You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (15)

PLAYS: (57)

Rachel Maddow responds to Dick Armey's insulting remarks about her during today's AFP tea bagger rally. As usual Rachel displays about 1000% more class than the sexist ass Dick Armey could ever hope to muster in his life time. I wonder if Dick Armey will be accepting any more invitations to appear with Rachel Maddow on Meet the Press again so he can respond to her face to face.

From Think Progress--Dick Armey sneers at ‘a woman named Maddox’ who ‘has a Ph.D. in something that doesn’t matter.’:

During today’s AFP-sponsored “Code Red” anti-health reform rally on Capitol Hill, one of the speakers — former House Majority Leader and current corporate defender Dick Armey — derided MSNBC host Rachel Maddow. Armey was prepared to introduce Sen. Tom Coburn (whom he bizarrely referred to as “Doc Colbin” a couple of times), but Coburn wasn’t there yet. So instead, he told a story that was a shot at Maddow:

ARMEY: The last time [Coburn] and I were together, I had the amazing opportunity to watch him receive a lecture on health care from a woman named, uh, uh, uh, “Maddox.” A television personality. Who I’m told has a Ph.D. in something that doesn’t matter. Who knew she was qualified to lecture the good physician on health care in America because she had actually gone to a doctor once.

Rachel replayed her exchange with Tom Coburn on Meet the Press and had this response for Dick Armey:

Maddow: That was my only exchange with Tom Coburn in front of Dick Armey. Now if Mr. Armey thinks I was not qualified to be in that discussion because Tom Coburn is a gynecologist and I'm not, I wonder why Dick Armey thought that he was qualified to be in that room?

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (480)

PLAYS: (2442)

I'll repeat what Jeremy Scahill said about this. "What the hell is this idiot talking about?" Another non-reality based fake debate on MSNBC with both sides spouting ridiculous talking points.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (521)

PLAYS: (2422)

What hath Republicans wrought?

Sure, they believed, as John noted the other day, that when they were unleashing what Bill Kristol likes to call "guided populism", they were in fact opening the gates for right-wing populism. And now they're looking not only at a a phenomenon much more popular than the standard Republican brand, but a movement that is about to swallow them whole.

And the Tea Party organizers -- notably the Astroturf outfits that originated the Parties, such as FreedomWorks and Americans For Prosperity -- are making that perfectly clear. Two spokesmen for those groups -- Matt Kibbe of FreedomWorks and the AFP's Tim Phillips, went on Hardball yesterday and made this explicit:

MATTHEWS: Matt, how about third party? What about the Tea Party? Sarah Palin is kind of hard to read. She is fascinating. Let‘s face it, we‘re all fascinated with her, because she‘s exciting as a political figure right now. But she‘s talking third party. I mean, she answered the question of Lars Larson. Maybe it just came to mind, but she said, yeah, I might go third party, something like that. Would you guys knock off an incumbent Republican by going third party? You know how the vote splits. Split the right, the Dem wins.

KIBBE: The better way to do it is to take over the Republican party. Frankly, that‘s what our goal is. We need to replace the Republican establishment with fiscal conservatives that are actually willing to cut spending.

All this talk about a "third party" is just so much smokescreen. What's actually happening is that the GOP is fast becoming a full-fledged right-wing-populist entity. Which means that the latent extremism lurking out on the right's fringes for so many years is becoming its new lifeblood, such as it is.

Funny thing is, as Matthews managed to point out early in the segment, not even the Tea Partiers' supposed hero -- Ronald Reagan -- can live up to their standards:

MATTHEWS: Has there ever been a strong conservative president, for example, in your lifetime or anybody—your grandfather‘s lifetime? Who do you look to as a good role model for the tea party people?

KIBBE: Well, obviously, Ronald Reagan is the closest thing we have.

MATTHEWS: What did he do in terms of fiscal policy?

KIBBE: Oh, he—he said that we shouldn't spend money we don‘t have, and he said that the government shouldn't get involved in things that it‘s not very good at doing.

