DOWNLOADS: (7135)

PLAYS: (13380)

Embed

FOX News has been ginning up a story about the hate group the "New Black Panthers" from the election on November 4th as some sort of 'angry black man' intimidation tactic that made Obama win the presidency. I covered that story and it was thoroughly debunked. Just watch the obvious middle aged teabagger woman asking Rep. Brad Sherman if Eric Holder is refusing to prosecute black people in the country over white people.

Woman:...and the latest news that the DOJ's new policy is that they are not going to prosecute cases with black defendants where the plaintiffs are white?

Shouldn't Kelly be upset by the woman who asked this question? It's so insane, but no...she's an obvious FOX watcher and gets her opinions from FOX and talk radio. So they attack Sherman. FOX is actively creating hate based on race in our country again and this clip is a great illustration of that point except instead of using code words, they are screaming about it on our airwaves.

This exchange between Megyn Kelly and the conservative Democrat pundit, Kirsten Powers is a prime example of their bias. Look how outraged Kelly is at Kirsten for disagreeing with her basic premise. Did somebody get murdered at the PA. polling station? Oh, right. A couple of black guys are scaring FOX Nation.

Kelly: We have a DOJ whistleblower alleging there is a discriminatory policy at the DOJ voting rights section and no one seems to give a darn.

Powers: Well, I’m sorry you can actually put me in the same category of people who don’t really give a darn because I looked at the video. The guy wasn’t really intimidating people. They were walking past him and voting so I don’t really understand how he’s being intimidated. Second of all, what the Congressman should have said..

Kelly: With respect — you don’t seem to know what you are talking about.

Powers: Well, I think I do, Megyn.

Kelly: Well, I don't think you do. Unlike you Kirsten, I have read the testimony that was given before the U.S. commission. Have you?

Powers: The Department of Justice has gotten an injunction against them. What more do you want them to do?

Kelly: Have you read the testimony?

Powers: I talked to the Department of Justice at length about this.

Kelly: Have you read the testimony?

Powers: Megyn, it doesn’t matter, they got an injunction against him.

Kelly: No you haven't

Powers: No! but they got

You don’t know what you are talking about. you clearly don't know what you're talking about.

Powers: Yes I do.

Kelly: You cannot debate.

(crosstalk)

Powers: Megyn, why won't you won’t answer my question?

Kelly: What's your question?

Powers: I do care. They GOT an injunction against him. What more do you want them to do?

Kelly: I'll tell you. I'll tell you, because you clearly don't know the facts of this case.

I actually do know..

Kelly: Let me finish!

Megyn goes on to outline the case against another name FOX loves to repeat: Shabazz...continuing fight..

Kelly: So Don't tell me that they did all they could and don't tell me...

Powers: Megyn, I'm curious to know if you were just as outraged when the Bush administration downgraded all their investigations?

Kelly: Sorry?

Powers: Were you?

Kelly: Oh, back to Bush...

Powers: Were you upset and outraged by the discrimination there when they weren't pursuing cases?

Kelly: Yes! (Sure Megyn, you just expressed them to yourself in a tiny cafe in Soho drinking a latte)

More fighting...

Kelly: Unlike you, I have read the testimony...

Powers: I didn't say it wasn't voter intimidation, you're putting words in my mouth.

Kelly: let 'em finish.

Powers: You're putting words in my mouth. I didn't say it wasn't voter intimidation.

Kelly: Don't make me cut your mic. Don't make me cut your mic.

Powers: Go ahead and cut my mic...

They kept fighting from there until Megyn threatens to cut off Kirsten's mic. The whistle blower in this case is a right wing loon activist named J. Christian Adams that was still working for the DOJ and as the evidence explains, he's a typical movement conservative hack that is causing this country so much harm.

Continue reading »

Brilliant at Breakfast: Hey Mom! Alan Simpson thinks you should go out and get a job

Religion Dispatches: Park 51: Conservatives Hoisted On Their Own Petard

Los Angeles Homeland Security Examiner: U.S. Congressman wants Wikileaks whistleblower dead

Scott Horton: Crazy Like a Foxman

Shakesville: What you're projecting aint saying much for ya

Obsidian Wings: Make it a double

As a native Hoosier, the Quayle family has a special place in my heart. The same way that red meat has a special place in my colon.

From what I've found, it's tough to determine exactly what ol' Ben Quayle has been doing for a living up till now. There's been some sweet financial industry gigs, and something involving a site called "TheDirty.com," which apparently involved scantily clad women, a porn pseudonym, and more scantily clad women. All that sounds fine, and now that he's to be a super-serious congressman candidate guy, I'll take his gig instead. If that's cool.

