Recent comments

  • HOBBY LOBBY   1 day 4 hours ago

    mavibobo wrote:

    ulTRAX wrote:

    Gee... if an employer wants to engage in a religious mission... perhaps the for-profit corporate form with all the benefits and immunities bestowed by We The People, is not the proper course. That being said... I hope the days of employer provided health care are soon in our past and we don't need to deal with this nonsense.

    choosing not to pay for birth control is not the same as denying it,  it does, however, put the responsiblity back onto the persons having sex to pay for their own birth control.

    Leaving aside your implicit sexism.... so by your "logic" an employer or insurer is morally justified in denying coverage for consequences of ALL voluntary actions? Kid breaks an arm playing football... too bad? The kid didn't have to play? 

    But you're missing the point that HL isn't about any principle of "responsibility" even if the right wing is trying to spin it that way. It's about the government now allowing the denial of a benefit based on a religious belief of an employers, and in the process discriminating against the possible religious beliefs of the employees. I'm sure the right will come to its senses once a Muslim owner business claims the same rights as HL... because once this door is opened, it's NOT going to stop at birth control. 

     

  • White Privilege   1 day 4 hours ago

    I'm probably noy paying close enough attention to all that's transpired in this thread, but I will say that there was nothing D-Natured has said that has struck me as offensive or wrong or too far removed from my own views. I suppose that could make me as flawed as he or as evolved? Race is a thing to be reckoned with in America, but how it manifests itself in privelege, racism or whatever is always more contemtious than it should be. Oddly enough, when we lived in Portland for a couple years, it was very odd to be around so few black people as we had always been so accustomed to.

  • Does Hobby Lobby decision violate the First Amendment?   1 day 4 hours ago

    It's all just political crap.  Most people don't realize that HL insurance plans BEFORE the ACA covered all 20 of the required birth control methods stated in the ACA.  As soon as it was pointed out to HL that they were all now required is when they decided to make waves.  Politics and or hate for the guy in the WH is all it really is about.

  • Does Hobby Lobby decision violate the First Amendment?   1 day 5 hours ago

    The argument that this is no real burden on the employees who have to buy contraception and birth control outside their employer purchased group health plan fails in every way.  The costs can be quite high and the medical necessity far from how to have responsibility free sex or even just ordinary safe sex of the very responsible sort.  But that is what excites the "why should HL have to pay for their employees sex life when it involves some forms of abortion?  Shouldn't she have to 'pay' for fucking around?

    The idea that this is about real healthcare and not just sex, or that sex is not part of our healthcare issues, does not seem to make it to first base in the conservative mind.  And, oh the horrors of conceptional theology and the thought that a zygote might not make it!  This sentimentalized projection of bad biological thinking has deep roots in misogyny and patriarchy's idea that it was the male seed that germinates in the passive womb until "his" child is ready.  But, it is terrible biology no matter what one finds about when the egg is fertilized or how it grows in the womb.

    The presumption that God want each possible pregnancy to result in a birth of a child is nuts or an insult to the Creator's creative ability.

  • Does the Economy Serve Us or Them?   1 day 5 hours ago

    We need prohibit and break-up monopolies and the structural concentration of individual ownership that makes possible the same wealthy ownership class to acquire virtually all FUTURE wealth-creating, income-producing capital asset ownership. Three are ONLY TWO CHOICES: either OWN or Be Owned!!

    Americans need to WAKE UP and support and rally for a peaceful and more just Second American Revolution to unite all Americans, based on a moral recognition that freedom and political democracy must be based on a foundation of universal principles of economic justice and economic empowerment. 

    The JUST Third Way is a radical overhaul of the economic system (i.e., the Federal tax system, Federal Reserve policy, inheritance law, welfare and entitlement system, etc.) that will achieve genuine economic democracy, based on the Platform of the Unite America Party and its links and the proposed Capital Homestead Act. Our Platform is a call for a vision of political economy that can unite the left and the right, based on Louis Kelso's ownership-based paradigm. Now is the time to cure America's political cancer (Crony Capitalism) and restore America to again becoming a model for global citizens in all countries.

