women who need abortions. If you're against abortions don't get one yourself. Stay the hell out of other people's personal lives and personal decisions. It's a matter of a woman's privacy, as the SCOTUS decided in Roe.

This "litmus" test is yet another reason I don't like Republicans. In addition to these recent lies about Planned Parenthood, which Hucky participated in during the debate, saying PP is "in the business of selling baby's body parts like the parts of a Buick" (they're recouping their costs and doing society a solid via the fact that fetal tissue is necessary for medical research, you moron). Heck, even the "moderate" gay-marriage-attending Kasich is quite radical in his opposition to women having control over their own bodies!

Image: 10 Repub hopefuls (hopeful that they'll make a lot of money running for preznit) on stage inside the Quicken Loans Arena (AKA "The Q"), 8/6/2015. (Left to Right) Chris "Big Boy" Christie, Marco "Big Gulp" Rubio, Ben "Obamacare is slavery" Carson, Scott "union buster" Wanker, Donald J. Trump (AKA "The Trumpster"), John Ellis "I'm my own man" Bush (AKA Jeb!), Mike Hucksterbee, Rafael Edward "Ted" Cruz, Randal "Liberty Freedom" Paul, John "no chance" Kasich. (click to enbiggen).

SWTD #302

Lindsey Graham Sez Caitlyn Jenner Welcome To Vote Against Her Own Interests As LGBT Person

But you can only lie about who you are for so long without going crazy ~ Ellen Wittlinger (10/21/1948) a critically acclaimed author of several the teen novels.

Lindsey Olin Graham, the confirmed bachelor senator from South Carolina who some people say is a closeted gay man, sez that the former Bruce Jenner, now Caitlyn Jenner, is welcome in the GOP.

Sen. Lindsey Graham [says] there is room for Caitlyn Jenner to be a Republican if she wants to be... Graham's comments were made in response to statements made last week by talk show host Rush Limbaugh, who said Republicans should not accept the former Bruce Jenner as a Republican or accept transgenderism as being normal. "I am pro life and believe in traditional marriage without animosity, and the courts will rule about traditional marriage", he said. "I will proudly defend the unborn, and if we can't agree on abortion, let's talk about taxes... (Lindsey Graham: There is Room For Caitlyn Jenner in the Republican Party by Sandy Fitzgerald. NewsMax 6/7/2015).

Sure she's welcome to vote against her own interests as an LGBT person. Note that I said her interests as an LGBT person and NOT her interests as a very wealthy individual. The GOP absolutely represents her interests in that regard.

But as a dude who feels like a gal (a legitimate condition, scientists have confirmed) and now wants to present herself to the world as a woman? We all KNOW that the GOP does NOT represent her interests in this regard. In fact, the GOP has and will continue to work AGAINST the interests of LGBT people. And el Rushbo says she's a freak and not normal and he represents how MANY GOPers feel (he's got the ratings that say people listen to him, at least).

So... Caitlyn's money is more important to her than equality as an LGBT person? This must be the case. Although there are some (who are wrong, IMO) who think that Conservative economic policies are actually best for everyone. That they will help the poor and rich alike. As a Progressive Democrat I believe these people are deluded.

But I also acknowledge that some people think Progressivism leads to dependence on the government by The Poors and harms more than helps. Again, I disagree, but I TRY to do so respectfully. Caitlyn Jenner, I assume is one of these people. And bully for her. She has the right to these views... as wrong as they may be.

My problem is with the discrimination issue and the FACT that the ONLY reason Graham says she's welcome is because she may donate to Conservative causes and campaigns. And for her vote. She is not actually welcome, in that GOPers (represented by Rush Limbaugh) are NOT accepting of LGBT persons. Some absolutely are, but as a party? NO WAY, they are a small minority.

Why not support Conservative Dems, Caitlyn, instead of sticking with a party that hates you (or, a LOT of people in it surely do)? Not that there are no bigoted Democrats who hate LGBT people. Surely there are. But, as a whole, it's the Democrats who are on the side of LGBT people and equality and Republicans who oppose it.

I mean, look at this Duggar situation and how many of the current Repub POTUS candidates were cozying up to, and defending them. Rick Santorum was the 2012 Duggar-endorsed POTUS candidate and Mike Huckabee is the 2016 Duggar-endorsed POTUS candidate (who defended, then scrubbed his website of Duggar doodoo. But now it's back up).