It's hard to even know what's going on with that campaign. Is it a birthday present from a generous relative? A vanity piece, like Glamour Shots for the ultra-wealthy? A nationwide fever dream? Whatever it is, it is a Beautiful Thing To Behold, and it should be treasured. You don't get to see a young douchebag flame out often--not this hard, not this fast. Let's enjoy the weirdness till November.

DOWNLOADS: (817)

PLAYS: (856)

Embed

Ron Paul went on CNN with Don Lemon on Sunday and actually defended Michael Steele for his bizarre comments attacking Obama for the war in Afghanistan:

LEMON: And before we misconstrue everything, you are coming out in support of the comment, right?

REP. RON PAUL (R), TEXAS: Not in the entirety. I come out in support of Chairman Steele because I think it was overkill. He made a casual comment. He wasn't setting policy and all of a sudden people jump on him like we're not allowed to have a discussion?

As a matter of fact I did like what he said so I enjoyed the fact that we're willing to have a discussion about the popularity of this war. And truly it is Obama's war, even though it was started during the last administration. Obama said this is the good war. He's expanding the war. The American people aren't with him.

The majority of the American people are tired of the ward and they'd like to see it ended; they'd like to see our troops come home.

I mean this idea that as soon as somebody has a discussion, even if it's not in the discussion, people are clamoring for him to resign? I don't think that's quite fair.

LEMON: Congressman, you have to let me get in on this because it seems like, you know -- I understand what you're saying -- you want people to talk about the war. But it seems like he wasn't factually correct. Very little of what he said, if anything, was correct factually in those comment. And he came back himself --

PAUL: What I'm saying --

LEMON: Hang on one second. He came back himself and clarified them. Why are you supporting him for a comment that he had to clarify?

(CROSS TALKING)

PAUL: Well, he -- I didn't hear his clarification. But if he clarified his statement because -- he wasn't making a policy statement. If he came back and said, I'm not stating policy, that is not exactly my position --

STEELE: But he wasn't telling the truth.

PAUL: Pardon me?

STEELE: He wasn't telling the truth.

PAUL: Well, I think you're not telling the truth right now yourself.

LEMON: He said that this war -- he said that this war was started by -- or basically saying the war was started by the Obama administration. No one even wanted --

PAUL: No, he did not say that.

LEMON: That no one wanted to go -- let me finish -- no one wanted to go into this war. In fact, when we went into the war, most of the country supported it and it was started, again, under President Bush. So most of what he said if not all of it was not factually correct.

PAUL: That's right. But he's saying politically this is Obama's war. Even in the last campaign -- as a matter of fact, I thought Obama was more hawkish on this war than McCain was because he was calling for increasing troops in Afghanistan before the Republicans were.

So I think in many ways, at least politically, this is Obama's war. And it is a political issue. The Republicans really suffered from the fact that the Iraq war continued for so long and hurt us at the polls.

So, I think that Republicans ought to have a right to at least say that maybe this war isn't going well and not blindly support every single thing that is being done. And then all of a sudden, if an individual does -- you know, people accuse you, oh, you're un- American, you're unpatriotic. You know, they pile on and then they pressure somebody like Steele -- like Chairman Steele that he has to back off.

He didn't have a policy statement. He was merely making a casual statement. And when he said, for over 1,000 years and even longer, nobody's been successful in invading Afghanistan, he is telling the truth.

Paul wants to have his cake and eat it too: He admits that Steele was just flat wrong when he claimed that Obama got us into this war. But he then wants to claim that Steele is right that it's "Obama war".

Republicans are such lovely creatures. If Obama were to play the consummate pacifist and immediately withdraw our troops from Afghanistan, the attacks would be even more savage. They're going to attack him no matter what he does.

U.S. House Majority LeaderTom DeLay's visit to Reliant Park thismorning offered him a glimpse of what it's like to be living inshelter.The congressman likened their stay to being at camp and asked,"Now tell me the truth boys, is this kind of fun?"

Other fun activities Tom Delay should try. *starving, *freezing,*drowning, *crying,*toxic burning, *sexually assualted, *beinghomeless, * looking for lost family members...