    For a new vision see http://www.foreconomicjustice.org/?p=12331andwww.facebook.com%2Funiteame.... Support the Unite America Party Platform, published by The Huffington Post athttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/gary-reber/platform-of-the-unite-ame_b_5474077.html as well as Nation Of Change athttp://www.nationofchange.org/platform-unite-america-party-1402409962and OpEd News at http://www.opednews.com/articles/Platform-of-the-Unite-Amer-by-Gary-Rebe....

  • Does the Economy Serve Us or Them?   1 day 5 hours ago

    I remember working briefly for Fleischmann's margarine in the late 80's. That company manufactured everything from Imperial Margarine to Blue Bonnet. I counted about 6 brands in all. All from the same machines and made with the same ingredients. As I remember almost every brand in the store. Then the factory mysteriously closed. I can only imagine that they got bought out by some bigger investor.

    If you shop brand conscious you waste your money. I suggest buying the cheapest 'brand'. All you are really paying for is the package; and, you're going to throw that away anyway.

  • human experimentation in Africa by U.S. drug companies   1 day 5 hours ago

    Found another instance of this by accident this weekend.  I posted this yesterday elsewhere, but I went to add to it and the thread has vanished (along with all of that User's other blogs - which is a separate mystery).

    Anyway.  I went to the WhiteRoseSociety.org site because I wanted to listen to a radio broadcast from before Katrina hit.  I found one for the Friday before  - of The Lizz Brown show a four hour early to mid morning show [August 25, 2005].

    Her main Guest was Liam Scheff who was telling about the journey that resulted in his July 2004 article, Orphans on Trial.  She also had two other Guests on the topic, but very soon into interviewing her third guest, Dr. Fishbein (at about 2.5 hrs in) the audio goes blank for about 45 minutes and when it comes back - she has moved on to a new topic.

    The Story documents how Human Experimentaion was done on infants and children (take a wild guess of the ethnic background of the infants considered not worthy of Human Rights) in New York at the Incarnation Children's Center which was under the Catholic Diocese.

    The immoral and illegal studies were funded by the NIH for drugs owned by Glaxo, Pfizer, Squibb, Genetech and Biocene and began in 1992 (last year under daddyBush).

    That she had chosen this as her main topic on her last broadcast day before Katrina is uncanny in the way it mirrors what the world would be about to learn / see in how America views / treats its minorities and its poor.

    I had no trouble finding the article online, but be forewarned about the pictures.  Some of the drugs being tested on the infants had a known side-effect of causing one's skin to slough off.  They kept giving it to the children anyway.  I kid you not.

     

  • Does the Economy Serve Us or Them?   1 day 6 hours ago

    This is so ridiculous, Tom.  This is basic stuff we learned in high school social studies, at least I did.  The trouble is most people are too caught up in every day life to see what has been happening, and you don't see the media covering this. And the greedy politicians, all they do is ask for money -- they're even going out to the average citizen now since the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision, and more recently McCutcheon.  But as you pointed out, this has been going on for more than 30 years and I was as blind as most of the others out there.  Is there anything we can do besides write and talk about it, because I don't think that's enough.  And don't tell me to support different candidates because if they do go any place up the ladder, they are going to be bought and sold, and I don't care who they are, because that's how the current system works.

    Probably the only way to make change, the kind of change that will matter and turn over the oligarchy, unfortunately, is revolution.  But I see no charismatic leaders out there to lead one, and if one arises, you know they aren't be around very long.

  • Does Hobby Lobby decision violate the First Amendment?   1 day 6 hours ago

    And, regarding your assertion that preventive care is easily affordable out of pocket: 

    Routine Physical/Preventive Care in Your Doctor’s Office

     

    (includes office visit, common tests, and immunizations)

     

    Check-ups recommended every 1–2 years based on age; newborns 6 times in first year.

     

    Adult routine physical (no gynecological care) $200–$240

     

    Female exam (ages 18–40) $185–$240

     

    Female exam (over age 40) $280–$330

     

    Child exam (newborn to 24 months) $160–$180

     

    Child exam (age 24 months to 16 years) $160–$190

     

    http://www.bluecrossma.com/blue-iq/pdfs/TypicalCosts_89717_042709.pdf

    You can see that a family of four could easily be facing $600 to $1000 just for annual checkups and note the recommendation that newborns have an examination six times in the first year.