We know what the Duggar views on LGBT equality are. They're opposed. Michelle Duggar recorded a robocall to oppose an anti-discrimination law in Fayetteville AK and fearmongered about trans men (like Caitlyn Jenner) "confronting" young girls in public restrooms and changing areas. Trans men that might be child sexual predators, she worried.

Is Caitlyn Jenner a child sexual predator? I say there is absolutely no evidence to suggest she is. At all. None. Yet bigots (who are strongly associated/connected to current GOP POTUS candidates) would worry about Caitlyn being such a predator if they encountered her in a public bathroom or changing area. For no reason other than their bigotry.

In any case, aren't ALL the Repub preznit 2016 hopefuls strongly opposed to gay marriage and equality for gay and LGBT people? I'm pretty sure they are. Lindsey says he is opposed to marriage equality (even though he might be a closeted gay himself).

Yeah, I know Caitlyn isn't gay... so maybe marriage equality is not a concern for her? No wait, if she's a woman now, and she's still attracted to women, does that not make her gay?... although she's still anatomically a man (right?). I'm unclear on that... the "is she gay" question. I'm pretty sure there has been no snipping, if you know what I mean... yet. I do not have any idea at all if she intends to eventually get snipped (or "transition"). Not that I care, but as far as the gay question goes - is a woman who is anatomically a man and attracted to women gay, or is she straight (if she has not transitioned)?

This might be a question "above my pay grade" as they say. In any case, my point is... WHY? Why would she want to remain a Republican? I know there is a whole sect of them, the "Log Cabin" folks, but I don't get that either. They are also voting against their own interests as gay Americans. Do they think they can change the party from within?

They may think they can, and maybe they can SLOWLY affect change. But this change isn't coming anytime soon, in my informed opinion (informed by events like the defense of the Duggars by Conservative media outlets). The Democrats already support the rights of these people, so why not join with those who would welcome them instead of hate them? I mean, if you were to take a look at a message board on the NewsMax or World Net Daily sites, you'd quickly learn that the majority of the commenters believe accepting the perversion represented by the "homosexual lifestyle choice" (as well as the B and T of LBGT) are part of a plan by Satan to bring down damnation upon America. Seriously, they REALLY believe this.

And these duggars and other fundies represent the "base" of the Republican Party. Which explains why the Republican party MUST pander to the haters. Not that I think any of the current GOP contenders are pandering, so much as they are expressing their genuine agreement. Although perhaps some other (more LGBT friendly) candidates would jump into the race if not for the base problem?

And HOW and WHEN is the GOP going to solve this problem? Or will they? Political parties HAVE died off. Perhaps this will happen to the GOP? They have to change if they want to continue to attract enough voters to win elections, but if they change now they'll lose elections big time due to the base problem. So, what will they do? I do not know.

I do wish them luck, however. Because hoping the Repubs stay bigoted because it will benefit the GOP would be wrong. But still, I definitely think that is what is going to happen... and I'm glad that GOP bigotry will help the Dems. I mean if they're going to stay bigoted, it SHOULD help Democrats. Because most people who are LGBT and LGBT-friendly realize that the place for them is with the Democratic Party. We've got their vote overwhelmingly, as well as the vote of a great many other people who are tolerant of people different than themselves (even if they are religious) and not cool with the Republican Party's intolerance.

Something the dummies frame as "intolerance" for their religious views, when the Bible says squat about loving homosexual relationships, gay marriage or trans people. Nor does it say that sexual relations between two gay people within a monogamous, committed, loving relationship is a sin. (Six biblical reasons why Christians should embrace same-sex relationships).

BTW, Lindsey OLIN Graham? I'd heard that his middle name is "Beauregard". It's possible people referring to him as Lindsey "Beauregard" Graham only do so because it sounds funny? (Actually, I kid. I know they do so for the comedy reason. Or I suspected it, because I did not know that his actual middle name was "Olin". Not until I looked up his Wikipedia page so I could link to it for this post).

Video1: Caitlyn Jenner is finally free on Vanity Fair's Cover. Video posted to YouTube on 6/1/2015 (1:07).

Video2: Audio from Michelle Duggar's Robocall in which she compares trans people to "child predators" and advocates against equality for LGBT people. Posted to YouTube 6/12/2015 (1:47).

SWTD #289

If You Ever Find Yourself Deep In A Hole It Might Be A Good Idea To Stop Duggaring

To engage in pedophilia while at the same time claiming gay and transgender individuals are the ones posing a risk to children ~ definition of "duggaring" according to the Urban Dictionary.

