Who's surprised?
Here's the story.
Friday, March 27, 2015
Ted Cruz Update...
Rep. Peter King on the nasty calls Ted Cruz supporters are making to his office.Frankly I can not imagine supporters of Jeb Bush, Scott Walker, Lindsey Graham,John Kasich, Marco Rubio, or other candidates reacting so disgracefully. Clearly, Sen. Cruz has many decent and honorable supporters. At the same time though we must ask why he has such an unusual appeal to this low denominator in American politics.
Paul Krugman: Republicans Are Running A Con Game On America
One of the best thing’s about Paul Krugman is how he regularly skewers Republican talking points. For instance, Republicans have been running around with their hair on fire for years now, insisting that Obamacare would destroy jobs and that raising taxes on the rich would finish the job. But, as Krugman points out:
Well, in the first year of the Affordable Care Act’s full implementation, the U.S. economy as a whole added 3.3 million jobs — the biggest gain since the 1990s. Second, half a million of those jobs were added in California, which has taken the lead in job creation away from Texas.
You’d think that after years of being wrong, and one full year of being breathtakingly wrong, that Republicans would at least begrudgingly admit that maybe Democrats have a point. After all, California’s Governor Jerry Brown raised taxes on the rich. The result? After year’s of massive budget deficits, California has a massive surplus and the world’s eighth largest economy has exploded. Meanwhile, the dreaded Obamacare has dramatically slowed the growth of healthcare premiums, insured millions of people that lacked even basic coverage and even come in under budget. All of which is indisputably good for the economy.
But, you’ll be shocked to learn, Republicans don’t care about these facts. Partly, I’m sure you’ve guessed, in the GOP’s unprecedented hatred of Obama and the fact that he even exists. But most of it is the mile high pile of bullshit that Republicans must sell the country in order to justify their very existence.
But, you’ll be shocked to learn, Republicans don’t care about these facts. Partly, I’m sure you’ve guessed, in the GOP’s unprecedented hatred of Obama and the fact that he even exists. But most of it is the mile high pile of bullshit that Republicans must sell the country in order to justify their very existence.
Wednesday, March 25, 2015
With "Patriots" Like This, Who Needs Islamic Terrorists?
Self-Proclaimed Georgia “Patriot” Tries To Frame Muslims By Planting Koran With Pipe Bombs
67 year old Michael Sibley is facing federal charges for an attempt to damage federal property with an explosive device. In other words, he left a backpack with two incomplete pipe bombs at Vickery Park in Roswell. Apparently Sibley was trying to “educate” people that terrorist strikes can happen anywhere and at any time. One factor never registered as he planned his educational foray? The fact that he could be arrested and charged with the very offense he was trying to raise awareness about:
According to the criminal complaint, Sibley confessed and: “Stated he is a ‘patriot’ and he felt no one was paying attention to what was going on the world. Sibley felt if he placed the package in a Roswell park then people would finally get that this type of activity could happen anywhere.”
Agents say they also found a copy of the Quran in the backpack and other items pointing to what Sibley called “soft targets,” like the location of Atlanta’s Jewish community center. [source]
With the Qur’an included with the incomplete bombs, it appears he was also trying to keep the manufactured fear of everything Muslim from dissipating. There was also a list of so called “soft” targets like hospitals, schools, unguarded locations, and even a Jewish center in Atlanta. Who needs terrorists to complete an attack on United States soil when we have plenty of home grown terrorists citizens willing to do it? All under the guise of raising awareness of attacks occurring anywhere.
According to the criminal complaint, Sibley confessed and: “Stated he is a ‘patriot’ and he felt no one was paying attention to what was going on the world. Sibley felt if he placed the package in a Roswell park then people would finally get that this type of activity could happen anywhere.”
Agents say they also found a copy of the Quran in the backpack and other items pointing to what Sibley called “soft targets,” like the location of Atlanta’s Jewish community center. [source]
With the Qur’an included with the incomplete bombs, it appears he was also trying to keep the manufactured fear of everything Muslim from dissipating. There was also a list of so called “soft” targets like hospitals, schools, unguarded locations, and even a Jewish center in Atlanta. Who needs terrorists to complete an attack on United States soil when we have plenty of home grown terrorists citizens willing to do it? All under the guise of raising awareness of attacks occurring anywhere.
Tuesday, March 24, 2015
This Guy's A Freekin' Train Wreck
Ted Cruz Is So Proud Of His Role In America’s Near-Default, He’s Touting It On Campaign Site
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), who launched his presidential campaign on Monday, was one of the key architects of the Republican opposition to raising the country’s debt ceiling. He’s now touting that effort as part of his jobs plan.
Under the “Jobs & Opportunity” section of his website, which says that “Ted Cruz has led the way to bring back jobs, growth, and opportunity to America,” one bullet relates to his key role in getting Republicans to refuse to raise the debt ceiling, which has been routinely raised for decades to allow the government to borrow more money so that it can meet all of its obligations. It says he “[s]et an early, high standard for meaningful Republican opposition to increasing the debt ceiling,” including his opposition to a simple majority vote to lift it in 2013 and refusal to let an increase be part of a budget deal.
Cruz and Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) originally teamed up to get 14 other senators tosign on to a letter demanding that Obamacare be defunded in return for raising the debt ceiling and keeping the government open. That strategy led tothe eventual government shutdown at the end of 2013 and a near default on U.S. federal debt that was only avoided with the passage of an eleventh hour deal.
Cruz may want to claim this moment as part of his economic plan, but economists agree that this strategy hurt, not helped, the economy. A report from the Peterson Institute on International Economics found that the threat of default on American debt and other ways that Congress has governed crisis to crisis meant the loss of 750,000 jobs and sliced 1 percent off of GDP economic growth. The shutdown itself cost the economy an estimated $24 billion and 120,000 jobs in just two weeks. Another report found that uncertainty created by Congress’s manufactured crises over short-term spending bills, the fiscal cliff, and debt ceiling battles had already cost 900,000 jobs before the government shutdown.
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), who launched his presidential campaign on Monday, was one of the key architects of the Republican opposition to raising the country’s debt ceiling. He’s now touting that effort as part of his jobs plan.
Under the “Jobs & Opportunity” section of his website, which says that “Ted Cruz has led the way to bring back jobs, growth, and opportunity to America,” one bullet relates to his key role in getting Republicans to refuse to raise the debt ceiling, which has been routinely raised for decades to allow the government to borrow more money so that it can meet all of its obligations. It says he “[s]et an early, high standard for meaningful Republican opposition to increasing the debt ceiling,” including his opposition to a simple majority vote to lift it in 2013 and refusal to let an increase be part of a budget deal.
