Episode 2 on WAAM 1600 AM: ObamaCare, Wikileaks, and #ADayWithoutAWoman President [podcast]

Posted on March 12th, 2017 by Tracy Connors

The long awaited House ObamaCare Repeal/Replace Bill was unveiled this week and seemingly everyone, save for Paul Ryan and President Trump, thinks it stinks on ice.

Heritage hated it:

This bill misses the mark primarily because it fails to correct the features of Obamacare that drove up health care costs. Congress should continue to focus on first repealing the failed policy of Obamacare and then act to offer patient-centered, market-based replacement reforms.

Cato completely trashed it:

This bill is a train wreck waiting to happen.

The House leadership bill isn’t even a repeal bill. Not by a long shot. It would repeal far less of ObamaCare than the bill Republicans sent to President Obama one year ago. The ObamaCare regulations it retains are already causing insurance markets to collapse. It would allow that collapse to continue, and even accelerate the collapse. Republicans would then own whatever damage ObamaCare causes, such as when the law leaves seriously ill patients with no coverage at all. Congress would have to revisit ObamaCare again and again to address problems they failed to fix the first time around. ObamaCare would consume the rest of Congress’ and President Trump’s agenda. Delaying or dooming other priorities like tax reform, infrastructure spending, and Gorsuch. The fallout could dog Republicans all the way into 2018 and 2020, when it could lead to a Democratic wave election like the one we saw in 2008. Only then, Democrats won’t have ObamaCare on their mind but single-payer.

According to Breitbart, Rand Paul wants to hold public burnings (note: this is a hyperbolic interpretation of Rand’s reaction) of the bill:

Paul told Breitbart News:

I think the reason why the House leadership bill is Obamacare Lite is because it retains subsidies. Obamacare had subsidies for people to buy insurance. In the Paul Ryan bill, they keep the subsidies—they just call them refundable tax credits. Some people are predicting that it’s actually going to be more expensive than the subsidies we have under Obamacare. This isn’t you getting your own money back, this is you getting somebody else’s money. So, a family that makes $30,000 a year could actually get $14,000 that they didn’t pay. Let’s say they paid zero in income tax, they could get $14,000 back. One, we don’t have the money—it’s a new entitlement program and two, if you get $14,000 back do you think the insurance company is ever going to sell insurance for less than $14,000? That becomes the floor. So, it actually pushes insurance rates up—it doesn’t allow insurance rates to fall. So, that doesn’t allow insurance rates to fall and it sets up a new entitlement. The second thing that Paul Ryan’s Obamacare Lite bill does is they keep the Obamacare taxes—all of them—for a year. And then after a year, they keep the Cadillac Tax forever. That’s the tax on if you have really good insurance, Obamacare taxes that. So will Paul Ryan’s plan. The third thing they do that is Obamacare-like is they keep the individual mandate. It seems like every Republican says they were against the individual mandate. That’s if you didn’t buy insurance you had to pay a penalty to the government, a tax. Obamacare Lite, Paul Ryan’s plan, just changes it so you have to pay a penalty to the insurance companies. I consider that to still be a mandate that isn’t consistent with those of us who want less government involvement. So they keep the subsidies, they keep the taxes, and then they keep the mandate. Then the fourth thing they do is they actually subsidize the insurance companies. Right now, insurance companies are losing money and Obamacare has this rescue thing called ‘risk corridors’ to bail out the insurance companies. Paul Ryan has got the same thing, he just calls it reinsurance and it’s $100 million worth. I predict that might not even be enough. So I don’t like any of it. Now, I do think we agree as Republicans on repeal. But I don’t think we agree on the replacement. That’s why I say we should separate them, vote on repeal and then vote the same day on a separate bill that’s called replace.

This fight has only just begun #popcorn.

The other big story this week was Wikileaks’ release of Vault 7 “Year Zero”.

ZeroHedge describes the content of the document dump thusly:

Yesterday Wikileaks released 8,761 CIA documents detailing the agency’s hacking of smart phones, routers, computers, and even televisions.