Regarding the 19 Kids And Counting scandal concering one of their many sons inappropriate touching involving his own sisters... On one hand I can understand that parents love their children and don't stop loving a child even when they do something terrible. On the other I don't know how these idiots (the Duggar parents) thought they could do a reality TV program and this would not come out eventually.

I mean, not only did they open their lives up to public scrutiny, but then they thought they could use this platform (and the fact that because of said show they acquired a fanbase) to lecture other people in regards to their (fundy Conservative bigoted) morals? Really?

Specifically I refer to the Duggar lie concerning transgendered people being pedophiles.

[On 8/13/2014] the City Council of Fayetteville AK considered a new law that will protect citizens against discrimination in employment, housing, and public accommodations on the basis of their sexual orientation, gender identity, socioeconomic background, marital status, or veteran status. In a... robocall obtained by the Fayetteville Flyer, [Michelle] Duggar claimed that the bill would "allow men - yes I said men - to use womens' and girls' restrooms, locker rooms, showers, sleeping areas and other areas that are designated for females only". She goes onto describe "males with past child predator convictions that claim they are female" who would enter these private areas. (Michelle Duggar Warns Arkansas Community That Transgender People Are Child Predators by Zack Ford. ThinkProgress 8/19/2014) Note: I modified this article excerpt to place it in the past tense.

No doubt the 19-Kids mom says what she does due to extreme ignorance (in addition to bigotry), but that does not excuse her diseminating such vile lies! According to New Scientist, brain scans can differentiate between the brains of transgender and straight males (Transsexual differences caught on brain scan 1/2011).

Transgender men view themselves as females. They are not going into female restrooms to oogle or molest women or girls. And if any man dressed as a woman was caught doing anything inappropriate they would be arrested no matter the excuse. The Duggar mom's robocalling in order to advocate against rights for transgender people is sick hateful bigotry. What is particularly disgusting about this sickness is that those on the religious Right (RR) who have it view their bigotry as "faith based" and, if object you're discriminating against them!

Anyway, my point in bringing this up is to point out the hypocrisy of the Duggar mom. She has a son who is a pedophile and she has the gall to advocate against rights for transgender men with lies about them being pedophiles? Now, it would be just as bad for her to do this even if this thing with her son had never happened, but, given the fact that her comments likely angered many people, might it not have occurred to her that someone (thinking that the truth about the Duggars needed to get out in light of their hypocrisy) might release this info?

By the way, in regards to their son Josh's pedophilia, the Duggar parents spun some self-delusions during a 6/3/2015 interview with Megyn Kelly that just does not hold up. (Regarding the Kelly File interview NPR TV Critic Eric Deggans said "It seemed to be pretty much about helping the Duggars salvage their brand rather than getting to the bottom of what happened in this family").

Jim Bob Duggar: ...a pedophile is an adult that preys on children. Josh was actually 14 and just turned 15 when he did what he did, and I think the legal definition was 16 and up for being an adult preying on a child. So he was a child preying on a child. Megyn Kelly: You do not view Josh as a pedophile? [Jim Bob Duggar] No. (The Duggars open up about molestation allegations on The Kelly File, Transcript).

I did consider what the Duggar dad said concerning pedophiles being adults [1], but then I heard that one of the girls their 15-year-old son touched was a five-year-old. Who views little kids sexually? Pedophiles, that's who. I mean, if he'd only touched sisters with boobs that would still not be right, but maybe wouldn't make him a pedophile. Plus Josh was 15, which is old enough, IMO. These people need to wake up.

Unfortunately they didn't wake up. They are not "awake" now and they were not awake enough to realize they needed to act as soon as they found out about this. Instead, according to the Duggar parents, their son came to them THREE times with confessions before they removed him from the home for some counseling (they sent him to work for a family friend who was remodeling a building for 3 months). But this was far to late. What makes this even more uber-strange given the fact they believe men and women should not even hold hands until after they are married. (Michelle and Jim Bob Duggar Reveal Strict Rules of Courtship: No Holding Hands, No Kissing! 4/2/2014). What freaks.

As for Megyn Kelly, who later (the next day, I think) interviews the RR hate-pastor Robert Jeffress. During the interview a banner across the bottom of the screen reads "New attacks on the Duggar family". According to Jeffress, "the Left is using this tragedy for it's own agenda". Then he adds "if only perfect people can speak out on their moral principles, nobody is going to speak out. Which is what the Left wants". But this is nonsense, as what he calls "moral principals" is bigotry and discrimination against LGBT people.