Cruz and Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) originally teamed up to get 14 other senators tosign on to a letter demanding that Obamacare be defunded in return for raising the debt ceiling and keeping the government open. That strategy led tothe eventual government shutdown at the end of 2013 and a near default on U.S. federal debt that was only avoided with the passage of an eleventh hour deal.
Cruz may want to claim this moment as part of his economic plan, but economists agree that this strategy hurt, not helped, the economy. A report from the Peterson Institute on International Economics found that the threat of default on American debt and other ways that Congress has governed crisis to crisis meant the loss of 750,000 jobs and sliced 1 percent off of GDP economic growth. The shutdown itself cost the economy an estimated $24 billion and 120,000 jobs in just two weeks. Another report found that uncertainty created by Congress’s manufactured crises over short-term spending bills, the fiscal cliff, and debt ceiling battles had already cost 900,000 jobs before the government shutdown.
Monday, March 23, 2015
Sunday, March 22, 2015
The Big Switch
Republicans like to say that Democrats are the real racists because Democrats begat the KKK, and, well, Lincoln was a Republican. All true, but things changed. As Eliner Tryon Elgin noted on the interwebs today:
Yes in 1864 the KKK was founded by former Confederate Soldiers who were Southern Democrats. Southern Democrats in the late 19th C and early 20th C were social Conservatives, highly religious and very prejudice against blacks. As, in their minds these people had been slaves and were in their minds only 3/4 persons; and thus they could not conceive that the Black race as equal to them. During the 20th Century these Southern Democrats took on the mantel of DixieCrat to distinguish themselves from the Northern Pro-Labor Democrats. It was also during the 20th C that Republicans also had Pro-Business advocates vs Progressive Social Liberals who advocated for equality for all people.
Up until the 1960s this was what the parties looked like and allowed a great deal of compromise between the Progressive Republicans and Pro-Labor Democrats with the Pro-Business Republicans, with a few concessions to the social conservative DixieCrats. Thus we have "In God we Trust" on our money and "One Nation under God" in the pledge. These were concessions to the religious right.
With the Civil Rights movement under Pres. Johnson there was a great deal of grumblings in the South and Pres. Johnson rightly predicted that the Democratic Party would lose the Southern vote. During the Nixon vs. Humphrey Presidential Campaign, one of the strategies was to capitalize on the disaffected Southern voters. It was called the Southern Strategy to gain the White Southern votes. It contributed to the electoral realignment of some Southern states to the Republican Party, but at the expense of losing more than 90 percent of black voters to the Democratic Party.
Today, the majority of White Southerners are Republican, many members of the KKK are Republicans, TeaPartiers (formerly known as DixieCrats) vote Republican, Social Conservatives vote Republican.
Democrats do not deny the history. History is history. But with the Civil Rights movement the Democrats showed the racists the door and the Republicans open their door to the racists. What was true for the Democrats in the 40s and 50s is now true for the Republicans. Not all Republicans are racists, but all racists vote Republican.
Yes in 1864 the KKK was founded by former Confederate Soldiers who were Southern Democrats. Southern Democrats in the late 19th C and early 20th C were social Conservatives, highly religious and very prejudice against blacks. As, in their minds these people had been slaves and were in their minds only 3/4 persons; and thus they could not conceive that the Black race as equal to them. During the 20th Century these Southern Democrats took on the mantel of DixieCrat to distinguish themselves from the Northern Pro-Labor Democrats. It was also during the 20th C that Republicans also had Pro-Business advocates vs Progressive Social Liberals who advocated for equality for all people.
Up until the 1960s this was what the parties looked like and allowed a great deal of compromise between the Progressive Republicans and Pro-Labor Democrats with the Pro-Business Republicans, with a few concessions to the social conservative DixieCrats. Thus we have "In God we Trust" on our money and "One Nation under God" in the pledge. These were concessions to the religious right.
With the Civil Rights movement under Pres. Johnson there was a great deal of grumblings in the South and Pres. Johnson rightly predicted that the Democratic Party would lose the Southern vote. During the Nixon vs. Humphrey Presidential Campaign, one of the strategies was to capitalize on the disaffected Southern voters. It was called the Southern Strategy to gain the White Southern votes. It contributed to the electoral realignment of some Southern states to the Republican Party, but at the expense of losing more than 90 percent of black voters to the Democratic Party.
Today, the majority of White Southerners are Republican, many members of the KKK are Republicans, TeaPartiers (formerly known as DixieCrats) vote Republican, Social Conservatives vote Republican.
Democrats do not deny the history. History is history. But with the Civil Rights movement the Democrats showed the racists the door and the Republicans open their door to the racists. What was true for the Democrats in the 40s and 50s is now true for the Republicans. Not all Republicans are racists, but all racists vote Republican.
Look here.
Saturday, March 21, 2015
MISSOURI GOP FINALLY APPROVES OF HEALTH CARE SUBSIDIES – FOR COWS
Screw having healthy citizens. Yay having contented cows! Read it here.
Friday, March 20, 2015
Paul Ryan: 'Oh God, no,' states shouldn't take action to preserve health insurance
If the Supreme Court strikes down subsidies to states using the federal health insurance exchanges, Rep. Paul Ryan was asked, should they set up their own exchanges to prevent people from losing their insurance?
"Oh God, no…The last thing anybody in my opinion would want to do, even if you are not a conservative, is consign your state to this law," the Wisconsin Republican told state legislators Thursday during a conference call organized by the Foundation for Government Accountability, a conservative think-tank. The foundation provided a recording of the call. […]
Mr. Ryan, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee and the GOP vice presidential nominee in 2012, asked the state legislators to hold firm and promised them congressional Republicans would have alternative health-care legislation—with an official cost estimate—introduced by June 20. The bill, he said, would revive lower-cost, limited coverage insurance plans in states that didn't want their own exchanges. Currently, 37 states use HealthCare.gov.
"If people blink and if people say this political pressure is too great, I'm just going to sign up for a state-based exchange and put my constituents in Obamacare, then this opportunity will slip through your fingers," he said.
And if you really believe congressional Republicans are going to have a bill by June 20—and that they could actually pass that bill? Well, he's got a bridge he'd like to sell you, too. Ryan told the legislators that he had talked to the plaintiffs' lawyer in the case—Michael Carvin—who told him he was convinced that the court would strike down the subsidies and that "Justice Samuel Alito, in particular, was likely to ensure any decision voiding the credits would have a delayed effect," giving Republicans time to produce a unicorn replacement plan.
