At least it will quite possibly cost the job of someone from CNN, the network that made the mistake of claiming the Supreme Court had overturned the Affordable Care Act.

"According to producer Bill Mears, the individual mandate is not a valid ...of...not a valid exercise of the commerce clause."

Here's a great take on that circumstance, complete with CNN's report:

(posted on youtube by TheSecondCityNetwork)

Like the video points out, at least Mears can still get healthcare coverage even if he's unemployed, thanks to Obamacare. 

Having lived most of my life in New Orleans, I was raised on Gulf shrimp. They're a dietary staple in that region, after all. 

I love 'em. I eat 'em by the bucket, and in so many ways, I could pass for Forrest Gump's Army pal Bubba - shrimp creole, shrimp gumbo, shrimp poboy, pan fried, deep fried, stir-fried, boiled shrimp, barbecued shrimp, pineapple shrimp, lemon shrimp, coconut shrimp, pepper shrimp, shrimp soup, shrimp stew, shrimp salad, shrimp and potatoes, shrimp burger ... 

And wouldn't you know it? There's now a new and improved way to enjoy them -- eyeless shrimp! And we have no one other than British Petroleum to thank!

The huge oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, that everyone once thought threatened this sea life, has actually provided a benefit to those good 'ol shrimp. 

Yup, many Gulf shrimp are now genetically modified due to contact with the oil, and now have no eyes. 

So after you clean away all the sludge that's still carried upon these crustaceans, you can (possibly) safely enjoy the (possibly) good-as-always taste of this culinary mainstay -- and without having to look them in the eye as you do so! Thank you, BP!

See for yourself in this video made by The Second City Network!

(posted on youtube by TheSecondCityNetwork)

This poke in BP's ribs was apparently inspired by the oil company's own videos (see 1 and 2), which try to make everyone think that the company is some sort of hero to the Gulf Coast, and that everything's okay and undamaged. 

There’s no doubt that Bobbie Rose was glad to hear the Supreme Court’s decision on the Affordable Care Act this morning. All one had to do is hear the first word out of her mouth after learning of it.

“Amen!” Rose says in response to the 5-4 ruling that upholds the Act, which she calls “one of the most important decisions the Supreme Court will make in our lifetimes.”

It’s a fantastic decision for three key reasons, says Rose, the Democratic candidate for South Carolina’s 1st Congressional District: “First, we have an overwhelming number of citizens in our state who lack adequate healthcare.  Second, that high number of uninsured is affecting others; the uninsured were adding to the coverage costs and medical expenses of those with insurance.  Lastly,” she concludes, “our current representative's effort to overturn this needed law has just been stopped.”

Offering details of those three points, Rose offers “One of out of every five citizens in South Carolina is without health insurance because they can’t afford it.  This Act provides them with a needed avenue to receive the care they need at a cost they can afford.

"Their lack of insurance has had fatal results, too," Rose notes. “Every year, about 300 uninsured South Carolinians die from treatable causes, but are unable to afford treatments. Lack of insurance alone is their cause of death.”

Rose also notes the benefits of the Act to those who already have insurance.  “No more ceiling on coverage, no more pre-existing exclusions,” she offers as examples.

She also points out another key benefit of ACA: without it, those with health coverage have been paying the medical bills of the uninsured directly through their own insurance premiums.  

The amount uncollected by medical providers from uninsured patients is traditionally added to the bills of those with insurance, for a total annual increase of over $1,000 in individual insurance policy costs to families and employers. 

The Act helps us with insurance save quite a lot more in a quite a few other ways, says Rose. 

“Just so far in its implementation, it’s already saved senior citizens in our state over $60 million.  And over a quarter-million South Carolinians already with private insurance will be getting rebates from their insurance companies this year, totaling almost $20 million back in their pockets.”

Had the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the Act, the costs of insurance premiums were projected by experts to increase shortly after the decision.  Even hospitals and medical offices would have a tax increase if the Act had been repealed, according to recent reports.

“While my third reason for supporting today’s decision is nowhere near as important as the first two,” Rose says, “I have to say I’m mighty glad to know that Representative Scott’s efforts to remove our right to affordable health care have just been stopped.

“He’s been trying to do this for quite a while, after all, even before the Act passed into law.”