Near the end of the interview Jeffress says "we all have episodes in our past that we hope will never be opening segments on the Kelly Factor" to which Megyn Kelly replies, "I don't know that show you're referring to"... Because her program is "The Kelly File", not "The Kelly Factor". I don't know about you, but I've never molested a child or tried to cover up an incident of child molestation and then go on to lie about about transgender men being pedophiles.

This BS by Jeffress, by the way, in response to Megyn asking (playing devil's advocate) if it's reasonable for people (not of the RR) to be offended by Josh Duggar "ascending to a moral perch" to lecture LGBT people. To which I say Y-E-S. Who the hell is he to lecture people on morality? Specifically on sexuality morality.

And yet Megyn is making hay playing to the RR base of Fox Nooz and the 19-kids program by defending the Duggars against "attacks" from the Left... for ratings. This when it was the Duggars who were attacking LGBT people and advocating against equality. Disgusting. Obviously Fox would not be doing this if the Duggars were not RR Conservative nuts that their misinformed (by Fox) viewers believe are being persecuted by the "liberal media". Shameful.

The Duggars should stop duggaring and go away [2]. And TLC should cancel their program (so far it's only suspended, not cancelled). Rick Santorum, to his credit, said "I was sickened by it. I was just sickened by it". And he added "I pray for those girls in particular". So no rationalizing or speaking of forgiving of Josh (that I'm aware of). Or attacking the Left for pointing out the Duggar's hypocrisy.

Although Santorum may have been miffed due to the Duggars endorsing him for preznit in 2012 but switching to Mike Huckabee for 2016. This likely explains why the Huckster rationalized up a storm and used this opportunity to attack the Left. And be rewarded with brownie points from the base. Screw you, Hucky. Although obviously Huckabee ultimately decided his stance was hurting more than helping him, as he recently removed all references to the Duggars on his website (Mike Huckabee Removes Nasty Duggar Stains From Campaign Website).

By the way, remember Hucky's "joke" that has him hating on transgender men while perving on high school girls (in agreement with the Duggar lie)?

Huckabee: [These] ordinances [say] if your 7-year-old daughter - if she goes into the restroom - cannot be offended and you can't be offended if she's greeted there by a 42-year-old man who feels more like a woman than he does a man. Now I wish that someone told me that when I was in high school that I could have felt like a woman when it came time to take showers in PE. I'm pretty sure that I would have found my feminine side and said, "Coach, I think I'd rather shower with the girls today". (Mike Huckabee Says He Would Have Pretended to Be Trans to Shower With Girls in School by Mark Joseph Stern. Slate 6/2/2015).

In addition to the hate and lies concerning transgender men, Hucky thinks (although this might be a common young male fantasy), that it's funny for him (as an older man) to joke about violating the rights of young women to not be oogled while showing? No apology for this later, so I guess he does think sharing his fantasies about raping teenage girls with his eyes is OK. In fact, he's pretty sure he would have done just that, if only it had occurred to him. Sicko pervert.

As Slate points out, "Huckabee isn't really concerned about facts: He's concerned about finding the kind of red meat Republican voters still care about" (quote from article linked to above). Indeed. This is why Megyn is lobbing softballs to the Duggars and encouraging the hate-pastor Jeffress to defend them (while bashing the Left) on her file. And why Fox Nooz is also either not covering the story, or going on the attack against the Left for "victimizing" the Duggars by objecting to their hate.

Additional Information excerpted from Wikipedia: Josh Duggar, who will not be prosecuted due to the 3-year statue of limitations being expired, resigned from his position at FRC Action, the non-profit political action and lobbying arm of the Family Research Council, which has been labeled an anti-gay hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. The FRC opposes and lobbies against LGBT rights (such as same-sex marriage and LGBT adoption), abortion, divorce, embryonic stem-cell research and pornography.

Josh Duggar's position at FRC is the "perch" Josh ascended to (Megyn Kelly's wording), from which he advocated against LGBT equality.

Duggar's abuse of his sisters and a babysitter consisted of fondling their breast and genital regions while they were asleep and sometimes while awake without permission, according to a police report obtained by In Touch Weekly magazine. Duggar's father, Jim Bob, was a member of the Arkansas House of Representatives for two terms while Josh was a teenager. The Duggars avoid birth control saying they have decided to allow God to determine the number of children they have.