  • Does Hobby Lobby decision violate the First Amendment?   1 day 6 hours ago

    Does every health insurance plan have to pay for birth control?

    • These terms of the Affordable Care Act apply only to new health insurance plans offered from your employer or that you buy on your own. Certain religious employers are exempt and do not have to include birth control benefits. 
    • Medicaid programs do not have to offer free birth control either, but most state Medicaid programs do cover prescription birth control methods.

    http://www.webmd.com/health-insurance/aca-birth-control-coverage-faq

    Alright, I'll concede that you are technically correct in your first assertion regarding the ACA but in actual practice the actuarials will determine the number of people who will use the coverage and what that cost will be just the same as they will determine how many cases of cancer, diabetes, etc. occur and what the costs are likely to be.  In order to particpate in the exchanges as a provider this is one of the requirements.  Here is where it came from:

    With the exception of churches and houses of worship, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act mandates contraceptive coverage for all employers and educational institutions, even though the mandate itself is not included in the wording of the law(s) [1] passed by Congress. The mandate applies to all new health insurance plans effective August 2012. It controversially includes Christian hospitals, Christian charities, Catholic universities, and other enterprises owned or controlled by religious organizations that oppose contraception on doctrinal grounds.

    On January 20, 2012, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius announced a (then) final rule of an August 1, 2011 interim final rule on health insurance coverage with no cost sharing for FDA-approved contraceptives and contraceptive services (including female sterilization) for women of reproductive age if prescribed by health care providers, as part of women's preventive health services guidelines adopted by the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) for the Affordable Care Act. Male contraception is not eligible.[18]

    Regulations[19] made under the act rely on the recommendations of the independent Institute of Medicine (IOM) in its July 19, 2011 report Clinical Preventive Services for Women: Closing the Gaps, which concluded that birth control is medically necessary "to ensure women's health and well-being."

    The administration allowed a religious exemption. The exemption initially applied to church organizations themselves, but not to affiliated nonprofit corporations, like hospitals, that do not rely primarily on members of the faith as employees.[20] An amendment, the Blunt Amendment, was proposed that "would have allowed employers to refuse to include contraception in health care coverage if it violated their religious or moral beliefs,"[21] but it was voted down 51-48 by the U.S. Senate on March 1, 2012.[ 

     

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contraceptive_mandate_(United_States)

    See also the paragraph above that one:

    Certain aspects of the contraception mandate did not start with the ACA. In December 2000, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ruled that companies that provided prescription drugs to their employees but didn't provide birth control were in violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prevents discrimination on the basis of sex. That opinion, which the George W. Bush administration did nothing to alter or withdraw when it took office the next month, is still in effect today – and because it relies on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, it applies to all employers with 15 or more employees.[2] Currently, employers that don't offer prescription coverage or don't offer insurance at all are exempt, because they treat men and women equally, but the new mandate will require prescription coverage.[citation needed]

    After the EEOC opinion was approved in 2000, reproductive rights groups and employees who wanted birth control access sued employers that refused to comply. The next year, in Erickson v. Bartell Drug Co., a federal court agreed with the EEOC's reasoning. Reproductive rights groups and others used that decision as leverage to force other companies to settle lawsuits and agree to change their insurance plans to include birth control. Some subsequent court decisions echoed Erickson, and some went the other way, but the rule (absent a Supreme Court decision) remained, and over the following decade, the percentage of employer-based plans offering contraceptive coverage tripled to 90 percent.[

    For a typically egregious distortion of the truth by a conservative member see post #50 by site member gumball under topic HOBBY LOBBY

     

  • Will it take more public outrage to get money out of politics?   1 day 6 hours ago

    Actually, my answer is no, this isn't going to happen. This isn't going to change. We were having this same discussion back when I was in school in the early 1970s. My grandfather participated in this same discussion back in the 1930s. What can we do about it? Demand change? Get really, really mad? Sign multiple petitions? No one is DC is listening because their careers depend on this system, which has worked so well for them.

  • White Privilege   1 day 6 hours ago

    drc2 wrote:

    drbjmn, you wife may be a person of amazing grace and compassion, so don't take it for granted that you have not offended just because you wake up in the morning without knife wounds.  Your ability to listen has been working for you, so keep on keepin' on.