By the way, what Republicans in Congress are most enthusiastic about, Ryan told the group, is "allowing states to strip some of the health law’s requirements that insurance plans must provide certain minimum benefits and a requirement that insurers sell to all customers equally regardless of their medical history." In other words, returning to the pre-Obamacare status quo. Helluva plan you got there, Mr. Ryan.
Wednesday, March 18, 2015
Bibi’s Ugly Win Will Harm Israel
Beset by European boycotts, rebuked by international tribunals, estranged from the president of the United States—it’s not a pretty picture of the fate of America’s closest ally in the region.
But that might be the fallout from the most bruising and consequential Israeli election in many years.
But that might be the fallout from the most bruising and consequential Israeli election in many years.
More.
Tuesday, March 17, 2015
House Republican Budget Whacks Food Stamps And Medicaid
The GOP budget eliminates health care for 16 million Americans, cuts food stamps by almost 20%, and turns Medicaid into a block grant program.
But don't worry - There are plenty of increases in defense spending, and lots of tax cuts for rich people.
But don't worry - There are plenty of increases in defense spending, and lots of tax cuts for rich people.
Monday, March 16, 2015
Ted Cruz Makes Impassioned Plea For Repeal Of Federal Legislation That Does Not Exist
Hee Hee Hee....! See, Common Core is not a federal law. So you don't repeal it. If you don't want national standards to compete with the rest of the world, you just don't implement this states-run initiative. Apparently Mr. Cruz is planning to win a Presidential primary run against CC proponent Jeb Bush by befuddling the already-confused out there.
Sunday, March 15, 2015
Comparing Republican “Christian Values” To Islamic Fundamentalism
It’s always amusing to me when I hear right-wing Christians speaking out so angrily against Islam. When you separate Islamic radicals (aka terrorists), and just focus on the two religions themselves, they’re not all that different. In fact, on many issues they wholeheartedly agree. Again, I’m not talking about groups like ISIS or any other terrorist organization, I’m focusing on basic, non-militant Islamic fundamentalists who believe in Sharia law and that religion should rule over government, such as those in Saudi Arabia.
Read more at: http://www.forwardprogressives.com/comparing-republican-christian-values-to-islamic-fundamentalism/
Read more at: http://www.forwardprogressives.com/comparing-republican-christian-values-to-islamic-fundamentalism/
European Leaders: GOP Letter Helped Iran in Nuclear Negotiations
Apparently, the GOP, with their open letter to Iran, has provided us a primer on how to commit modern-day treason. The potential negative effects of this idiotic letter have not gone unnoticed by our European allies. As written in Informed Comment:
An open letter to Iranian leaders from 47 Republican senators has provoked sharp rebuke from European countries that are party to the nuclear talks.
Germany’s foreign minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier blasted the U.S. GOP senators on Thursday, telling journalists, “This is not just an issue of American domestic politics, but it affects the negotiations we are holding in Geneva.”
“Obviously mistrust is growing,” he added.
In addition, the Associated Press reported Thursday that unnamed diplomatic officials in France and London made similar criticisms of the open letter. “In Paris, a senior French diplomat said the letter made it hard on the American negotiators, who have been leading the talks with Iran on behalf of the rest of the group,” wrote journalist Matthew Lee.
An open letter to Iranian leaders from 47 Republican senators has provoked sharp rebuke from European countries that are party to the nuclear talks.
Germany’s foreign minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier blasted the U.S. GOP senators on Thursday, telling journalists, “This is not just an issue of American domestic politics, but it affects the negotiations we are holding in Geneva.”
“Obviously mistrust is growing,” he added.
In addition, the Associated Press reported Thursday that unnamed diplomatic officials in France and London made similar criticisms of the open letter. “In Paris, a senior French diplomat said the letter made it hard on the American negotiators, who have been leading the talks with Iran on behalf of the rest of the group,” wrote journalist Matthew Lee.
Saturday, March 14, 2015
Hay Poor Peeps, The Right Wing Has Some Rules For You To Follow
The GOP thinks that if you own a car, you shouldn’t be on welfare.
Think this is an exaggeration? Some Republicans are busily trying to make it a law that if you own a car of any description, you will be unable to receive SNAP benefits (that’s food for the poor, if you aren’t familiar with the term) until you sell that car. This plan is Rush Limbaugh-approved, so you know it is empathetic and fair and kind-hearted and rational. (Yeah…no.) So while you are struggling to find work, and being told that you need reliable transportation to be hired (try to find a decently compensated job that does not require employees to have their own transportation), and being scorned for being unemployed, Republicans want to take your personal transportation away (while blocking any public transportation-related programs, mind you) or deny you help with food. Nice people.
Yes, you must sell everything you own that is even remotely nice, you must dress nicely (but not TOO nicely) when you are out in public, and you need to feel like a complete and utter failure before seeking help. Never mind that it is nearly impossible to get by without a mobile phone or reliable transportation these days.
Hey, poor person; hey, you unemployed person: your phone is too nice and isn’t there public transportation you could be using instead? Of course, anyone who has ever had to rely on public transportation realizes that it is unreliable, often late, sometimes fails to arrive at all, is almost always dirty and smelly and unpleasant, and if you need to get to work or home from work using it, then you get to hang out in unsafe places (often in the dark, and rarely covered to protect you from rain or heat or wind) by yourself (enjoy your mugging).
Of course, if you do wind up sitting on a sidewalk with a cup, these same assholes will walk past you like you are invisible or hiss “get a job” at you.
Think this is an exaggeration? Some Republicans are busily trying to make it a law that if you own a car of any description, you will be unable to receive SNAP benefits (that’s food for the poor, if you aren’t familiar with the term) until you sell that car. This plan is Rush Limbaugh-approved, so you know it is empathetic and fair and kind-hearted and rational. (Yeah…no.) So while you are struggling to find work, and being told that you need reliable transportation to be hired (try to find a decently compensated job that does not require employees to have their own transportation), and being scorned for being unemployed, Republicans want to take your personal transportation away (while blocking any public transportation-related programs, mind you) or deny you help with food. Nice people.
Yes, you must sell everything you own that is even remotely nice, you must dress nicely (but not TOO nicely) when you are out in public, and you need to feel like a complete and utter failure before seeking help. Never mind that it is nearly impossible to get by without a mobile phone or reliable transportation these days.