Footnotes
[1] Wikipedia notes that "Pedophilia... is a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children, generally age 11 years or younger... A person who is diagnosed with pedophilia must be at least 16 years of age, but adolescents must be at least five years older than the prepubescent child for the attraction to be diagnosed as pedophilia". I guess the Duggar parents were relieved when they found out that Josh was too young by 1 year (or less) to be a pedophile! Although, I suppose one could argue that Josh does not have a "primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children", given that he is now a married adult. But perhaps he does. Like I said before, what kind of a person would be interested in a 5-year-old sexually?
[2] Regarding the Urban Dictionary definition of "duggaring", I would modify it to read "To engage in pedophilia, or to defend/deny/downplay it, while at the same time claiming gay and transgender individuals are the ones posing a risk to children". The definition, as it is on the UD website, only applies to Josh Duggar. My modification expands it to include the Duggar parents, who, IMO, did a lot of duggaring when they appeared on The Kelly File. And it would also include people like Mike Huckabee, who was duggaring like crazy right up until he had his website scrubbed.

SWTD #287

Mike Huckabee Shameless Huckster Scams Low Information Social Conservative Dimwits With Bogus Diabetes "Cure"

The secret of being a top-notch con man is being able to know what the mark wants, and how to make him think he's getting it ~ Ken Kesey (9/17/1935 to 11/10/2001) an American author. Quote from his his 1962 novel One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest.

Have you heard that 2016 Presidential Candidate and Religious Right nutjob hypocrite [1] Mike Huckabee shamelessly huckstered an unproven diabetes "reversal system" that includes "dietary supplements" consisting of cinnamon and chromium picolinate in order to fund his campaign? (Huckabee Pursues Unconventional Ways to Fund a Campaign by Trip Gabriel. The NYT 3/15/2015).

So what's the problem? I'll tell you. "Both the American Diabetes Association and the Canadian Diabetes Association warn that dietary and herbal supplements are ineffective for treating diabetes".

Anyway.... cinnamon? Does it have any medically beneficial properties? WebMD says "some research has found that a particular type of cinnamon, cassia cinnamon, may lower blood sugar in people with diabetes. However, other studies have not found a benefit".

Sounds unproven. Also, Medical News Today notes that "some people who are sensitive to cinnamon may be at an increased risk of liver damage after consuming cinnamon-flavored foods".

What about chromium picolinate?

[According to Wikipedia] there are claims that the picolinate form of chromium supplementation aids in reducing insulin resistance, particularly in type 2 diabetics, but a meta-analysis of chromium (III) supplementation studies showed... inconclusive results for diabetics.

Inclusive? I guess that means the experts aren't really sure if a supplement made of cinnamon and chromium picolinate can do squat for someone with diabetes. Which is why it's being sold as a "supplement" instead of a medicine. Because supplements are unregulated.

Unregulated? This reminds me of the Last Week Tonight segment in which host John Oliver (formerly of the Daily Show) slammed Dr. Oz for his huckstering of another snake oily "miracle product".

...Mehmet Oz... was recently called to testify before a Senate subcommittee over his promotion of weight loss and dietary supplements that have no proven health benefits. "Dr. Oz is just a symptom of the problem", Oliver said. "The disease is that dietary supplements in the U.S. are shockingly unregulated". [Oliver] went on to explain our inefficient and confusing regulatory system, which lets supplements operate independent from almost any oversight. The Federal Trade Commission is supposed to manage the marketing of dietary supplements, but that agency defers to the Food and Drug Administration to determine whether a health claim is accurate. The problem, Oliver explained, is that the FDA can't investigate supplements unless people have already fallen sick. That lack of regulation means that... supplements that have not been shown to be either safe or effective can be sold in U.S. stores. "None of this is likely to change," Oliver conceded, "because companies have access to the one genuinely truly effective wonder drug. "It's called lobbying". (John Oliver Hilariously Shows Why Dr. Oz Is A Symptom Of A Much Larger Problem by Katie Jennings. Business Insider, 6/23/2014).

So, like Dr. Oz with his weight loss products, the Hucksterbee is hawking an unproven "supplement". This supplement contains ingredients that some people believe might maybe be effective if you have diabetes... although the American Diabetes Association and the Canadian Diabetes Association both say N-O.