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: Yes. Have you ever checked the numbers with Reagan?

KIBBE: Well, I understand. I understand...

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: The national debt went from under $1 trillion to $3 trillion. He did more to increase exponentially the size of the debt of any president in history.

And he's your role model.

KIBBE: Well, President Obama is...

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: No, I'm asking you. I have asked you one president that you can look up to who was good at tea party politics and ideology.

KIBBE: Right. Right.

MATTHEWS: If it's not Reagan, because he clearly didn't do it, who do you look to? Coolidge? How far do you have to look back?

KIBBE: I think we need to find somebody that can meet that standard.

MATTHEWS: So, nobody has recently?

KIBBE: No, certainly not.

Ah well. Blowing off cognitive dissonance is a special teabagger trait. It just adds to their "insane" mystique.

Republicans may have thought these guys had their backs. But now they're looking with increasing worry back over their shoulders. Sow the wind, reap the whirlwind, dudes.

Rachel Maddow takes on this shyster who claims he can 'cure' homosexuality and confronts him about the way his book has been used to spread anti-gay propoganda around the world -- in particular by the members of C-Street pushing the kill-the-gays bill in Uganda. Rachel made sure to point out that Richard Cohen is not licensed by any accrediting body and when he cited his marriage as proof he'd been cured of his homosexuality, let viewers know that Mr. Cohen continued to have sex with men after being married.

Cohen defended himself saying that they don't think they can 'cure' or 'pray away the gay' and said they don't use those words. They just offering 'counseling' for those with 'unwanted same sex attraction'.

MADDOW: The subject of the interview tonight is the head of a group called the International Healing Foundation, and all reporting on a proposed law to execute people for being gay in Uganda. We turned up evidence of strong links between conservative U.S. politicians who are part of the secretive religious group, The Family, a.k.a. C Street, and people in Uganda who introduced and are pushing the kill-the-gays bill.

But we also turned up more direct connections between the kill-the-gays bill and other American activists. In March, the International Healing Foundation, which is based in Maryland, sent one of its staffers to Uganda to speak to parliament there and to speak at a conference organized by the main promoter of the kill-the-gays bill.

His message was that gay people are gay by choice and a gay person who wants to be straight can be straight. That speech to parliament and the anti-gay conference took place in March of this year.

After the conference in April, the conference organizer arranged for an anti-homosexuality petition to be delivered to the Ugandan parliament. And within a month, on April 29th, the kill-the-gays bill had been introduced with the anti-gay conference organizer sitting in the gallery for that occasion.

Here is that conference organizer and the lead proponent of the kill-the-gays bill, Stephen Langa, praising the influence and authority of our next guest.

Continue reading...

Andrea Mitchell interviewed Al Gore today to talk about climate-change deniers, since Copenhagen, with its many moving parts, has begun. And with the summit, the rash of climate-change and global-warming deniers has really stepped up. What makes these people deny proven science? Digby and Paul Krugman discuss the hatred of reality by conservative loons.

Anyway, Gore asks the question that a Sarah Palin could never answer logically: Why are the polar ice caps disappearing? The batshit crazy deniers like Palin don't know the caps exist maybe because she can't see them from her house...

MITCHELL: Congratulations on the book. You write in your new book, "Our Choice," "The global warming deniers' arguments are fraudulent and often nonsensical." Yet even today, one of the best-known voices in the Republican Party, Sarah Palin, has an op-ed in the Washington Post, and she is escalating a major attack against Copenhagen and against -- against the summit. Palin calls it "junk science." She says, "The agenda-driven policies being pushed in Copenhagen won't change the weather, but they would change our economy for the worst."

What's your response to that?

GORE: Well, you know, the -- the global warming deniers persist in this air of unreality. After all, the entire north polar icecap, which has been there for most of the last 3 million years, is disappearing before our eyes. Forty percent is already gone. The rest is expected to go completely within the next decade. What do they think is causing this?

