Tag Archives: MSNBC

My Song: Call Your Senators – Save the Affordable Care Act

Update: Currently recording my own music for this. :-) Taking longer than expected :)

List of phone numbers to CALL YOUR SENATORS NOW and tell them to save the Affordable Care Act!

Call Your Senators – Save The ACA – Download as .mov file

Call Your Senators – Save The ACA – Download as an .mp4 file

Last night, I watched Xeni Jardin on MSNBC talk about how heathcare is not a political issue; it’s a human one:

I went to sleep around 8pm last night, exhausted from a horrible day all around. This is a song I wrote after waking up at 3am this morning freaked out and, for once, rather angry, about losing our healthcare, for many, almost as soon as they received it.

I’ve had Lady Gaga’s “Ayo” on my mind lately… and everything just came together.

List of phone numbers to CALL YOUR SENATORS NOW and tell them to save the Affordable Care Act!

Lyrics by Lisa Rein. Music is Instrumental “A-yo” from Lady Gaga:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4tAld3c3ok

Lyrics:

Newborn babies have no sin
except the hospital they’re born in
They should know their place, they should know their place
Throw it in their, throw it in their face

Can’t wait till the senate comes around
to strike this mother fucker down
Tearin up the session, movin with aggression,
Now it’s a party

They passed a repeal in the house
Faster than you can say precondition
precondition precondition
it’s got me on a mission

Hey CALL YOUR SENATORS so you can remind ‘em
To take a look behind it
Truth is where you find it
If you represent me and you kinda like it
Take a stand and fight it
or you’ll be saying bye bye

A-yo A-yo We smoking em all
A-yo A-yo We smoking em all
A-yo A-yo We smokin’ ‘em all

They passed a repeal with the pres
Before they told us what it says
They play by different rules
Do they think we’re fools?
Thinking we can learn a thing or two

Can’t wait till this thing it dies for good
Faster than you can try to save it
You can try to fake it
but you’ll never make it
Don’t think that we won’t come for you!

So CALL YOUR SENATORS so you can remind ‘em
take a look behind it
Truth is where you find it

If you represent me and you kinda like it
Take a stand and fight it
or you’ll be saying bye bye

A-yo A-yo We smoking em all
A-yo A-yo We smoking em all
A-yo A-yo We smokin’ ‘em all

In case you are wondering: THIS IS POLITICAL SATIRE and is clearly covered under FAIR USE. (As SATIRE and POLITICAL commentary are CLEARLY PROTECTED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT every way sideways.)

Disclaimer: I am warning Senators that we will “come for them” – and I am, of course, only talking about coming for them with peaceful non-violent means – and by not voting for them again, ever, if they vote for healthcare repeal. (Here are the 19 Republicans that flipped to kill our health care.) So don’t bother trying to go all “she’s advocating violence” on me. In contrast, repealing our healthcare is clearly a violent and deadly act placing millions of Americans at risk, many of them babies and children.

These Senators don’t seem to respond to anything but large numbers of angry constituents, so I guess we’d better give it to them.

The Electors Can Do It Monday: We Can Demand They Recognize the Popular Vote

I’m keeping this simple:

The Electors can decide to exercise the Constitutional right to choose Clinton, based on the popular vote.

This is explained in a great new Rolling Stone article, but here’s more links for those who desire them:

The Constitution lets the electoral college choose the winner. They should choose Clinton.(Lawrence Lessig)

Stephen Colbert Asks: Is Trump Only Violating Norms or Laws?

Lawrence Lessig: Electors Are Constitutionally Permitted To Vote Their Conscience, And Should Do So – Video Transcript
 

Lawrence Lessig: Electors Are Constitutionally Permitted To Vote Their Conscience, And Should Do So – Video Transcript

“I don’t actually support electors deviating from their moral obligation unless they have an overwhelming reason.

But reasons like the threat of foreign involvement in our election. Or a candidate refusing to live up to the Foreign Bribery clause by disassociating himself or divesting himself from assets that could be affected by foreign governments, raise exactly that reason.

Now we have a system. The system is the Electoral College, which has the right to make a judgement at the end whether to confirm the democratic result. And what I think would happen here is not that the electoral college would choose, but that it would go to Congress and congress would have to weigh the reasons that raised this issue and make a decision one way or the other.” – Lawrence Lessig

Full Transcript of Lessig on MSNBC below. (The host is paraphrased, since he takes too long to ask what could have been short simple questions:)

On Facebook yesterday, I notice that Lawrence Lessig said:  “We believe there are now at least 20 GOP electors considering a vote of conscience. Last week, there was 1.”

Then I saw that Lessig went on MSNBC to discuss the concept of “Freeing the electors to vote their conscience.” in “Lessig: Electors May Have ‘Moral Reason’ Not to Pick Trump.”

Turns out, Lessig has identified a group of at least 20 Republican electors that are willing to exercise their Constitutional freedom to vote their conscience.

As Lessig explains:

“That freedom comes from the Federal Constitution, of course, as Justice Jackson said in Ray vs. Blair, these are Federal officials, and the States could try to restrict them, but that case makes clear, the Framers to exercise their independent and non-partisan judgement about who to vote for.”