Seems to me like the con men behind these supplements are using lack of regulation as an excuse to jump on a "cure" that might not be much of a cure at all... and as a way to make money and not be held accountable for promising the moon and the stars when there is scant evidence their product will have any effect at all.

And they're tricking gullible dimwits into shelling out their cash by hiring spokespersons (like Oz and Hucky) who people trust... which is the most smarmy aspect of these kind of pitches. They're hinging the pitch on a potential customer's eagerness to believe someone they look up to. Instead of using actual facts or studies to back up the claims they can (or can't) present.

If they were honest about the inconclusive studies maybe they'd get some sales. But surely not as many as when a "trusted" spokesperson exaggerates, leaves out information, and lies by claiming the "system" can "cure" "reverse" diabetes.

Why "reverse" instead of "cure"? Is there a difference between "reversing" and "curing"? The "reversing" is 100 percent says the narrator of the video advertising the "system".

That's strange. Is the word "reverse" being used to trick people into thinking this is a cure when they're not actually claiming it's a cure? Is it some kind of legal trick to avoid prosecution (they'll claim they never promised a "cure")?

No.

I watched the video, and a short while into it the narrator DOES use the word "cure". First he says the product offers the "freedom of cure" for your diabetes. Later he says "you can be cured of your diabetes". Those are the EXACT words used in the video (and the word "cure" is used multiple times thereafter).

But there is no cure for diabetes!

WebMD: With all the research on diabetes and advances in diabetes treatments, it's tempting to think someone has surely found a diabetes cure by now. But the reality is that there is no cure for diabetes - neither type 1 diabetes nor type 2 diabetes. ...Supplements don't cure diabetes, either. Some natural supplements may interact dangerously with your diabetes medication. Others have been shown to help improve your diabetes, but always check with your doctor before taking any supplement.

MAYBE the supplement could help lessen your diabetes symptoms, but it can NOT cure the disease! I'd say shame on Huck, but I do not think he's capable of it (being ashamed of any of his idiocy). I mean, he's for throwing people off insurance (or not giving it to them at all) if they have pre-existing conditions (Huckabee Says No To Insurance For People With Pre-Existing Conditions by Rick Ungar. Forbes 9/17/2010)... and this a-hole is a minister!

Or, he's a Baptist minister turned Right-wing politician turned Fox Noozer turned "miracle cure" pitchman/Social Conservative GOPer base-appealing POTUS candidate who advocates for (basically) transforming American into a Christian theocracy where women [2], LGBT people [3], the Poors [4], and Muslims [5] are discriminated against. (Mike Huckabee Pushes for an American Theocracy by David Atkins. Washington Monthly's Political Animal blog 1/24/2015).

God help us if, somehow, this Talibanish fundy con man [6] were elected preznit!

(The video selling the "diabetes reversal system" can be viewed here. It does not look as though there is a embeddable version of it, so you'll have to follow the link if you don't believe me that the word "cure" is used. Although the narrator of the video warns that it might be taken down at any time. I don't know why. Maybe they think they'll have to take it down if someone files a lawsuit because they realize they were lied to? I don't know. In any case, I did find the Huckster's intro to this video on Youtube... see Video3 below).