The mountain glaciers in every region of the world are melting, many of them at an accelerated rate, threatening drinking supplies -- drinking water supplies and agricultural water supplies. We have these record storms, drought, floods, fires, three deaths (ph) in the American West, climate refugees beginning now, expected to rise to the hundreds of millions unless we take action.

These effects are taking place all over the world exactly as predicted by the scientists, who have warned for years that, if we continue putting 90 million tons of global warming pollution into the atmosphere every day, the accumulation -- that's going to trap lots more heat, raise temperatures, and cause all of these consequences that are already beginning.

MITCHELL: Well, one of the things that she has written recently on Facebook is that this is doomsday scare tactics pushed by an environmental priesthood that makes the public feel like owning an SUV is a sin against the planet.

GORE: Well, the scientific community has worked very intensively for 20 years within this international process, and they now say the evidence is unequivocal. A hundred and fifty years ago this year was the discovery that CO-2 traps heat. That is a -- a principle in physics. It's not a question of debate. It's like gravity; it exists.

Like gravity it exists. You see, there's the proven. In the mind of conservatives, it doesn't matter what's provable -- only what can be denied. And as we've come to expect from Fred Hiatt and the Washington Post, they reprinted a Sarah Palin op-ed that is littered with so much false information on climate change that it boggles the mind. They have turned the news paper op-ed section into a celebrity rag that could care less about truth and accuracy. I'm shocked the op-ed didn't come with Sarah Palin celebrity photos.

Get Energy Smart Now writes: Fred Hiatt jumps the shark in dragging Washington Post into the sewers: Publishes Sarah Palin OPED contradicted by links within the OPED

Amid the Copenhagen climate summit, Fred Hiatt has chosen to descend the paper to a new low, seeming to prove that there is somehow a balance between outright falsehoods and ignorance, on the one side, and scientific knowledge and honest discourse on the other.

Sarah Palin, fresh off a shallowly ignorant Facebook post calling on President Obama not to go to Copenhagen, has an opinion piece appearing in Wednesday’s Washington Post (following up on Palin’s ghostwritten absurdity published by the Post in July). And, the factual dissections of her falsehoods are already piling on. In terms of those dissections, what is amazing is that one doesn’t have to go beyond the Post itself to find them. I very rarely so heavily quote another blogger, but the always worth reading Tim Lambert has a brutal damning post, The Washington Post can’t go out of business fast enough....read on

And here's a response to Dean Baker at the dubious Politico:

Dean Baker: It’s amazing that the Post feels the need to print a column that is chock full of distortions and misinformation just because it was written by a celebrity (Sarah Palin’s pro-global warming diatribe).

Continue reading »

In an interview on "Meet the Press," Sunday, Dec. 6, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates talked to David Gregory about President Obama's plan to send an additional 30,000 troops to Afghanistan. Clinton insisted the plan is not an "exit strategy" or "drop dead deadline":

HILLARY CLINTON: We're not talking about an exit strategy or a drop dead deadline. What we're talking about is an assessment that in January 2011, we can begin a transition. A transition to hand off -- responsibility to the Afghan forces.

ROBERT GATES: We're not talking about an abrupt withdrawal. We're talking about something that will take place over a period of time. Our commanders think that these additional forces, and one of the reasons for the President's decision to try and accelerate their deployment is-- is the view that this extended surge has the opportunity to make significant gains in terms of reversing the momentum of the Taliban, denying them control of Afghan territory, and degrading their capabilities.

Our military thinks we have a real opportunity to do that. And it's not just in the next 18 months. Because we will have a significant -- we will have 100,000 forces -- troops there. And they are not leaving-- in July of 2011. Some handful or some small number or whatever the conditions permit, we'll begin to withdraw at that time.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (655)

PLAYS: (1186)

Dr. Nancy Snyderman talked to Sen. Judd Gregg about his stalling tactics in the Senate to hold up the debate on the health care bill, and after a great deal of filibustering and feigned indignation from Gregg Snyderman followed up by asking Gregg this:

Snyderman: But Senator let me just ask you a question. We just listened to the President talk about jobs. We know people continue to lose their jobs, which means they’re losing their health care. So what do you say to the average American who’s played by all the rules who can’t have the same health care that you have and you’re one of our elected officials?