These files reveal that the CIA can and has hacked devices that were supposedly secure– iPhones, iPads, and Android devices.

The documents further reveal that the CIA is deliberately infecting personal computers with spyware, including Windows, Mac OS/X, Solaris, Linux, and other operating systems.

They’re also hacking WiFi routers to deploy software that monitors Internet activity, and have even figured out how to bypass anti-virus software so that their spyware cannot be detected.

They’ve also managed to make the rest of the world believe that Russian hackers, not the CIA, are behind all this malware and spyware.

It’s like a restatement of that old Mission: Impossible line– “Should any of your IM force be caught or killed… we’ll blame Russia.”

The CIA is pretty shameless about its activities, nicknaming its various hacking programs “Assassin”, “Medusa”, and “Brutal Kangaroo”.

One of the deepest revelations is that the agency is able to hack Internet-connected televisions, including Samsung smart TVs, through a program called “Weeping Angel”.

Basically the CIA can turn your TV into a listening device, recording conversations in the room and transmitting the audio to a CIA server.

Even if you think the TV is off, it’s not.

CIA hackers have been able to spoof the on/off display and set the television to a “false off” mode.

Bottom line, no device that’s connected to the outside world is truly safe.

Combine these new revelations, with this fun flashback about the time the CIA “improperly intruded” (read: hacked into) a database that was being used by the Senate Intelligence Committee and their staffers to compile research for their “Torture Report”, and it becomes much easier to believe that Donald Trump and his campaign were being spied on during the 2016 election.

From a 2014 McClatchy piece regarding the CIA/Senate Intelligence Committee spying scandal.

An internal CIA investigation confirmed allegations that agency personnel improperly intruded into a protected database used by Senate Intelligence Committee staff to compile a scathing report on the agency’s detention and interrogation program, prompting bipartisan outrage and at least two calls for spy chief John Brennan to resign.

Brennan did not resign. The Justice Department did not investigate. Shocking I know. But did the CIA offer any explanation? Why yes, yes they did, from the same McClatchy piece (emphasis added):

A person with knowledge of the issue insisted that the CIA personnel who improperly accessed the database “acted in good faith,” believing that they were empowered to do so because they believed there had been a security violation.

There was no malicious intent. They acted in good faith believing they had the legal standing to do so,” said the knowledgeable person, who asked not to be further identified because they weren’t authorized to discuss the issue publicly. “But it did not conform with the legal agreement reached with the Senate committee.”

Oooooh, so they were acting in good faith, no malice was involved and they believed they had legal standing! Well then by all means we should just let them slide, call it a mulligan and carry on with our business. Disgraceful!
That no one was even reprimanded let alone fired for hacking into the Senate Intelligence Committee’s database undoubtedly sent a signal to others inside the agency; intrude away! And that they most certainly did.
Onto something almost as ridiculous, although way less frightening. An attempt to prove that the evil, omnipresent surge of sexism cost Hillary Clinton the White House which was made by two academics, failed in spectacular fashion.

Via the wonderful Ashe Schow writing for the Observer:

The idea: Recreate pivotal scenes from the presidential debates to prove a woman wouldn’t be able to get away with saying the things that then-candidate Donald Trump said. Also, prove that people would like Hillary Clinton more she had been a man, thus showing sexism alive and well in the political arena—and giving the Left another reason to whine over the election.

The result: Oops! It turns out people would like Trump more if he were a woman and would like Clinton even less if she were a man.

My sides!

And if you were wondering, no, no one who participated in this theatrical experiment seems to given up on the idea that sexism lurks round every corner.

Finally, we just had to talk about the #ADayWithoutAWoman protests, marches, strikes, whine-ins, whatever, that took place on March 8th. What these women are complaining  about is an unsolvable mystery that even the great Robert Stack (PBUM) wouldn’t even attempt to unravel. Lucky for you all, we decided to give it the old community college try!