    I hesitate to adopt your "guilt" v. "privilege" analysis or the right of individual white people to absolve ourselves from a history which has no moral justification.  There are historical explanations, and we can see how some have benefitted while others have either squandered or given away their advantages for reasons from moral to ridiculous.

    Rather than try to defend white anything, I want to establish that I am on the side of being human, but that includes being aware and not in denial of our past and who did what to whom with what consequences.  This is why I have resigned from racism and White identity, but still am aware that I live in a story where race is and has been determinative of quality of life and style.  My own irony is to have been adopted Black as a step up in my own human awareness and realization.  What White people miss is too good not to appreciate.  Thin souls at the top do not make for a good room to be in.  Down in the jazz cellar, things are popin'.

    Pie hole will be dropped from my message board vocabulary.

    I wasn't absolving white people of anything. I was trying to do the opposite, and apparently, failing miserably.

    Do people think they're going to stop others from saying access to BC prevents women from being independant, by yelling at them?

    Do people think they're going to get people to stop saying welfare prevents the needy from being self reliant, by yelling at them?

    Do people think they're going to get people to consider, the notion of "white privilege", much less support policies that seek to help those that haven't had it, by yelling at them?

    No, I am not saying anyone here is yelling, or yelling at me.

    I am simply saying there are at least more than a few white people that aren't as enlightened as many are here, no matter how absurd your life experience has shown that to be.

    Of course black people have every right to be angry. But unless they, and those that support them, can figure out a way to articulate it better, it's not going to change. Unless you think there are so few left, we don't need to worry about them. I would beg to differ. I would argue that there is way more systemic racial, and sexist ignorance than many are willing to admit. If guilting people into see the light works, then maybe I way out of touch. I don't see it.

     

     

  • HOBBY LOBBY   1 day 7 hours ago

    ulTRAX wrote:

    Steven.PBarrett wrote:

    ulTrax, you've just taken the pro-choice position on abortion into another realm where one might as well start putting quotation hooks around "pro-choice" when it comes to employers rights to decide if they want to risk violating caesar's laws or God's laws. Some choice.

    Gee... if an employer wants to engage in a religious mission... perhaps the for-profit corporate form with all the benefits and immunities bestowed by We The People, is not the proper course. That being said... I hope the days of employer provided health care are soon in our past and we don't need to deal with this nonsense.

    choosing not to pay for birth control is not the same as denying it,  it does, however, put the responsiblity back onto the persons having sex to pay for their own birth control.

  • Why Do We Lavish Benefits On Corporations? WHAT SHOULD WE EXPECT IN RETURN?   1 day 7 hours ago

     

    What can we expect in return from a corporation?  I think we can expect a corporation to offer us a quality product while still making a profit.  I think we can expect a corporation to support charities in the local area, in the case of multistate multi city corporations they should support them in each city/state that they are located.  I think they should provide enough jobs or high enough paying jobs to offset the tax breaks the local government gives them and still make a profit. 

     

     

     

    Corporations should never have to big to fail protection, they should be required to stand or fail on their own. 

     

    I also read in Ultrax post I believe that corporations do not have to pay for health problems of their customers, IE smoking.  They should not have to they did not force you to smoke.  Now if they are actively polluting the area they should be fined for that maybe even have their corporate status revoked because they have proven they can not follow the law. 

     

     

     

    I read in the posts that corporations are currently ripping us off, exactly how are they ripping us off? 

     

    Exactly how are they interfering with the political process?  If you mean citizens united decision this also applies to the labor unions and other groups or associations of people.

    edit

    food stamps are not earned or have risk of failure in order  to achive the result.  share holders risk money and gain a reward for that risk.  corporate owners risk their time and effort in order to achive success and are rewarded for that success. 

     

  • Does Hobby Lobby decision violate the First Amendment?   1 day 7 hours ago

    A SCOTUS decision can be wrong in its interpretation of the Constitution, but technically, I don't think it can violate the Constitution. 

    As you rightly point out, the First Amendment says:

    Quote:
     Amendment 1 Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

    Supreme Court decisions are not acts of Congress.