Gregg: Well, you know if he works for the government he’ll get the same I have. I mean I have the same health care as a person who works for The Secret Service, works for the FBI or works down at the local Federal Building. I mean I don’t have anything different than what an average federal employee has.

I actually proposed a bill which I wish had been incorporated into this which said that people would be able to have the option of the FEHB program which is the Federal Health and Benefit Program and I’m cosponsor of a bill which does the same thing. That’s not really the issue here. The issue here is how you do it affordably. How do you do a health reform process which is step-by-step takes on issues that can improve health care, expand its coverage rather than proposing this massive bill which as I said grows the government in the largest way we’ve ever grown. It’s $2.5 trillion and at the same time in my opinion will put the government basically in charge of health care because that’s the ultimate goal here—move the government into health care, give us a single payer system.

Think Progress posted the first part of Gregg's reply here--Gregg’s Health Care Solution: ‘If You Work For The Government, You’ll Have The Same Health Care I Have’ and had this response to the interview:

It’s puzzling that Gregg — who regularly slams “spending beyond our means for big government programs” — would say that anyone who wants health care coverage like his should simply work for the federal government. Certainly, Gregg wouldn’t advocate that we grow the size of government by employing the tens of millions of Americans who are uninsured in order to provide them health care. Or would he?

They did not include the latter part of Gregg's response where he touts a bill he co-sponsored as a means for everyone to receive the same health care benefits as federal employees. There's just one problem with that. From Ezra Klein:

The plan has a lot more fake support than it has real support. If every Republicans who has co-sponsored W-B would commit to voting for it, the plan might pass. But they haven't.

So Gregg cites a bill he co-sponsored but never committed to voting for instead of admitting what the Republican Party’s actual solution is for health care reform—do nothing and sabotage anything the Democrats try to do for political gain. It sure can't be because the Democrats haven't shown the insurance industry enough love in the bill they're trying to get through the Senate.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (60)

PLAYS: (199)

December 03, 2009 MSNBC

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (729)

PLAYS: (4315)

Kay Bailey Hutchison just can't understand why anyone would care that she's a big flaming hypocrite with her concern for troop levels in Afghanistan now that a Democrat is the President. When David Shuster asks her why she and other Republicans didn't have anything to say back in 2008 when George Bush refused a troop increase in Afghanistan, Hutchison punts and never answers the question and instead says she doesn’t know why “we’re talking about 2008”. Hutchison gets some help from Tamryn Hall at the end of the segment. She jumped in there instead of allowing David Shuster to follow up and remind her why talking out of both sides of your mouth matters if you expect anyone to believe your concerns are legitimate now.

Shuster: Senator the complaint from Democrats though is that you're essentially shopping for the right generals and Democrats are pointing out that in September of 2008 when President Bush was in office the top U.S. Commander in Afghanistan at the time Gen. David McKiernan said this about his request for an additional 22,000 troops. "The danger is that we'll be here longer and we'll expend more resources and experience more human suffering than if we had more resources placed against this campaign sooner. The additional military capabilities that have been asked for are needed as quickly as possible"

That request from Gen. McKiernan was not granted until February of this year--was granted by President Obama. So will you acknowledge that Republicans who were speaking out today should have spoken out back at the end of the Bush administration?