As best we can tell, the women striking (read: women who put in for and were granted a paid vacation day) really dislike President Trump and by extension all white males, whose businesses are to be boycotted.

screengrab from womensmarch.com

Did you catch that guys? You’re supposed to “lean into” care giving, whatever the hell that means. Oh and guys, these ladies who fancy themselves to be so integral to your workplace that their absence will be felt, yeah they’re gonna need to you pick up the slack for them. Thanks!

Still don’t have a clue what this is all about? Sigh, neither do I. Maybe this from WomenStrike.org will help: 

screengrab from WomenStrike.org

Haha! Just kidding.

Oh, and about that #GrabYourWallet, don’t be misled into believing this means grab your wallet because you’re going to be spending big league! as it actually means the exact opposite. Could it be that they wanted to avoid using the word boycott because it contains “boy” and ew boys are gross and grow up to be terrible oppressive men? The list leads us to believe that these ladies have hate for Ivanka Trump. The majority of businesses that appear on the list were placed there because they carry one of Ivanka’s lines. Help women by hurting a woman, this is groundbreaking stuff.

Confused, irritated and angry? Feel like putting on a silly pink hat and taking to the streets to yell about it? Well now you know what it feels like to be a woman! Er, no, that’s not it.

Maybe this exchange between Tucker Carlson and Julie Alvin, Executive Editor for Bustle.com (no they don’t sell those old-timey butt enhancer things) will clear things up once and for all.

Nope. Guess this is one mystery that will remain unsolved.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

TuckerGate–The Daily Caller Is Making Some Palinistas Sound Like Liberals

Posted on September 19th, 2011 by Fingers Malloy

So this is delicious. In a complete kill the messenger moment, the Twitter has been blowing up over a Daily Caller piece regarding disgusting comments that Mike Tyson made about Sarah Palin. To read Tyson’s comments, check out Jeff Poor’s column here.

This got many Palinistas hysterical. But the target of their hysterical, liberal like over- reaction wasn’t the bat shit crazy Mike Tyson–no it was The Daily Caller. Why the Daily Caller? For printing his comments.

That’s right. New memo to everyone that writes stuff on the internets–you can not report anything that is said about Sarah Palin without a Palinista signing off on it…ever! If you do write about Palin without approval, it can only be a fluff column–you know, stories that her mere presence in a room can cure Scurvy and prevent the gum disease Gingivitis (you get the idea).

I could post links to several blog posts by several Palinistas who are outraged by The Daily Caller, but I am still trying to recover from my massive eye-roll (I will not even get into their tweets).

But of all the blog posts I have seen regarding TuckerGate, the worst offender was Greta Van Susteran. Her blog post was a peach. This is just the first paragraph:

I really don’t understand my friend Tucker Carlson.  He owns the website The Daily Caller and it currently has on its front page the most vile story — referring to a sex act with Governor Sarah Palin as a “womb shifter.” It is even the headline. Do you know what that means?  Figure it out  It is really vile.  It is not just smut…this is violence against women.

Talk about winning the 2011 Hyper-Sensitive Award for Hyper-Sensitiveness (I am a wordsmith).

Greta, you sound like a liberal. The faux-outrage here is sickening. You want to play the over the top outrage game? Okay, I can play too.

Greta, I like you. I really do. But you have a career in broadcasting based on your work as a legal analyst for CNN during the O.J. Simpson trial. (For those of you too young to remember the original O.J. Simpson trial, CNN covered it ad nauseum. It turned a double murder trial into a game, picking daily winners and losers. Greta, you remember that right?)

You want to talk about violence against women? Someone (O.J.) brutally murdered Nicole Brown Simpson by repeatedly stabbing her to death. I could go further into the details, but writing about such events would make me a smut peddler–and would condone violence against women…or something.

CNN sensationalized a brutal double murder. They did so because they wanted more viewers. They were ratings whores.

You profited from a double murder based on CNN’s wall to wall, almost cartoonish coverage of that trial.

You got a career from that…own it.

And now you are outraged by a website that printed (but didn’t glorify) comments made by a world famous athlete? Hypocrisy much?