Hey, poor person; hey, you unemployed person: your phone is too nice and isn’t there public transportation you could be using instead? Of course, anyone who has ever had to rely on public transportation realizes that it is unreliable, often late, sometimes fails to arrive at all, is almost always dirty and smelly and unpleasant, and if you need to get to work or home from work using it, then you get to hang out in unsafe places (often in the dark, and rarely covered to protect you from rain or heat or wind) by yourself (enjoy your mugging).
Of course, if you do wind up sitting on a sidewalk with a cup, these same assholes will walk past you like you are invisible or hiss “get a job” at you.
This is an excerpt. Read the whole outrage here.
GOP Senator Jeff Sessions thinks providing healthcare to veterans is an “entitlement” we cannot afford
In general, when you see a car with American flag and bald eagle stickers all over it, there’s also a “Support our Troops” ribbon sticker to go along with them. For some people, nothing says “patriot” like a “Support our Troops” sticker and nobody loves to wrap themselves in that patriotic swag more than Republicans.
But, for some Republicans, that support for our men and women in uniform ends the day they return home and are in need of healthcare services. That faux support was never more clear than yesterday when Alabama Republican Senator Jeff Sessions said we just can’t afford a bill to help out veterans dealing with the tragedy of unnecessarily long waiting periods to get treated at VA hospitals.
More here.
But, for some Republicans, that support for our men and women in uniform ends the day they return home and are in need of healthcare services. That faux support was never more clear than yesterday when Alabama Republican Senator Jeff Sessions said we just can’t afford a bill to help out veterans dealing with the tragedy of unnecessarily long waiting periods to get treated at VA hospitals.
More here.
GOP Sen. Ron Johnson: It costs too much to fund the VA
The war on terror started on September 11, 2001. Congressional leadership has had almost 13 years to build up the VA with enough staff and facilities to care for the wounded from two wars. After news broke that the VA was failing our veterans, the Senate finally began to act. A bill was brought to the Senate floor that would allow the VA to contract with private medical facilities, enabling veterans facing long waits to get quicker treatment. The VA would also be able to use $500 million from its current budget to hire more medical staff. While I do not agree with allowing veterans to go to private medical facilities, this bill was a good start. The organization clearly needs more doctors, more nurses, more staff, more facilities. Only three senators voted against this bill. Of those three, one of them is my senator, Ron Johnson (R-WI).
Sen. Johnson said that he couldn’t support the bill because of its cost—$35 billion the first two years and $50 billion per year after that, according to a preliminary estimate by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.
This is the same Sen. Johnson who said in a recent MSNBC interview that the current crisis in Iraq was caused because President Obama was not forceful enough about keeping troops in the country when the war ended. I am sure he would have found the money for that. I wonder if Senator Johnson would whine about the costs of the VA if just one of his three children had spent a year or more in some godforsaken hellhole like Afghanistan or Iraq.
Sen. Johnson married into money and has never worked a day in his life. The only constituents he cares about are the ones who agree with him. He does not and can not understand what our veterans are going through. Veterans need the specialized care the VA provides. The average family practitioner is just not able to deal with a double amputee with PTSD because it's just not something he or she was trained to do. Of course Sen. Johnson just wants to privatize veteran's care and make it a for-profit industry. To him, it isn't about caring for veterans—it's about making a buck for his wealthy donors.
Sen. Johnson said that he couldn’t support the bill because of its cost—$35 billion the first two years and $50 billion per year after that, according to a preliminary estimate by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.
This is the same Sen. Johnson who said in a recent MSNBC interview that the current crisis in Iraq was caused because President Obama was not forceful enough about keeping troops in the country when the war ended. I am sure he would have found the money for that. I wonder if Senator Johnson would whine about the costs of the VA if just one of his three children had spent a year or more in some godforsaken hellhole like Afghanistan or Iraq.
Sen. Johnson married into money and has never worked a day in his life. The only constituents he cares about are the ones who agree with him. He does not and can not understand what our veterans are going through. Veterans need the specialized care the VA provides. The average family practitioner is just not able to deal with a double amputee with PTSD because it's just not something he or she was trained to do. Of course Sen. Johnson just wants to privatize veteran's care and make it a for-profit industry. To him, it isn't about caring for veterans—it's about making a buck for his wealthy donors.
Read more here.
The George W. Bush email scandal the media has conveniently forgotten
Even for a Republican White House that was badly stumbling through George W. Bush’s sixth year in office, the revelation on April 12, 2007 was shocking. Responding to congressional demands for emails in connection with its investigation into the partisan firing of eight U.S. attorneys, the White House announced that as many as five million emails, covering a two-year span, had been lost.
The White House email story broke on a Wednesday. Yet on that Sunday’s Meet The Press, Face The Nation, and Fox News Sunday, the topic of millions of missing White House emails did not come up. At all. (The story did get covered on ABC’s This Week.)
By comparison, not only did every network Sunday news show this week cover the story about former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton emails, but they were drowning in commentary. Between Meet the Press, Face The Nation, This Week, and Fox News Sunday, Clinton’s “email” or “emails” were referenced more than 100 times on the programs, according to Nexis transcripts. Talk about saturation coverage.
Indeed, the commentary for the last week truly has been relentless, with the Beltway press barely pausing to catch its breath before unloading yet another round of “analysis,” most of which provides little insight but does allow journalists to vent about the Clintons.
Read about it in Salon, here.
The "lost" Bush Adminny emails probably broke the law. There was no law violated by Hillary Clinton in the handling of her emails. The law Hillary Haters™ claim she violated did not exist until after she left her State Department post. No, we gots us a double standard. What a surprise!
The White House email story broke on a Wednesday. Yet on that Sunday’s Meet The Press, Face The Nation, and Fox News Sunday, the topic of millions of missing White House emails did not come up. At all. (The story did get covered on ABC’s This Week.)
By comparison, not only did every network Sunday news show this week cover the story about former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton emails, but they were drowning in commentary. Between Meet the Press, Face The Nation, This Week, and Fox News Sunday, Clinton’s “email” or “emails” were referenced more than 100 times on the programs, according to Nexis transcripts. Talk about saturation coverage.
Indeed, the commentary for the last week truly has been relentless, with the Beltway press barely pausing to catch its breath before unloading yet another round of “analysis,” most of which provides little insight but does allow journalists to vent about the Clintons.
Read about it in Salon, here.
