This is why you can’t make predictions based on your worldview

Obama’s Waterloo? Yeah right. Exactly the sort of image a “trustworthy” encyclopaedia should be showing.

Poor old Andrew Schlafly; things just aren’t going his way. Firstly, the guy who quite likely scuppered Andy’s own hopes of being HLR president makes it into the White House. Then every attempt by the insane racist bottom half of the rabid right to have Obama declared a Kenyan atheist Muslim Marxist whatnot gets laughed out of court. As a final insult, the Supreme Court decided that letting the poor die wasn’t a good idea and voted (ok, narrowly because idiots turn up everywhere) to allow the dreaded, socialist Obamacare.

It’s been fairly obvious that the conservatives in the US are against it mostly because it that Black Man in the White House’s plan. In fact, they have shown such utter disregard for their constituents that they haven’t even come up with an alternative proposal of their own. For them it was easier to go to court and filibuster than come up with a plan to improve the health care of their fellow citizens. Or at least make it so that their health isn’t dependent of the profitability of their insurance company.

Needless to say, Schlafly wanted wanted the Supreme Court to strike down the Affordable Care Act, upon which he would have become even more insufferable. Now, you have to remember that Schlafly is used to operating in his own insulated echo chamber, where he’s always right. He also believes in absolutes – in this case Obamacare is bad and nasty and socialistic and the SCOTUS will strike it down.

This is where it gets interesting. You see, the pundits, talking heads and experts were mostly saying that the SCOTUS would find in favour of Obamacare. Now Schlafly would have to refute this – after all, the Best of the Public is better than any expert – and so he presented his own insane reasoning as to why the experts were wrong.

Now remember – we’re talking a Harvard educated lawyer here – one who walked out with a summa cum laude J.D. Now I’d like to assume that to earn that, you must have something between your ears; you must have developed some sort of rational though process and analytical skills; you must have some idea of how the legal system works.

So, just how did Schlafly go about his analysis of why the experts were wrong? Did he have a look at the SC justices, decide who was conservative, who was liberal and which ones might cross the floor, so to speak? Did he review the arguments and the merits of the case? Did he talk to lawyers who practice constitutional law? (Trust me, we’ve seen Schlafly debate constitutional issues – he isn’t a constitutional lawyer)


He takes off his shoes, looks at his crazy toes and bases a reason on each of those. (yes, I know there’s only 8 points that follow, but everybody knows pinkie toes are liberal.) Having done this analysis, he trumpets the following on Conservapedia’s main page:

85% of experts predict ObamaCare will be fully upheld Thursday.
Conservapedia predicts ObamaCare’s key part will be declared unconstitutional
Will Conservapedia be proven right, again?

Of course, the clever thing here is that he says “ObamaCare’s key part will be declared unconstitutional,” which mean that should the SCOTUS declare any part of the Act unconstitutional, he can say, “A-ha! Told you so!”

So what are the 8 crazy toes upon which Schlafly based his analysis (with the emphasis on anal)?

  • ObamaCare does violate the limits in the Commerce Clause, and it is difficult to overcome that logic.

Andy’s big on using logic as an argument. In fact, the Bible is the most logical book ever written (which is why you have Moses’ wife chopping off their son’s foreskin in order to prevent God killing Moses), which is his usual go-to clause to end an argument he’s losing… i.e. all of them. It’s just sad that he wouldn’t know logic if it walked up to him and punched him in the nose.

That said, this was the one part that the justices did declare unconstitutional… right before saying that it passed muster as a tax. Either the Harvard lawyer didn’t know this could happen, or he was too lazy – some might say closed minded – to even consider any other possible outcomes.

  • while 85% of experts think ObamaCare will be upheld, probably 90% are unwilling to criticize Obama, so when adjusted for bias it indicates disbelief that ObamaCare will be upheld

This is pure Schlafly statistics… and complete and utter bullshit. In his mind, he can’t possibly see how Obamacare can pass, therefore those who are saying it will must be doing so because they are scared of Obama… who will probably have them sent to a FEMA death camp or something. It’s not a reason – it’s rampant paranoia.

  • So-called experts rarely live up to the expertise provided by the Best of the Public, who tend to think the individual mandate will be overturned.

Yes, here we have the mythical Best of the Public… which in this case means Schlafly and his fellow teabaggers. This bit of lunacy dates back to the days of the Conservative Bible, when Andy said that himself, Terry Hurlbut, Google translate and a swarm of parodists would do a better job of translating the Bible into conservative language, than any number of highly trained scholars.

Needless to say, the BotP (in this case Schlafly) disagrees with the experts, ergo, the experts are wrong. Or not, as it turned out.