While still a state representative in November 2009, Scott was the primary sponsor of two bills (H 4171 and H 4181) to block the use of the Act in South Carolina, and while it was still under debate in U.S. Congress.

After the Patient Protection & Affordable Health Care Acts passed in March 2010, Scott tried to block it again with a new bill (H 4825).

“He’s continued this fight against our rights to affordable health care since moving on to D.C., too,” says Rose.

Scott’s first bill to U.S. Congress was H.R. 698, which would “deauthorize and rescind funding” for the healthcare act.

“Maybe he forgot he’s no longer in the insurance business, and is supposed to be representing his constituents instead of his lobbyist donors,” Rose says.

Allstate Insurance Company, which Scott represented until winning the 2010 election, sells supplemental health insurance, which is supposed to help with medical costs that ordinary health insurance doesn’t cover.  The Affordable Care Act can substantially reduce, if not eliminate, the need for this secondary format of insurance because of its removals of many policy limitations.

“Those insurance lobbyists are his biggest donors, too,” Rose quickly points out.  

Over the last two election cycles, Scott’s received $164,125 in campaign donations from the insurance industry; over $100,000 was donated in this 2012 election cycle alone, making that industry Scott’s top current donor.

“Hopefully,” Roses adds, “Scott will stop spreading that ‘17,000 IRS agents’ falsehood, which was proven false long ago, but which he’s still telling his constituents.”

 At a recent Town Hall meeting on May 23, Scott told attendees that the Affordable Care Act requires the IRS to hire 17,000 agents to enforce its law.

He made this claim in his last campaign, too. During a radio interview of August 2010, for example, he criticized the Act by stating it will "create 17,000 new bureaucrats in the IRS(.)" 

However, that premise had been proven false five months before the 2010 interview.

In March 2010, a Republican report from the House Ways and Means Committee claimed that the Act would require the IRS to hire 16,500 “agents.” Less than two weeks later, the non-partisan FactCheck described the claim to be “wildly inaccurate” and “partisan.” The Pulitzer Prize-winning Politifact continues to label this claim to be of “pants on fire” invalidity, too.

“Now that this is a closed subject for him,” Rose says, “maybe he’ll start paying attention to this upcoming election!”

 In conclusion, Rose adds, "Obamacare – fair, affordable healthcare for all Americans.  Oh, happy day!"     

Election years are chock full of surveys, ranging on topics from platform favorability to electability to even candidates’ good looks.

A recent one by National Geographic introduces a whole new category, however – extraterrestrial defense!

If the United States were attacked by aliens, about two-thirds of voters think President Obama would do better than Mitt Romney in defending the country.

While many might assume such trivial factors would have no effect on an election, you better put on your space helmet and think again – 36 percent of the population believes in UFOs. Roughly 30 million Americans claim they’ve seen an alien spacecraft, too.

Conducted by Kelton Research, the survey was conducted in promotion of Chasing UFOs, a new series that premieres on the National Geographic Channel this Friday at 9 p.m. Eastern time.

Whether or not Obama’s “Martian Slayer” status will have affect on the November elections remains to be seen, however.

A Gallup poll conducted June 23-25 reports that 48 percent of Americans approve of the president while 46 percent disapprove.  That’s substantial improvement for Obama compared to Gallup poll results just eight months ago, however, when only 37 percent gave favorable response.

An NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, conducted in the same late June period, still shows Obama with a three percent lead over Romney.

Should the U.S. be subject to alien attack in the meantime, though, the incident is sure to “beam him up” even further in the polls.  

"Reversible Mittens" is an apt term for presidential candidate Romney, as John Fugelsang recently pointed out on Current TV's "Viewpoint with Eliot Spitzer."

"Mitt Romney has always been willing to say, do or believe anything in order to get elected."

While anyone can easily validate his flip-flop status, it's actually Republican voters themselves who take the cake when it comes to flip-flopping, Fugelsang says. Just take a look at the slate of GOP presidential candidates they went through this year: 

From Current TV

Ed Carter won Republican Party nomination for State House Dist. 97 in Tuesday’s primary, according to election results.

But Richard Hayes, chair of Dorchester County’s Democratic Party, suspects Carter is ineligible to continue his candidacy due to blatant errors in campaign filing records.