The "lost" Bush Adminny emails probably broke the law. There was no law violated by Hillary Clinton in the handling of her emails. The law Hillary Haters™ claim she violated did not exist until after she left her State Department post. No, we gots us a double standard. What a surprise!
Fox "news" Expert Calls For WWIII
With friends like Fox, who needs enemies?
Typically, the misinformation jetstream that is Fox News and its television and radio offshoots is a problem confined solely to the United States; however, recently, the conservative network’s hysterics have reached such a fever pitch that it’s actually affecting international relations. Fresh off a pending lawsuit filed by the city of Paris for its complete and total fabrication of “no-go” zones where Muslims have taken over neighborhoods, Fox once again allowed one of their “experts” say something so monumentally idiotic that the international community has responded.
Given the rise in Russian aggression towards its neighbor (and United States ally) Ukraine, coupled with Obama’s no nonsense approach to dealing with an over-blustering Vladimir Putin, it’s safe to say that United States-Russian relations haven’t been this tense in several decades. Stepping into this delicate balance is Fox’s resident “military analyst,” former U.S. Army Major General Robert Scales, who decided what would help ease tensions would be to go on television and suggest America start killing Russians.
“The only way the United States can have any effect in this region and turn the tide is to start killing Russians… killing so many Russians that even Putin’s media can’t hide the fact that Russians are returning to the motherland in body bags.”
There are a few other names for a policy of “killing so many Russians”: War. War with Russia. Or as future history books would call it “World War III.” Whatever your feelings are regarding Russia’s involvement in the Ukrainian separatist movement, sending American troops in to start killing people is probably not an attractive option.
It makes even less sense when you consider Republicans, and their cheerleaders on Fox, have their eye on a war with Iran. It’s unclear whether Scales thinks we should be killing so many Iranians along with the Russians we’re killing, but given what his neocon friends have been saying recently the answer is “probably.”
Typically, the misinformation jetstream that is Fox News and its television and radio offshoots is a problem confined solely to the United States; however, recently, the conservative network’s hysterics have reached such a fever pitch that it’s actually affecting international relations. Fresh off a pending lawsuit filed by the city of Paris for its complete and total fabrication of “no-go” zones where Muslims have taken over neighborhoods, Fox once again allowed one of their “experts” say something so monumentally idiotic that the international community has responded.
Given the rise in Russian aggression towards its neighbor (and United States ally) Ukraine, coupled with Obama’s no nonsense approach to dealing with an over-blustering Vladimir Putin, it’s safe to say that United States-Russian relations haven’t been this tense in several decades. Stepping into this delicate balance is Fox’s resident “military analyst,” former U.S. Army Major General Robert Scales, who decided what would help ease tensions would be to go on television and suggest America start killing Russians.
“The only way the United States can have any effect in this region and turn the tide is to start killing Russians… killing so many Russians that even Putin’s media can’t hide the fact that Russians are returning to the motherland in body bags.”
There are a few other names for a policy of “killing so many Russians”: War. War with Russia. Or as future history books would call it “World War III.” Whatever your feelings are regarding Russia’s involvement in the Ukrainian separatist movement, sending American troops in to start killing people is probably not an attractive option.
It makes even less sense when you consider Republicans, and their cheerleaders on Fox, have their eye on a war with Iran. It’s unclear whether Scales thinks we should be killing so many Iranians along with the Russians we’re killing, but given what his neocon friends have been saying recently the answer is “probably.”
More on Fox's WWIII hysteria on Addicting Info here.
Wednesday, March 11, 2015
GOP Letter to Iran: Breathtaking Attempt to Sabotage U.S. Foreign Policy, Stampede U.S. Into War
Their action is a brazen, breathtaking attempt to sabotage U.S. foreign policy and stampede America into another war in the Middle East.A group of 47 Republican senators has written an open letter to Iran's leaders warning them that any nuclear deal they sign with President Barack Obama's administration won't last after Obama leaves office.
While U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry is trying to negotiate the most critical elements of a deal to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons and avoid war, the Republicans are actively trying to undermine his efforts to get a deal.
Can you imagine the reaction if members of Congress had sent a similar letter to the Soviets urging them not to sign an arms control agreement because the United States would not keep our end of the bargain?
If the Iranians are unwilling to sign a verifiable agreement with the international community to limit the application of their nuclear know-how to peaceful purposes, the U.S. will be left with two horrible options: a nuclear Iran or war.
More at HuffPo
The Absurdity of Asking Whether Hillary Clinton Can 'Satisfy Her Critics'
If you watched or read the coverage of Hillary Clinton's press conference yesterday, there's a phrase you heard, in one variation or another, over and over. "Clinton's email explanation won't placate critics," said the AP. "Her defense...is unlikely to satisfy her critics or stop the questions," said the Washington Post. Democrats, said the National Journal, "worry her approach does little to quiet the critics."
Oh, please. Short of committing seppuku right there in front of the cameras, there wasn't anything Clinton could have done to placate, satisfy, quiet, mollify, or otherwise ease the minds of her critics. Let's not pretend we don't all know exactly how this game is played.
Whether it's because they honestly believe that she is guilty of horrible crimes that we might find if only we looked hard enough, or because they just know that keeping up a relentless stream of faux-outrage bleating is good strategy, Republicans will, for each and every day Hillary Clinton remains in public life, not be quieted. That's politics, and that's fine. But it's positively inane to ask "Can Clinton satisfy her critics?" It's as though in the Super Bowl pregame show, one sportscaster turned to another and said, "Jim, what can the Patriots do to satisfy the Seahawks' concerns?" That's not what they're there for. They're trying to win.
The American Prospect
Oh, please. Short of committing seppuku right there in front of the cameras, there wasn't anything Clinton could have done to placate, satisfy, quiet, mollify, or otherwise ease the minds of her critics. Let's not pretend we don't all know exactly how this game is played.
Whether it's because they honestly believe that she is guilty of horrible crimes that we might find if only we looked hard enough, or because they just know that keeping up a relentless stream of faux-outrage bleating is good strategy, Republicans will, for each and every day Hillary Clinton remains in public life, not be quieted. That's politics, and that's fine. But it's positively inane to ask "Can Clinton satisfy her critics?" It's as though in the Super Bowl pregame show, one sportscaster turned to another and said, "Jim, what can the Patriots do to satisfy the Seahawks' concerns?" That's not what they're there for. They're trying to win.