Senate to Atone for Lynching Ban Delays

"The Senate seldom says it's sorry, although it is now ready to officially express its remorse over the failure to outlaw lynching in the United States. A resolution that the chamber was likely to take up Monday voices regret for the Senate's unwillingness for years to pass a law stopping a crime that cost the lives of over 4,700 people, mostly blacks, between 1882 and 1968....read on"

I never realized that it was legal in the first place. How sick is that? The fact that it was then allowed to last until 1968 is unimaginable. Read this exchange if you want to have your stomach turned from History Matters In the following testimony to a House subcommittee, four Southern Congressmen discussed their reasons for opposing what they deemed federal interference in state judicial responsibilities and defend segregation and the “peaceful relations now existing between white man and Negro” in the South. Congressman Charles E. Bennett (Florida) also offered his historical explanation for lynching. read the full transcript.

Try to figure out what group of people are being targeted now. Also, some from the right will try to equate these types of filibusters to what is going on in the judiciary. I doubt they can see how contemptable that comparison is.

Sean Hannity Calls Congressman "Asshole"

via Oliver Willis

Sean Hannity, the talking-point spouting mouthpiece on Fox News' Hannity & Colmes was recently caught by Harry Shearer slamming a Democratic congressman as an "asshole" when Hannity didn't realize he was being recorded.

Click here and listen.

Strangely, Hannity is constantly decrying the lack of civility from Democrats, but in the recording goes on to say "I hate these people"

Checks and Balances and the "F-Word"

via SeeingtheForest

Is there enough going on to make you nervous yet? The Vice President of the United States was the keynote speaker at a conference where other speakers called for "a new McCarthyism" to bring "terror" to intellectuals, saying "let's oppress them [liberals]," and "the entire Harvard faculty" are "traitors." A Congressman said, "America's Operation Iraqi Freedom is still producing shock and awe, this time among the blame-America-first crowd," ? Then he said, "We continue to discover biological and chemical weapons and facilities to make them inside Iraq."

Meanwhile, right-wing commentators talk about killing American journalists, their premier blogs talk about former president Carter as being on the side of the enemy and leftists have "seamlessly taken up the cause of Islamic fascism". I have provided only afew examples.

When you hear threatening talk like this,in thecompany of the country's leadership, you know that whatever comesnext isn't going to be pleasant. Things do not appear to be heading in agood direction at all. If you have been following this in the blogs, youknow that more and more people are becomming concerned that the Right'srhetoric is growing ever more violent and totalitarian. Serious peoplehave started referring tothe"f-word." (See alsohere,here,here,here and manyother places.)

Oliver Williswrites,

You cannot deal with that sort of ideology in any sort ofaccomodationist manner. Liberals need to understand this, from Democraticsenators in Washington who still ? still ? refuse to vote theirconscience out of some sense of loyalty to a long-dead notion of civilityin Washington, to progressive pundits who actually believe that theirright-wing counterparts in the nation's media are actually there for agive-and-take rather than a chance to paint everyone to the left of JoeLieberman as a terrorist sympathizer. . I have provided only a few examples.

When you hear threatening talk like this, in the company of the country's leadership, you know that whatever comes next isn't going to be pleasant. Things do not appear to be heading in a good direction at all. If you have been following this in the blogs, you know that more and more people are becomming concerned that the Right's rhetoric is growing ever more violent and totalitarian. Serious people have started referring to the "f-word." (See also here, here, here, here and many other places.) read on

Inside Politics:

Woodruff: As we reported a little while ago in our blog segment, the Internet is abuzz with reaction to comments by New York Democratic Congressman Maurice Hinchey. The congressman over the weekend shared his views about the now disputed CBS News report about President Bush's Air National Guard service. Representative Maurice Hinchey is with me now, he joins us from Albany, New York.

Video

REP. MAURICE HINCHEY (D), NEW YORK: And then the issue of the CBS Dan Rather event came up, and I said that there were false documents or documents which were falsified and presented as being accurate and there was a question as to where those documents came from. And in the context of the discussion I suggested that -- my theory was that I wouldn't be surprised if it came from the White House political operation, headed up by Karl Rove.

More from Digby: It's Irresponsible Not To As Peggy Noonan so memorably wrote about the "little Elian" drama:

Was Mr. Clinton being blackmailed? The Starr report tells us of what the president said to Monica Lewinsky about their telephone sex: that there was reason to believe that they were monitored by a foreign intelligence service. Naturally the service would have taped the calls, to use in the blackmail of the president. Maybe it was Mr. Castro’s intelligence service, or that of a Castro friend.

Is it irresponsible to speculate? It is irresponsible not to.

Michele Malkin on Hinchey here. LGF here

Video Clip O' Humor

The Daily Show : This Week Injustice!

Arnold signs the necrophilia law, Gay divorce and Congressman Edward Shrock's famous phone message!

Video