Hayes now formally challenges Carrol Duncan, chair of the county GOP, to produce the paper records of Carter’s Statement of Economic Interests (SEI) to validate his candidacy.

“Carter filed his SEI online before the candidate filing period actually began,” Hayes says. “Duncan let the county election commission think she got a paper copy of his SEI during the actual filing period, though.”

Hayes requests that Duncan provide him and/or local media with copies of Carter’s SEI and Statement of Intention of Candidacy.

According to records of the state Ethics Commission, Carter filed his SEI for this year’s campaign on March 13. (See image below.) Filing didn’t begin until two days later, however.

A candidate's SEI was to be filed online with the state Ethics Commission; a paper copy of that same SEI, complete with date and time stamp, could then be printed from Ethics' website immediately in following. That printed copy was then to be submitted simultaneously with other paperwork to a county’s party chair. (See sample in right column.)

“If Duncan and Carter did this correctly, then they have the paperwork,” says Hayes. “And since there’s already questionability found in the public records of his filing, then either Duncan needs to put up or Carter needs to pull out.”

Section 8-13-1356 of South Carolina’s Code of Law states: “A candidate must file a statement of economic interests for the preceding calendar year at the same time and with the same official with whom the candidate files a declaration of candidacy or petition for nomination.”

The Code’s Section 7-11-15 requires that such candidate registration occur “between noon on March sixteenth and noon on March thirtieth,” however. 

As a result, Hayes asserts, the documentation of his March 13 filing could indicate Carter is ineligible to continue his campaign.

Two recent state Supreme Court decisions support Hayes’ claims, as well.

In its May 1 case, the court ruled: “We grant declaratory relief as follows: (1) that individuals not exempt who are seeking nomination by political party primary to be a candidate for office must file a Statement of Economic Interest (SEI) at the same time and with the same official with whom the individuals file a Statement of Intention of Candidacy (SIC); (2) that an official authorized to receive SICs may not accept the forms unless they are accompanied by an SEI; (3) that an individual who did not file an SEI at the same time and with the same official with whom the individual filed an SIC should not appear on the party primary election ballot or the general election ballot(.)” 

In its June 4 case, the court ruled: “(F)iling a paper copy of an SEI simultaneously with the filing of an SIC is the only method by which a non-exempt individual can comply with § 8-13-1356.”

“How could Carter have filed paper copies of the required documents simultaneously?” Hayes asks. “It’s public record he filed his SEI online two days early, and before any registration could be accepted.

“And since Carter filed it early, then how can Duncan have the dated paper copy of the SEI she’s supposed to have received and retained?"

On June 7 Joshua Dickard, executive director of County Elections and Voter Registration, submitted an email to both county party chairs requesting final validation of all candidates. “Please submit any decertified names to my office by 4:00 p.m. today,” Dickard wrote.

Because all of Dorchester County’s Republican candidates, including Carter, remained on the June 12 ballots, Duncan apparently submitted no listing of decertification, Hayes assumes.

“Since she didn’t decertify any candidates, then that means she’s sworn to have the documentation,” he states.

“So let me say it one more time: either Duncan needs to put up or Carter needs to pull out.”
  

From a field of four remaining candidates, yesterday Gloria Bromell-Tinubu took 52.44 percent of the vote in the Democratic primary for Congressional Dist. 7.

But after celebrating last night, she woke up only to learn her victory was being questioned, and directly by the state’s Democratic Party.

Votes for a former candidate, whose name remained on some ballots in the June 12 election, were removed from the total. Had those votes been included in the final tally, says SCDP chair Dick Harpootlian, Bromell-Tinubu would only have led the race with plurality.

Because a majority of 50 percent plus one is required to be declared a primary victor, Harpootlian says, a runoff election between Bromell-Tinubu and second-place finisher Preston Brittain should be required.

Former candidate Ted Vick formally withdrew from the race on May 25 after a DUI arrest the day before. Because electronic voting machines had already been programmed for the primary, Vick still received 2,340 votes in the race.

In a press release issued this morning, Harpootlian asked for the state Election Commission to return Vick’s votes to the total pool, and that a runoff election be scheduled.