  • Barack Obama’s recent rudeness to the Supreme Court may lead some of the more liberal justices, such as Anthony Kennedy, to turn towards logic and truth over politics.

Sure Schlafly, because – just like you – the justices of the highest court in the land allow their decisions to be affected by what people say about them. It’s another great example of Schlafly expecting the world to think exactly like he does.

The irony of this is that it would appear Kennedy made a political vote against, whilst conservative Justice Roberts, who supported Obamacare, took a vote for logic and truth.

  • 95% of those same experts deny that logic/conservatism advances over time for the same reason technology does

Notice how logic equates to conservatism? Here we have more Schlafly statistics – and he hauls out his beloved 95% for us – tied in with his fatuous claim that English and therefore society is becoming twice as conservative every century. This is, of course, based on a totally spurious made-up list of words that Schlafly himself has deemed to be conservative. I’m guessing the reference to technology, is a veiled reference to Schlafly’s own Conservapedia’s law, which states:

Conservapedia’s Law is the observation that conservative insights increase over time at a geometric rate, as in 1-2-4-8-16-etc. Conservapedia’s Law is analogous to Moore’s Law, which holds that the rate of increase in the number of transistors on a chip of a given size roughly doubles every two years.

See what I mean about crazy toes?

  • ObamaCare could have been upheld more easily and quickly than to invalidate it

The only thing I can assign to this is that Schlafly thinks the SCOTUS would have taken less time to approve Obamacare and they would have debated for longer if they were going to strike it down.

Not only was this assumption 100% wrong, but I believe there isn’t much discussion that happens before the vote… according to Justice Scalia, any way.

  • virtually all of the “experts” missed the boat, and continue to miss the boat, on Biblical Scientific Foreknowledge. Wrong about that, why would anyone expect them to be right about anything else?

This one’s probably my favourite.

Another classic Schlafly-ism. This one is so stupid, it’s a wonder he managed to breathe whilst writing it. Along with many other Biblical literalists and young earth creationists, Schlafly believes the Bible gives hints at scientific knowledge that would only be known centuries later. Of course, he has to give it his own special brand of crazy and reduces the alleged miracles of Christ to mere quantum mechanics, thereby single-handily denying Christ’s divinity.

Not only that, but why he would think that a bunch of experts focused on Constitutional law would be even mildly interested in his made-up list, is beyond me. It’s a weird lumping of scientific experts (for whom Schlafly has an almost pathological hatred) with any other type of expert. Once again, it’s an example of Schlafly expecting everybody to think as he does.

  • the liberal White House inappropriately used ObamaCare to interfere with religious liberty, soon after the U.S. Supreme Court upheld by a 9-0 vote strong rights of religious organizations to fire workers for religious reasons

This is obviously a reference to the whole contraception debacle, where a bunch of white men tried to dictate just where and when women could obtain contraception. It really was the American religious right at their worst. And yet Schlafly seems to think that like himself, the Justices of the SCOTUS hold grudges.

Well, thankfully they don’t and the US of A has taken another small step towards treating its citizens like human beings.

Oh yes… and the “Will Conservapedia be proven right again?” bit quietly vanished from the main page shortly after the ruling was made public.

About PsyGremlin

PsyGremlin is a former Conservapedia sysop (although the position was earned nefariously), stand up comedian, DJ, and is currently a self-employed financial adviser, who impersonates a responsible adult at least 5 days a week. However, highlighting and poking fun at the crazies out there remains his first love. Well besides pork crackling. And custard. And cricket.
This entry was posted in Andrew Schlafly, Conservapedia, Obama, Obamacare and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to This is why you can’t make predictions based on your worldview

  1. Steven says:

    “Will Conservapedia be proven right again?”

    Surely for that to be the exact case, it would have had to be right at least once in the past. Which seems highly unlikely considering who’s running the show. Then again to truly determine that I’d have to read every claim Conservapedia makes, and while I have a remarkable tolerance for lunacy… that’s going a bit too far even for me.

    Haven’t really got that much to say about the specifics of this post, since it’s just Schlafly trying and failing to twist reality into a pretzel to justify his pre-determined, apparntly-infallible beliefs and opinons on things.

    Though I will say this: Given I’m not American and the benefits of ACA don’t apply to me, probably the best thing about this ruling has just been sitting back and watching the right-wing of American politics devolve into a fermenting mess of insanity, gibberish, and threats of armed revolution. Though to be fair, that’s not too far off what they’re like normally anyway. Not an issue goes by nowadays that doesn’t make some right-winger say something ludicrous or talk about “exercising my 2nd Amendment rights on this corrupt government.”

  2. Robbert says:

    C’mon Andy, this is just lazy. This isn’t a list of reasons, this is a catch-all summary of all your hobby horses. Must do better.

Comments are closed.