The American Prospect
Tuesday, March 10, 2015
Why I Call It Treason
In the 1936 Supreme Court case, United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp, the Court held that “all ability to conduct foreign policy is vested in the President. It is given implicitly and by the fact that the executive, by its very nature, is empowered to conduct foreign affairs in a way that Congress cannot and should not"
Monday, March 9, 2015
Republican "Open Letter" To Iran, and Iran's Response
Here's the text of a letter to Iran from some Republicans in Congress:
An Open Letter to the Leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran:
It has come to our attention while observing your nuclear negotiations with our government that you may not fully understand our constitutional system. Thus, we are writing to bring to your attention two features of our Constitution — the power to make binding international agreements and the different character of federal offices — which you should seriously consider as negotiations progress.
First, under our Constitution, while the president negotiates international agreements, Congress plays the significant role of ratifying them. In the case of a treaty, the Senate must ratify it by a two-thirds vote. A so-called congressional-executive agreement requires a majority vote in both the House and the Senate (which, because of procedural rules, effectively means a three-fifths vote in the Senate). Anything not approved by Congress is a mere executive agreement.
Second, the offices of our Constitution have different characteristics.
For example, the president may serve only two 4-year terms, whereas senators may serve an unlimited number of 6-year terms. As applied today, for instance, President Obama will leave office in January 2017, while most of us will remain in office well beyond then — perhaps decades.
What these two constitutional provisions mean is that we will consider any agreement regarding your nuclear-weapons program that is not approved by the Congress as nothing more than an executive agreement between President Obama and Ayatollah Khamenei. The next president could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen and future Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time.
We hope this letter enriches your knowledge of our constitutional system and promotes mutual understanding and clarity as nuclear negotiations progress.
Sincerely,
Senator Tom Cotton, R-AR
Senator Orrin Hatch, R-UT
Senator Charles Grassley, R-IA
Senator Mitch McConnell, R-KY
Senator Richard Shelby, R-AL
Senator John McCain, R-AZ
Senator James Inhofe, R-OK
Senator Pat Roberts, R-KS
Senator Jeff Sessions, R-AL
Senator Michael Enzi, R-WY
Senator Michael Crapo, R-ID
Senator Lindsey Graham, R-SC
Senator John Cornyn, R-TX
Senator Richard Burr, R-NC
Senator John Thune, R-SD
Senator Johnny Isakson, R-GA
Senator David Vitter, R-LA
Senator John A. Barrasso, R-WY
Senator Roger Wicker, R-MS
Senator Jim Risch, R-ID
Senator Mark Kirk, R-IL
Senator Roy Blunt, R-MO
Senator Jerry Moran, R-KS
Senator Rob Portman, R-OH
Senator John Boozman, R-AR
Senator Pat Toomey, R-PA
Senator John Hoeven, R-ND
Senator Marco Rubio, R-FL
Senator Ron Johnson, R-WI
Senator Rand Paul, R-KY
Senator Mike Lee, R-UT
Senator Kelly Ayotte, R-NH
Senator Dean Heller, R-NV
Senator Tim Scott, R-SC
Senator Ted Cruz, R-TX
Senator Deb Fischer, R-NE
Senator Shelley Moore Capito, R-WV
Senator Bill Cassidy, R-LA
Senator Cory Gardner, R-CO
Senator James Lankford, R-OK
Senator Steve Daines, R-MT
Senator Mike Rounds, R-SD
Senator David Perdue, R-GA
Senator Thom Tillis, R-NC
Senator Joni Ernst, R-IA
Senator Ben Sasse, R-NE
Senator Dan Sullivan, R-AK
On March 9, Iran’s U.N. mission circulated the following press release detailing Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif’s reaction to the GOP letter on a nuclear deal.
Asked about the open letter of 47 US Senators to Iranian leaders, the Iranian Foreign Minister, Dr. Javad Zarif, responded that “in our view, this letter has no legal value and is mostly a propaganda ploy. It is very interesting that while negotiations are still in progress and while no agreement has been reached, some political pressure groups are so afraid even of the prospect of an agreement that they resort to unconventional methods, unprecedented in diplomatic history. This indicates that like Netanyahu, who considers peace as an existential threat, some are opposed to any agreement, regardless of its content.”
Zarif expressed astonishment that some members of US Congress find it appropriate to write to leaders of another country against their own President and administration. He pointed out that from reading the open letter, it seems that the authors not only do not understand international law, but are not fully cognizant of the nuances of their own Constitution when it comes to presidential powers in the conduct of foreign policy.
Foreign Minister Zarif added that “I should bring one important point to the attention of the authors and that is, the world is not the United States, and the conduct of inter-state relations is governed by international law, and not by US domestic law. The authors may not fully understand that in international law, governments represent the entirety of their respective states, are responsible for the conduct of foreign affairs, are required to fulfil the obligations they undertake with other states and may not invoke their internal law as justification for failure to perform their international obligations.”
The Iranian Foreign Minister added that “change of administration does not in any way relieve the next administration from international obligations undertaken by its predecessor in a possible agreement about Iran’s peaceful nuclear program.” He continued “I wish to enlighten the authors that if the next administration revokes any agreement with ‘the stroke of a pen,’ as they boast, it will have simply committed a blatant violation of international law.” He emphasized that if the current negotiation with P5+1 [Britain, China, France, Germany Russia and the United States] result in a Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, it will not be a bilateral agreement between Iran and the US, but rather one that will be concluded with the participation of five other countries, including all permanent members of the Security Council, and will also be endorsed by a Security Council resolution.
Zarif expressed the hope that his comments “may enrich the knowledge of the authors to recognize that according to international law, Congress may not ‘modify the terms of the agreement at any time’ as they claim, and if Congressadopts any measure to impede its implementation, it will have committed a material breach of US obligations.”
The Foreign Minister also informed the authors that majority of US international agreements in recent decades are in fact what the signatories describe as “mere executive agreements” and not treaties ratified by the Senate. He reminded them that “their letter in fact undermines the credibility of thousands of such ‘mere executive agreements’ that have been or will be entered into by the US with various other governments.”
Zarif concluded by stating that “the Islamic Republic of Iran has entered these negotiations in good faith and with the political will to reach an agreement, and it is imperative for our counterparts to prove similar good faith and political will in order to make an agreement possible.”
Mission of the Islamic Republic of Iran to UN - New York
An Open Letter to the Leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran:
It has come to our attention while observing your nuclear negotiations with our government that you may not fully understand our constitutional system. Thus, we are writing to bring to your attention two features of our Constitution — the power to make binding international agreements and the different character of federal offices — which you should seriously consider as negotiations progress.