For someone like Greta Van Susteran to criticize the Daily Caller for sensationalizing a story when she has made a career doing the very same thing is gross. If it were not for shows like Greta’s, Casey Anthony would not be a household name.

There. My liberal like, hyper-sensitive moment is over.

So we were all just supposed to ignore the fact that a former heavyweight champion of the world made ugly comments about Sarah Palin? Really?

Did we ignore Wanda Sykes when she said of Rush Limbaugh–“I hope his kidneys fail”?

Did we ignore a British film company when it made a mockumentary about the fictional assassination of President George W. Bush?

I can go on and on with examples of ugliness spewed at conservatives that we didn’t ignore, but I would need a nap.

The Daily Caller did nothing wrong.


Oh, and P.S.

Greta. If he would agree to it, you would have Mike Tyson on tonight to discuss his disgusting comments. But I suppose that’s okay, because it’s on Fox News.




Tags: , , , , ,

Updated! Snarky 6-The Daily Caller Is Right-I Took The Money And Stuff

Posted on August 24th, 2010 by Fingers Malloy

The Daily Caller came out with a hit piece on bloggers yesterday and made some outrageous claims. The one money quote that got most of the Internets fired up was;

“It’s standard operating procedure” to pay bloggers for favorable coverage, says one Republican campaign operative. A GOP blogger-for-hire estimates that “at least half the bloggers that are out there” on the Republican side “are getting remuneration in some way beyond ad sales.”


I call bullshit.

There were many good responses to this Daily Caller article from;

Dan Riehl

R. Stacy McCain

Jimmie Bise

Melissa Clouthier

Look I am not going to pretend that I draw the type of numbers on this site that the big boys (and girls) see on their blogs. Nobody would be throwing big money at me to do anything (except maybe to go away).

For the record, I nor anyone at FTR Radio got a dime in exchange for our support for Pamela Gorman–but thanks to this Daily Caller piece, it raises an unnecessary cloud of suspicion on any blogger that shows enthusiastic support for any candidate in a particular race. Thanks Tucker! (asshat)

Anyone that has done this blogging thing for a while realizes that you aren’t doing it for the money. I can see why Republicans would want help from bloggers–but in a lot of ways they still treat new media like a teenager holding an infant for the first time–awkwardly (yes they are getting better).

But here is the bad news.

Alas, I must confess that I have taken compensation for writing  positive pieces for candidates and causes. Here are 6 examples of how I sold myself–and you out for not a whole helluva lot in return.*

1- In 2008, the McCain for President PAC game me half a carton of Lucky Strikes to write a post entitled John McCain is the Shizzle Dizzle.

2- In 1988 I wrote that Michael Dukakis looked great in a tank for my school newspaper. I did it because Susan Estrich offered to give me a back rub (Cut me some slack , I was 16).

3- Last year, I was given a case of Yoo-Hoo to throw my support behind a ballot proposal in Texas to ban I Can’t Believe It’s Not Butter.

4- In exchange for writing a blog post stating that he was “totally sane”, Ron Paul gave me three coins from his pot of gold.

5- For years, Governor Palin has sent me hush money over an incident between the 2 of us in the Poconos that I would love to tell you about–but there is a reason why they call it hush money. 

6- The Daily Caller sucks. That was a freebie…

*Warning, this list of 6 may be a load of crap. Don’t believe everything you read…

UPDATE!- Shock and outrage has been voiced throughout the Internets today by the revelation that I am a two-bit whore for any politician that is willing to throw 30 cents at me.

From Robert Stacy McCain-Embattled Blogger Rejects Growing Pressure to Resign.

To Mr. McCain I say this; Americans want to know that their Fingers Malloy is not a crook. Well, I am not a crook.

But after 15 minutes of soul searching and consultation with a Priest, an Imam, Linda Lavin, Bonnie Franklin, the 1987 Boston Celtics, Kathy Griffin and Boutros Boutros-Ghali, I have decided to maybe resign from my post at The Snark Factor. I have found a home for my writing that will give me even less exposure than Fingersmalloy.com.

I just took a job at The Huffington Post…

Tags: , , , , ,