    Steve

     

  • HOBBY LOBBY is the PERFECT Democratic Wedge Issue in 2014 and 2016   1 day 7 hours ago
  • White Privilege   1 day 7 hours ago

    Laborisgood wrote:

    D_NATURED wrote:

    Color is convenient and can be assessed from the distance of a rifle site. That's the only thing it's got going for it.

    Sweet D ..... Boy, you got a million of 'em.

    I make 'em up as I go along, like everyone else. Glad you get my gist...

  • SUPER TYPHOON heading for JAPAN.....what will happen at FUKUSHIMA??   1 day 7 hours ago

    Frankly it wouldn't surprise me either! I wonder how much of that radiation has reached the west coast beaches. Those out in the ocean waters swimming, diving or surfing might be taking more than your normal risk. 

  • Will it take more public outrage to get money out of politics?   1 day 7 hours ago

    Some of my past metaphoric comment rants about MoveToAmend :

    ... Government ideally would require right business behavior across the board.  While we attack four or five single issues [leaves on the 'Bush of Evil'], the root is untouched and many more leaves are budding.  MoveToAmend to amputate from the government the love of money, which is the root of all evil.  

    ... [1] Save Biodiversity must be your aim and all efforts are tributary; you will need the government as your ally so [2] MOVEtoAMEND[.org] to make our many problems solvable; conservatives would rather Sell the Future so [3] vote Progressive and flush them.

    ... we might make our many problems solvable. [global warming even, and erosion, war profiteering, pollution, fossil fuel subsidy, job export and race to the bottom globalization, etc]   Money is not speech, limit and reform campaigns, artificial entities must have Zero political activity.  Then we the people own the government by majorities in each decision.

    ... "Therefore MOVEtoAMEND, and so make our many problems fixable. Until then there is a millionaire behind every smokestack and bad subsidy, war profiteers and wage thieves poisoning us and so on.  Money is not speech [it is property].  Fictional entities [corporations, unions, businesses, Trade Associations, other] must have zero political activity; their human members have plenty. Free Speech for People etc., and One vote per person."

    All single issues wait on this Amendment.  Meanwhile there is a millionaire behind each smokestack.  Examples come to mind : HVHF Fracking and Global Warming [fossil fuel is poisoned candy], wars for profit, petroleum/cotton/corn subsidies that ruin also poor countries [Indian farmer suicides pondered with _Nero's Guests_]], Monsanto and privatizing genomes and killing our Soil, farm antibiotic overuse, expensive campaigns and millionaire Senators, all-or-nothing non-proportional "Two-Party" scam]

     And if there *is* Truth then shame on us generally for endless disagreement.

     

  • What West Virginia can learn from Sarah Palin   1 day 8 hours ago

       Hi Palin!  This morning on the radio, I heard Stephanie Miller plugging Hillary.  Gag me.

       After five or six years of Obama, my motto is: not just any black person or woman will do!

       I'm up to my eyeballs in chores right now, but I'll check out that link when I've got more time.

       Every blog forum needs a bloodhound like YOU!  - AIW

  • Does Hobby Lobby decision violate the First Amendment?   1 day 8 hours ago

    mdhess wrote:

     

    Your remarks include two falsehoods.  1) Nobody is "forced" to have birth control coverage and

    Actually you are. ACA requires everyone have insurance and the regulations drawn up by the Obama administration requires that every plan covers BC.

    mdhess wrote:

    2) Health care is not the same as automobile insurance, for instance it includes regular medical check ups which in fact benefit the bottom line of the medical insurance industry as it is much less costly to identify a medical problem early than to try and treat it as opposed to paying for incredibly expensive treatments for advanced stage illnesses.

    While you have a valid point here I would suggest that this represents a very small percentage of health care spending and one the the overwelming number of people can afford out of pocket.

     

    mdhess wrote:
    One of the recurring themes in the ongoing debates in these pages over Hobby Lobby is the advancement by the conservatives here of false information and unsupported assumptions.

    Can you link to what you see as the most ergegious example of this is?

  • Does Hobby Lobby decision violate the First Amendment?   1 day 8 hours ago

    Dr. Econ wrote:

    I don't see it. I can't imagine why you would force anyone to have birth control coverage.

    Will you buy people bicycle helmets next?

    Insurance is a bet on future harm, not ongoing needs.