Transcript of rest of interview:

Host: Why did they find it constitutional that states could do this?

Lessig: Well what the court said in Ray vs. Blair was that while the states could not legally force electors to vote one way or another, they were free to create a moral obligation to say that they would pledge to vote one way or another. And I think that that’s the right rule. They can’t be forced by law, but they have an ethical obligation, once they take the pledge, and they must vote that way, unless there’s an overriding moral reason not to vote that way. And the disqualification, or the failure of a candidate to live up to the qualifications would be one such reason. And that’s exactly the issue that’s raised by this election.

The electoral college was made for this election precisely.

Host: What do you want to see happen? (Describes complicated scenario that makes any viewer’s eyes glaze over.)

Lessig: Our goal is to let the electors exercise their judgement, and at least 37 electors will make the judgement not to support Donald Trump. And if that happens, then of course, it goes to the House, and the House has to pick among the top three candidates.

A week ago. There was 1 elector who had come out and said that he was not going to vote for Donald Trump. What we believe, the three groups that I am aware of that are advising and supporting Republican electors is that there is at least 20 right now. Some tell me that the number is higher than that; it should more like 30, but I feel confident saying there’s at least 20.

Now, of course, if they don’t get to 37, I doubt any of them, beyond the one, Chris Suprun, who’s actually come out in public who’s gonna vote against Donald Trump. But if that number gets to 40, or around 40, then I think you’re gonna see a very interesting dynamic, as you see that there’s a reason for them to exercise their vote of conscience, which I think they are all struggling with right now.

Host: But these people weren’t elected? What if people got upset and “took it to the streets?”

Lessig: I agree that it’s a very serious difficult decision. Which is why I don’t actually support electors deviating from their moral obligation unless they have an overwhelming reason.

But reasons like the threat of foreign involvement in our election. Or a candidate refusing to live up to the Foreign Bribery clause by disassociating himself or divesting himself from assets that could be affected by foreign governments, raise exactly that reason.

Now we have a system. The system is the Electoral College, which has the right to make a judgement at the end whether to confirm the democratic result. And what I think would happen here is not that the electoral college would choose, but that it would go to Congress and congress would have to weigh the reasons that raised this issue and make a decision one way or the other.

Host: And you would be comfortable with the House deciding to vote Trump in anyway? You would be OK with that?

Lessig: Absolutely. Of course. That’s the constitutional rule. The House gets to decide. And, of course, the Republicans have a significant advantage in that rule because The Constitution says that each state gets one vote, and there are more Republican states than Democratic states. But that’s the process, and all we’re defending, is the constitutional right, which has been pretty well assumed by most who’ve looked at this question for some time, of these agents to exercise their judgement…

It is a real problem that this issue has not finally been resolved. The last time, Ray vs. Blair, is from the 1950s, when the court raised the question. But I think that we never thought it would be necessary until we had this election. And that’s why this is so important that we take seriously what in fact our constitution says about the right of these electors to be the emergency brake on the process of selecting a president.

Chris Hayes In TrumpLand – They Really Don’t Understand Trump’s Bait-and-Switch

One thing we have going for us, although it doesn’t seem to be helping as much as one would think, is that Trump isn’t wasting any time showing his true colors. He could have played it cool and pretended he was going to be a rational methodical republican, like George Bush did at first. But no, Trump isn’t leaving the rash actions that he will take as president to the imagination. He’s going to throw the elderly and working class Americans of the midwest (that believed his rhetoric, and voted for him) directly under the bus, right away.

He’s doing it in broad daylight, right in front of everyone, as if to say, to the American people: “Just you try and stop me.”

Chris Hayes asked these folks questions, and they appear to be completely delusional about Trump’s true motivations and intent.

Chris Hayes in TrumpLand

Do Trump voters know that Congress is organizing to turn Social Security, Medicare and the ACA into a tax cut for the wealthy? By Dave Winer, for Scripting.com

From the post:

The Trump voters, and there were quite a few, said some things that I think they are going to learn are wrong, and that will happen soon, especially if somehow there can be cross-pollination of news from MSNBC-land to and from Wisconsin-land, they might hear about the disasters-in-the-making before they are actually complete.

A Trump voter said, with no dissension, that the racist stuff that Trump campaigned on wasn’t real. But it is real. A Muslim woman there, born in Wisconsin, she spoke with a Wisconsin accent, wore a hijab, said she was scared for herself and her family. There’s talk in TrumpLand (the one on Fifth Ave in NYC) of requiring Muslims to register, even Muslims who are American citizens. So there it is. The racism is real. Registering comes first. Then armbands, then…

Do the Trump voters know that Congress, of the same party as the incoming president, is organizing to turn Social Security, Medicare and the ACA into a huge tax cut for the super wealthy? That’s your future. No retirement, even though you already paid for it, and you can buy health insurance with money you don’t have from an insurance industry that won’t sell it to you.

They seemed confident that there would be time to vote Trump out in four years. A big misunderstanding about how long it takes to undo social programs if you don’t care about the people who depend on them.