First, under our Constitution, while the president negotiates international agreements, Congress plays the significant role of ratifying them. In the case of a treaty, the Senate must ratify it by a two-thirds vote. A so-called congressional-executive agreement requires a majority vote in both the House and the Senate (which, because of procedural rules, effectively means a three-fifths vote in the Senate). Anything not approved by Congress is a mere executive agreement.
Second, the offices of our Constitution have different characteristics.
For example, the president may serve only two 4-year terms, whereas senators may serve an unlimited number of 6-year terms. As applied today, for instance, President Obama will leave office in January 2017, while most of us will remain in office well beyond then — perhaps decades.
What these two constitutional provisions mean is that we will consider any agreement regarding your nuclear-weapons program that is not approved by the Congress as nothing more than an executive agreement between President Obama and Ayatollah Khamenei. The next president could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen and future Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time.
We hope this letter enriches your knowledge of our constitutional system and promotes mutual understanding and clarity as nuclear negotiations progress.
Sincerely,
Senator Tom Cotton, R-AR
Senator Orrin Hatch, R-UT
Senator Charles Grassley, R-IA
Senator Mitch McConnell, R-KY
Senator Richard Shelby, R-AL
Senator John McCain, R-AZ
Senator James Inhofe, R-OK
Senator Pat Roberts, R-KS
Senator Jeff Sessions, R-AL
Senator Michael Enzi, R-WY
Senator Michael Crapo, R-ID
Senator Lindsey Graham, R-SC
Senator John Cornyn, R-TX
Senator Richard Burr, R-NC
Senator John Thune, R-SD
Senator Johnny Isakson, R-GA
Senator David Vitter, R-LA
Senator John A. Barrasso, R-WY
Senator Roger Wicker, R-MS
Senator Jim Risch, R-ID
Senator Mark Kirk, R-IL
Senator Roy Blunt, R-MO
Senator Jerry Moran, R-KS
Senator Rob Portman, R-OH
Senator John Boozman, R-AR
Senator Pat Toomey, R-PA
Senator John Hoeven, R-ND
Senator Marco Rubio, R-FL
Senator Ron Johnson, R-WI
Senator Rand Paul, R-KY
Senator Mike Lee, R-UT
Senator Kelly Ayotte, R-NH
Senator Dean Heller, R-NV
Senator Tim Scott, R-SC
Senator Ted Cruz, R-TX
Senator Deb Fischer, R-NE
Senator Shelley Moore Capito, R-WV
Senator Bill Cassidy, R-LA
Senator Cory Gardner, R-CO
Senator James Lankford, R-OK
Senator Steve Daines, R-MT
Senator Mike Rounds, R-SD
Senator David Perdue, R-GA
Senator Thom Tillis, R-NC
Senator Joni Ernst, R-IA
Senator Ben Sasse, R-NE
Senator Dan Sullivan, R-AK
****
On March 9, Iran’s U.N. mission circulated the following press release detailing Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif’s reaction to the GOP letter on a nuclear deal.
Asked about the open letter of 47 US Senators to Iranian leaders, the Iranian Foreign Minister, Dr. Javad Zarif, responded that “in our view, this letter has no legal value and is mostly a propaganda ploy. It is very interesting that while negotiations are still in progress and while no agreement has been reached, some political pressure groups are so afraid even of the prospect of an agreement that they resort to unconventional methods, unprecedented in diplomatic history. This indicates that like Netanyahu, who considers peace as an existential threat, some are opposed to any agreement, regardless of its content.”
Zarif expressed astonishment that some members of US Congress find it appropriate to write to leaders of another country against their own President and administration. He pointed out that from reading the open letter, it seems that the authors not only do not understand international law, but are not fully cognizant of the nuances of their own Constitution when it comes to presidential powers in the conduct of foreign policy.
Foreign Minister Zarif added that “I should bring one important point to the attention of the authors and that is, the world is not the United States, and the conduct of inter-state relations is governed by international law, and not by US domestic law. The authors may not fully understand that in international law, governments represent the entirety of their respective states, are responsible for the conduct of foreign affairs, are required to fulfil the obligations they undertake with other states and may not invoke their internal law as justification for failure to perform their international obligations.”
The Iranian Foreign Minister added that “change of administration does not in any way relieve the next administration from international obligations undertaken by its predecessor in a possible agreement about Iran’s peaceful nuclear program.” He continued “I wish to enlighten the authors that if the next administration revokes any agreement with ‘the stroke of a pen,’ as they boast, it will have simply committed a blatant violation of international law.” He emphasized that if the current negotiation with P5+1 [Britain, China, France, Germany Russia and the United States] result in a Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, it will not be a bilateral agreement between Iran and the US, but rather one that will be concluded with the participation of five other countries, including all permanent members of the Security Council, and will also be endorsed by a Security Council resolution.
Zarif expressed the hope that his comments “may enrich the knowledge of the authors to recognize that according to international law, Congress may not ‘modify the terms of the agreement at any time’ as they claim, and if Congressadopts any measure to impede its implementation, it will have committed a material breach of US obligations.”
The Foreign Minister also informed the authors that majority of US international agreements in recent decades are in fact what the signatories describe as “mere executive agreements” and not treaties ratified by the Senate. He reminded them that “their letter in fact undermines the credibility of thousands of such ‘mere executive agreements’ that have been or will be entered into by the US with various other governments.”
Zarif concluded by stating that “the Islamic Republic of Iran has entered these negotiations in good faith and with the political will to reach an agreement, and it is imperative for our counterparts to prove similar good faith and political will in order to make an agreement possible.”
Mission of the Islamic Republic of Iran to UN - New York
Friday, March 6, 2015
The Real Numbers On 'The Obamacare Effect' Are In-Now Let The Crow Eating Begin
The negative stuff that O'BamaCares haters predicted just ain't happening.
Read it and rejoice here.
Read it and rejoice here.
Monday, March 2, 2015
Sunday, March 1, 2015
Right Wing Media Making Things Up Again...
The internets rumor mill is active again today.
The usual suspect blogs are reporting as "fact" (as "reported" by a source of a source of a source somewhere in the Middle East) that O'Bama told Israel that he'd shoot down Israeli aircraft if they attempted to bomb Iran's nuclear weapons sites.
The truth is somewhat less inflamatory. In 2009 a story appeared, written by ABC News...