    Your remarks include two falsehoods.  1) Nobody is "forced" to have birth control coverage and 2) Health care is not the same as automobile insurance, for instance it includes regular medical check ups which in fact benefit the bottom line of the medical insurance industry as it is much less costly to identify a medical problem early than to try and treat it as opposed to paying for incredibly expensive treatments for advanced stage illnesses.  One of the recurring themes in the ongoing debates in these pages over Hobby Lobby is the advancement by the conservatives here of false information and unsupported assumptions.

  • White Privilege   1 day 8 hours ago

    drbjmn, you wife may be a person of amazing grace and compassion, so don't take it for granted that you have not offended just because you wake up in the morning without knife wounds.  Your ability to listen has been working for you, so keep on keepin' on.

    I hesitate to adopt your "guilt" v. "privilege" analysis or the right of individual white people to absolve ourselves from a history which has no moral justification.  There are historical explanations, and we can see how some have benefitted while others have either squandered or given away their advantages for reasons from moral to ridiculous.

    Rather than try to defend white anything, I want to establish that I am on the side of being human, but that includes being aware and not in denial of our past and who did what to whom with what consequences.  This is why I have resigned from racism and White identity, but still am aware that I live in a story where race is and has been determinative of quality of life and style.  My own irony is to have been adopted Black as a step up in my own human awareness and realization.  What White people miss is too good not to appreciate.  Thin souls at the top do not make for a good room to be in.  Down in the jazz cellar, things are popin'.

  • Speculation Kills ..... Supply & Demand   1 day 8 hours ago

    gumball wrote:

    when prices go up people drive less.

    We are not driving less than we were 5 years ago, but we are being more efficient. People still have to go to work and the grocery store. They will eventually adjust to a more efficient vehicle and the market will react accordingly, but that sounds amazingly like the same crap that gets sold to people who believe business owners are sitting around pondering next years tax return to help them decide if they are going to hire somebody or not. Tax breaks = more jobs, yeah right.

    Business owners hire workers when there is work to be done and money to be made, which is driven by a demand for their product. End of story. Showering money upon business owners does not equate to jobs, it equates to extra money that the business owners may want to gamble with at the Wall Street Casino or luxury goods they may want to purchase ..... NOT JOBS!!! 

    Higher tax rates will entice owners to keep their money invested in their business to mnimize their tax burden, which in turn creates more jobs. NOT the other way around.

  • Speculation Kills ..... Supply & Demand   1 day 9 hours ago

    Dr. Econ wrote:

    Laborisgood wrote:

    The lure of supply and demand that never gets realized is what gets us to buy into more drilling and more wars, but we always end up paying more regardless of how many wars or how much drilling. 

    What does 'supply and demand' mean to you? What are the definitions?

    I took one macro-economics class in college and one micro. I found micro to provide an absolutely useful and essential set of skills to understand the time value of money, interest rates, rate of return, etc. On the other hand, macro-economics seemed to be only slightly more interesting to me than Psychology 101 which was possibly the most useless class I've ever come across (no offense to all the Psychologists out there).

    I wanted to preface my definitions with that tidbit for background of my complete lack of expertise on the subject. Furthermore, I will not look up the Wikipedia definitions before responding either, so please feel free to school me as you see fit.

    "Supply" and "Demand" are quantities that tend to work together in a freely functioning market environment. "Supply" would be the quantity of a given product that is available to the market and "Demand" is the quantity that defines how much of the given product is desired in the market. The price of the product should rise and fall relative to these quantities in healthy market.

    How would you grade me Doc? "C+"..... "B-" ?

    Bare in mind, I never once claimed expertise on this subject and started this thread as a means to get input from others who might have more. What I do feel I have ample expertise in is, "getting screwed by banks, corporations, insurance companies who have mastered the art of skimming off the top at my expense by unscrupulous financial actions". Even if my economic accumen is lacking, I do know that something is awry and something has to change to bring back any semblence of fairness in our financial world.

    Even if Bernie is peddling "liberal porn" as you claim by embellishing some part of the story, I think he is mostly correct with the big picture and has his finger on the pulse of all that is wrong for the average working person in this nation. I would appreciate a better explanation of how Bernie's claims are false if that is what you claim.