Footnotes
[1] Huckabee is another RR hypocrite. An example of this being his "support for the ultra-Christian Duggar family of TLC's 19 Kids and Counting reality show after the 27-year-old Duggar son, Josh, admitted to alleged child molestation charges as a teenager". (Mike Huckabee is beyond gross: The sick hypocrisy of a man who slimes Obama's parenting, but defends Josh Duggar, admitted sexual molester by Bob Cesca. Salon 5/22/2015). Note that the Duggars are "devout Independent Baptists" and Huckabee is a Baptist. Wikipedia says "the Independent Baptist tradition began in the late 19th and early 20th centuries among local denominational Baptist congregations concerned about the perceived advancement of modernism and liberalism into national Baptist denominations". So... the Dugars are more fundy than the fundy Huckster?
[2] The Huck is strongly anti-choice, believing that abortion should be outlawed even in cases of rape or incest. In regards to Huck's offensive war on woman "Uncle Sugar" remarks, Cecile Richards of CNN notes that "women use birth control for a whole host of medical reasons - and that's their business, not Mike Huckabee's. In Huckabee's vision, every boss in America would be empowered to decide whether his or her female employees should have access to birth control the way they do for any other prescription medication". (Huckabee's libido comment chilling for women 1/24/2014).
[3] In regards to the LGBT rights movement, Huck says it "is... really a page out of 1984, when what things mean are the opposite of what they really are. And that's what I'm seeing here is that in the name of tolerance, there's intolerance. ...In the name of acceptance, there's true discrimination". (Mike Huckabee's Latest Anti-Gay Comments Prove How Delusional He's Become by Allen Clifton. Forward Progressives 4/4/2015). This is Hucky crying "victim" when it's the RR who discriminates. Disgusting.
[4] Huckabee supports the FairTax, which eliminates progressive taxation. In the article Five Things Mike Huckabee Doesn't Want You to Know About Him, John Gorenfeld writes "to boost his tax cred... Huckabee has eagerly signed onto FairTax, a proposal to abolish the IRS touted by [Libertarian] Neal Boortz... Boortz would end the income tax. Instead you'd pay a federal sales tax, and to offset resulting problems, the government would write you checks every month. How much you get depends on the number of people are in your household. And nothing else". (AlterNet, 11/21/2007). In regards to the so-called "fair tax"... Pat Regnier, writing for CNN Money, notes that "the trouble with a pure consumption tax is that it can put a hideous burden on poor and middle-class people". (Just how fair is the 'FairTax'? 9/7/2005).
[5] In an The Atlantic article Peter Beinart writes "...the most naked bigot in the emerging Republican field is Mike Huckabee. Earlier this week, Huckabee said that Everything he [Obama] does is against what Christians stand for, and he's against the Jews in Israel. The one group of people that can know they have his undying, unfailing support would be the Muslim community. There's no artifice here. Huckabee's not condemning Obama for being soft on ISIS or even radical Islam. He's condemning Obama for caring about Muslims". (The GOP's Islamophobia Problem 2/13/2015). Not to mention the fact that this is pure BS given the fact that Obama is a Christian. Dumbass.
[6] Huckstering fake diabetes cures isn't the only flim flam Mike has going. Unbelievably this minister is linked to a scam in which the pigeons are told that Bible passages can cure cancer! Huck defends himself by saying he rented his email list out. So, that means these renters are the ones responsible for the sacrilege? He only said they could use his name and he didn't care what they sold using it. So long as he got paid. (Mike Huckabee defends Bible cancer cure scam: It's like selling "catheters or adult diapers" by David Edwards. RawStory 5/6/2915).

Video1: Last Week Tonight's John Oliver outlines what he finds problematic about Dr. Oz and the nutrition supplement industry. Published 6/22/2014 (16:26).

Video2: Mike Huckabee, defending his diabetes infomercial, says "I don't have to defend everything I've done" (why the hell not?), then lies about the nature of what he was hawking, saying the program focuses on healthy living. Note that Bob Schieffer refers to a "diabetes CURE" (at the start of the interview) and Huckabee NEVER disputes that the product is marketed as a "cure". And near the end of the video he says we need to be looking for cures. Tapdancing dissembler. Also, Schieffer notes Hucky speaks as a "blue collar populist" which is just more huckstering. Published 5/10/2015 (2:29).

Video3: Mike Huckabee into to the diabetes solution infomercial. Published 5/14/2015 (1:55).

SWTD #286

The Donald Sez GOPers Copying Him (Including Wanker & The Huckster)

We need a great president ~ The Donald Trump (dob 6/14/1946) an American business magnate, television personality, con man and infamous racist who is widely viewed by the American people as a complete joke.

Note: This commentary is my response to the video at the bottom of this post, which is an excerpt from a Donald Trump "70-minute speech before an audience of 1,500 in Sarasota, Florida on Thursday night". A video that came to my attention after viewing it on the blog of rAtional nAtion.

Wealthy real estate/reality TV buffoon Donald Trumps sez "Politicians are all talk and no action" but this doofus has said he's "considering" running for the White House on multiple occasions... and never has. The Donald is all talk and no action. Although when he said this it was only to get attention for his "Apprentice" TV program. Is that show still on? I really have no idea. Although I did watch it once or twice many years ago. There was someone named "Omarosa", if I recall.

In any case the Donald does NOT have any intention of running for POTUS. He did not before and he does not now. Yet he has lead people to believe he might run... and he keeps speaking as if he might... so him saying anything about talking without action really makes him appear as even more of a dumbass (if that is possible).