“The Democratic Party does not want to disenfranchise any voter in South Carolina and by not counting the votes for Ted Vick, you are not counting the votes for over 2,300 people,” Harpootlian said. “Every vote counts.”

In the SCDP press release, Harpootlian cites Section 7-17-610 of the state’s Code of Law: “If a candidate for a single office is to be selected, and there is more than one person seeking nomination, the majority shall be ascertained by dividing the total vote cast for all candidates by two.”

However, it’s that same code that defends her victory by majority, Bromell-Tinubu says, implying  that Harpootlian is overlooking true definition of the term “candidate.”

In a press release issued by her campaign this afternoon, she implies that same law “clearly states that Ted Vick was not a candidate in the race.

“To argue that the South Carolina Election Commission should count the votes of someone who wasn’t a candidate in the race is ridiculous.”

The Election Commission agrees with Bromell-Tinubu, too, according to Chris Whitmire, Director of Public Information for the commission.  Because Vick had formally withdrawn, he was no longer an actual candidate whose votes could be counted.

The commission “will ask for legal advice from the Attorney General’s office,” Whitmire said, and its board of directors will have a formal meeting this Friday to certify the results of the primary elections.

Preston Brittain, however, is already banking on a decision that will favor his campaign. “I am proud to announce that we are in the runoff election,” he stated today.

In a separate press release, Brittain’s campaign manager John Keig said he would “oppose any effort to disenfranchise voters in the 7th District.”

Brittain received endorsement from over 20 elected Democratic officials in the state. He raised over $455,000 in campaign donations, almost 10 times the amount raised by Bromell-Tinubu, according to FEC records.  

Brittain still fell 4,000 votes below Bromell-Tinubu’s count, however, finishing with 39.4 percent from the four-candidate field.

The Elections Commission will formally certify the primary results on Friday afternoon.

In the Republican primary for this same office, Andre Bauer and Tom Rice were the top two finishers from a slate of nine candidates.  The two will compete in a June 26 runoff. 

Rep. Tim Scott spent this afternoon in a Charleston restaurant to talk with patrons about taxes and energy.

Scott should have taken advantage of the opportunity to speak directly with that restaurant’s employees, however, says his Democratic opponent Bobbie Rose.

“So Scott has decided to be ‘server for a day’ at a local restaurant,” Rose says.   “While it’s a flamboyant way to tout his concerns about ‘federal tax policies’ and ‘energy strategy,’ it’s a more appropriate venue to talk about the issues restaurant workers face daily.”

Rose cites a recent report compiled by Restaurant Centers Opportunities United that points out the struggles that hospitality industry workers face, and not only in income and employee rights, but even gender equality, as well.  

“These issues,” Rose notes, “include:

• $2.13 per hour minimum wage, which has remained unchanged for the past 20 years;
• 71% of servers are female, and they are almost three times more likely to be paid below the poverty line than the general workforce;
• female restaurant workers suffer sexual harassment at more than five times the rate of the general female workforce;
• 7 of the 10 lowest-paid occupations in the U.S. are restaurant jobs.  Most of these occupations are majority female and wages are below the poverty line;
• 90% of restaurant workers surveyed nationwide are not provided paid sick days or health benefits; and
• 66% of restaurant workers reported cooking, preparing and serving food while sick, because they could not afford to take unpaid time off.” 

The U.S. federal minimum wage is currently $7.25 per hour, and has risen over 70 percent in the last 20 years (from $4.25 in 1992). Minimum wage for tipped employees has not risen at all in that same time period, however, and is still set for only $2.13 per hour.

Rose’s concerns for South Carolina women employed in this field are well-founded, too.

In South Carolina, almost 125,000 citizens are employed in food service and preparation occupations, and a large majority (57.3 percent) are female.

Those South Carolina female workers in this industry only earn an average of $10,916, however – more than $2,000 less than the men employed in these same positions.

Today’s campaign event only further indicates that the incumbent congressional representative is only in tune with corporations and not with the public, Rose finds.

“Does Tim Scott really believe that cutting corporate taxes is the first thing that comes to mind when these workers think about improving their futures?” she asks.

“We can do better for our working class!”

Scott holds only a 14-percent approval rating on his year-to-date votes on issues relevant to common American households, according to The Middle Class organization.