The national security adviser for former President Jimmy Carter, Zbigniew Brzezinski, gave an interview to The Daily Beast in which he suggested President Obama should make it clear to Israel that if they attempt to attack Iran's nuclear weapons sites the U.S. Air Force will stop them.
"We are not exactly impotent little babies," Brzezinski said. "They have to fly over our airspace in Iraq. Are we just going to sit there and watch? … We have to be serious about denying them that right. That means a denial where you aren’t just saying it. If they fly over, you go up and confront them. They have the choice of turning back or not. No one wishes for this but it could be a 'Liberty' in reverse."
The usual suspect blogs are reporting as "fact" (as "reported" by a source of a source of a source somewhere in the Middle East) that O'Bama told Israel that he'd shoot down Israeli aircraft if they attempted to bomb Iran's nuclear weapons sites.
The truth is somewhat less inflamatory. In 2009 a story appeared, written by ABC News...
The national security adviser for former President Jimmy Carter, Zbigniew Brzezinski, gave an interview to The Daily Beast in which he suggested President Obama should make it clear to Israel that if they attempt to attack Iran's nuclear weapons sites the U.S. Air Force will stop them.
"We are not exactly impotent little babies," Brzezinski said. "They have to fly over our airspace in Iraq. Are we just going to sit there and watch? … We have to be serious about denying them that right. That means a denial where you aren’t just saying it. If they fly over, you go up and confront them. They have the choice of turning back or not. No one wishes for this but it could be a 'Liberty' in reverse."
This old story appears to be the "source" of the rumor seized upon by Fux Noise and Brietfart, and others. Time for psychologists to assign a DSM page for O'Bamaphobia.
The original article is here.
Anyone who believes incomes are rising for ordinary Americans doesn’t know the difference between “average” and “median.” The basketball player Shaquille O’Neal and I have an “average” height of 6’2”. Get it? Average incomes are moving upward because incomes at the top continue to soar. Total income, as measured by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, is also rising, for the same reason. But median income – the income of people smack in the middle – continues to stagnate. And the incomes of everyone in the bottom half continue to fall. It’s time we measured the health of the economy not on the basis of GDP or total income growth but by what’s happening to the median income. Repeat after me: This is not a recovery.
~Robert Reich
~Robert Reich
Why Are Property Rights Advocates Standing On The Sidelines As A Foreign Company Steals Americans' Land?
For Julia Trigg Crawford, watching TransCanada construct the southern leg of the Keystone XL pipeline on a corner of her 600-acre farm was “gut-wrenching.”
Crawford, who lives in Direct, Texas, had been trying since 2011 to keep the pipeline company off her property. But she ultimately lost, the portion of her land needed for the pipeline condemned through eminent domain — a process by which government can force citizens to sell their property for “public use,” such as the building of roads, railroads, and power lines. Crawford can’t wrap her head around why TransCanada, a foreign company, was granted the right of eminent domain to build a pipeline that wouldn’t be carrying Texas oil through the state of Texas.
That question — how eminent domain can be used in a case like Keystone — has some anti-Keystone groups stumped too. But the groups that usually are vocal proponents of property rights, including the Institute for Justice, have been silent when it comes to the controversial pipeline.
“I have not seen a single group that would normally rail against eminent domain speak up on behalf of farmers or ranchers on the Keystone XL route,” said Jane Kleeb, founder of the anti-Keystone group Bold Nebraska.
That’s surprising to Kleeb, whose organization is supporting the efforts of a group of Nebraska landowners along the pipeline’s proposed route who have held out against giving TransCanada access to their land. She had thought that at least a few conservative or pro-lands rights groups would have voiced their general support for Keystone XL, but still denounced the use of eminent domain to get it built. That hasn’t happened, Kleeb said — not among property rights groups nor among most pro-Keystone lawmakers.
“If this were a wind mill project or a solar project, Republicans would have been hair-on-fire crazy supporting the property rights of farmers and ranchers,” she observed. “But because it’s an oil pipeline, it’s fine.”
Crawford, who lives in Direct, Texas, had been trying since 2011 to keep the pipeline company off her property. But she ultimately lost, the portion of her land needed for the pipeline condemned through eminent domain — a process by which government can force citizens to sell their property for “public use,” such as the building of roads, railroads, and power lines. Crawford can’t wrap her head around why TransCanada, a foreign company, was granted the right of eminent domain to build a pipeline that wouldn’t be carrying Texas oil through the state of Texas.
That question — how eminent domain can be used in a case like Keystone — has some anti-Keystone groups stumped too. But the groups that usually are vocal proponents of property rights, including the Institute for Justice, have been silent when it comes to the controversial pipeline.
“I have not seen a single group that would normally rail against eminent domain speak up on behalf of farmers or ranchers on the Keystone XL route,” said Jane Kleeb, founder of the anti-Keystone group Bold Nebraska.
That’s surprising to Kleeb, whose organization is supporting the efforts of a group of Nebraska landowners along the pipeline’s proposed route who have held out against giving TransCanada access to their land. She had thought that at least a few conservative or pro-lands rights groups would have voiced their general support for Keystone XL, but still denounced the use of eminent domain to get it built. That hasn’t happened, Kleeb said — not among property rights groups nor among most pro-Keystone lawmakers.
“If this were a wind mill project or a solar project, Republicans would have been hair-on-fire crazy supporting the property rights of farmers and ranchers,” she observed. “But because it’s an oil pipeline, it’s fine.”
Moar here.
Putting Words In People's Mouths Is A Thing
This posting has been showing up on Facebook pages and in email in boxes for a while now:
A very touching & heartfelt message from Clint Eastwood.
My Twilight Years ~ Clint Eastwood
As I enjoy my twilight years, I am often struck by the inevitability that the party must end. There will be a clear, cold morning when there isn’t any “more.” No more hugs, no more special moments to celebrate together, no more phone calls just to chat.
It seems to me that one of the important things to do before that morning comes, is to let every one of your family and friends know that you care for them by finding simple ways to let them know your heartfelt beliefs and the guiding principles of your life so they can always say, “He was my friend, and I know where he stood.”
So, just in case I’m gone tomorrow, please know this:
I voted against that incompetent, lying, flip-flopping, insincere, double-talking, radical socialist, terrorist excusing, bleeding heart, narcissistic, scientific and economic moron currently in the White House!
Participating in a gun buy-back program because you think that criminals have too many guns is like having yourself castrated because you think your neighbors have too many kids.
Regards,
Clint
The problem with this posting is that Clint Eastwood never said it. It is pure interwebs fiction.
As another interweb meme states:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)