Also, if the Donald is to be believed, "make America great again" is a phrase he originated, or that it's his "theme". Although when Ronald Reagan said it, he wasn't referring to a Black Socialist illegitimate president going on an "apology tour" and messing up America (and how he would fix that). Which is what Trump is talking about when he uses that phrase. So maybe GOPer Prez hopefuls are copying him when they use that phrase and are also referring to Birther conspiracy theories.

Still, I don't think Trump came up with that "theme" (WND/Joseph Farah and Orly Taitz being the primary ones I remember). So, while Scott Walker may have jumped on the Birther train in the past, I don't know why he'd continue to ride it now that all the GOPer hopefuls are anticipating Hillary Clinton being the Democratic nominee. Does Walker agree with Trump on Ted Cruz (that being born in Canada could be a problem for him)? It's possible some of the GOPer hopefuls who aren't Ted Cruz might want to copy that theme, but I am not aware that any currently are.

Mike Huckabee, a candidate who the Donald mentions next in the video clip (saying he likes him), won't cut Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid... and this is also copying the Donald. The problem, however, is that the Huckster doesn't know how to "bring the money in" because "that's what he [Trump] does" and he's "really done a good job". So the Republican president would (presumably) have no choice but to cut these programs, not being Trump and having Trumpish abilites to "bring in the money" (despite filing for bankruptcy 4 times).

But is the Huckster really "copying" the Donald, or is he avoiding saying something that would be political suicide, given how popular these programs are with the electorate? The Huckster is obviously aware of the public associating the GOP with cutting these programs, which is why he makes a point of saying he would not do that.

One of the factors explaining why Mittens did not win the last election, perhaps? I'm referring to him selecting as his VP Paul Ryan, the dude who authored the budget that proposed cutting these programs (that the Congressional Republicans all voted for).

In any case, I doubt the Donald is thinking he would "bring in money" by increasing taxes on the wealthy, instituting a Wall Street transaction tax, or bringing our jobs back by raising tariffs (thus reviving the economy by getting people working again with decent paying jobs). What he's referring to is a mystery to me. Perhaps he would star in the first POTUS reality program?

For the record, it's not that, with the exception of raising taxes on the wealthy, the Dems are talking about doing anything to "make America great again". America's greatness is behind us, so long as we continue down the Neoliberal path. Which, unfortunately, President Obama, with his pushing of the TPP, is foolishly doing. Would Hillary Clinton chose a different path? I doubt it.

So, how do we make America great again? The ONLY way is to bring back our jobs by returning to a sane trade policy. Pull out of the WTO and kick the TPP to the curb along with NAFTA. Which is what a president Bernie Sanders would push for (along with raising tariffs). What we REALLY need is a revolution at the ballot box. The "revolution" being the election of Bernie Sanders along with enough Progressive Democrats so that Bernie can get things accomplished when he gets to the White House.

Hillary Clinton would, no doubt, be a MUCH better choice than whoever the Republicans run, but neither the Democrat nor the Republican will be willing to do what is necessary to make America great again. Unless that Democrat is Bernie.

That said, I doubt anyone seriously thinks there is a snowball's chance in hell that the Donald will actually run. And, I'd be surprised if the Republican nominee sought the advice of the Trumpster. He's a joke that no serious contender for the White House would dare be seen speaking with, let alone copying.

Although I have heard that Scott Walker is the Koch brother's choice. Does that mean that Walker, being one who "copied" the Donald, isn't serious? I don't know. It depends on how close to the Donald he gets, I'd say. If he is serious I think he needs to keep his distance. But I also don't think people should take Walker seriously given his union busting in Wisconsin and clearly being the Koch's lapdog. I mean, how funny was it when he fell for that prank Koch phone call?

Yet the voters in Wisconsin chose to keep Wanker instead of recall him (as they should have), so I guess they don't view him as a total joke like Donald Trump.

Video1: Real estate mogul & professional doofus Donald Trump, who is strongly considering a preznit-dential run in 2016, says politicians are "copying" him (1:38).

Video2: Thom Hartmann talks about how David and Charles Koch are turning on the cash spigots to fund Republican Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker's potential bid (6:32). 1/19/2015.

Video3: The BEAST's Ian Murphy calls Walker, posing as archconservative moneybags David Koch, and they casually discuss crushing all public unions by ("David Koch" suggests) physically intimidating his Democratic opposition with a baseball bat, dressing hobos in suits to whip up a good counter-protest, and planting troublemakers to discredit the pro-union demonstrators... to which Walker responds "We thought about that" (9:59). 2/22/2011.

SWTD #283