Hutchison: Well I'm not sure exactly what your time frame is. I think certainly President Obama took several months to address the issue that Gen. McChrystal had asked for more troops and I think at this point we need to be talking about winning. We need to be talking about what is success. We need to establish that we are going to stop al Qaeda from exporting terrorism. That should be the mission and we should do whatever it takes to win this war on terrorism...(crosstalk)

Shuster: But Senator Republicans weren't saying that when Gen. McKiernan was making the request in the fall of 2008 when President Bush never mind taking three months--he didn't act on the request at all and the Republicans didn't--we've checked your record--can you refresh our recollection as to whether you were complaining about your colleagues and about the Bush administration ignoring Gen. McKiernan back in the fall of 2008?

Huchison: Well actually I ahhh... Sec. Gates was the Secretary then and I know certainly that he is doing everything that he can with the requests that are made for Afghanistan and we've had a ramp up of troop’s strength. We've been trying to allocate recourses away from Iraq and into Afghanistan. I really don't know why we are talking about what has happened in 2008 so much as we ought to be talking about what's happening for the next two years to win this war on terror.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (589)

PLAYS: (1106)

December 02, 2009 MSNBC

From The Hill--Lieberman: Congress should consider war tax:

Congress should consider a wartime surtax to fund a troop surge in Afghanistan, Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) said Wednesday.

Lieberman, a centrist who allies himself with Democrats but who often stakes out hawkish stances on defense issues, said lawmakers should examine a surtax.

"Generally speaking, if you feel that a war is worth fighting...then you've got to be willing to pay for it," Lieberman said during an appearance on MSNBC. "I wouldn't hold it up because of a failure to pay for it, but, to me, we have to be open to adopting some kind of taxes to pay for the additional expenditures for the effort the president announced last night in Afghanistan."

[...]

Lieberman said that any war surtax should be sensitive to the current economic difficulties facing the U.S., suggesting that a surtax may go into effect in the future, once the brunt of the recession has passed.

"The one caveat here...is when such taxes would go into effect," he explained. "We're obviously working our way slowly, anxiously out of a very deep recession."

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (689)

PLAYS: (2750)

Rachel Maddow and Jeff Sharlet discuss the ties between C-Street, Pastor Rick Warren and an anti-gay bill in Uganda. Good for Rachel for bringing some attention to this truly horrific story, unlike her cohort at MSNBC David Gregory who forgot to mention Uganda during the softball interview he gave Rick Warren on Meet the Press.

MADDOW: The government of Uganda is considering passing a law to execute gay people. Execute as in by hanging a, quote, “serial offender” or an HIV-positive person who commits same sex act. If enacted, this law would also impose a three-year prison sentence on anyone who knows of a gay person in the country but doesn‘t report that gay person to the government within 24 hours.

Who is supporting and promoting this legislation? Well, one of the proponents is a minister named Pastor Martin Ssempa. He was a familiar face to American conservative Evangelicals, because Mr. Ssempa has been a frequent guest of Pastor Rick Warren at One Saddleback Church in California.

Do you remember Rick Warren? Him being selected to deliver the invocation at Barack Obama‘s inauguration was the little black cloud that crawled inside the silver lining that day for a lot of Americans who support gay rights.

Given with Rick Warren‘s deep involvement with Pastor Ssempa on matters including gay rights and AIDS issues in Uganda, “Newsweek” magazine asked Pastor Rick Warren his opinion of this proposed “kill the gays” law in Uganda.

Mr. Warren responded by distancing himself from Martin Ssempa, but also by refusing to condemn the proposal saying, quote, “It is not my personal calling as a pastor in America to comment or interfere in the political process of other nations.”

Continue reading »

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (649)

PLAYS: (1413)

Chris Matthews with possibly the stupidest comment of the night after Obama's speech at West Point. A military installation is "the enemy camp" Chris? Unbelievable.

Matthews: Well I think that’s true of most wars, you start with a lot of excitement and you know I always remember that scene in Gone With the Wind where all the Rebels are so excited about going to war with the North, a country they can’t beat because of its industrial advantage and population advantage—they were going to lose that war eventually. It seems like in this case there isn’t a lot of excitement.

I watched those Cadets, they were young kids, men and women who were committed to serving their country professionally and must be said as officers and I didn’t see much excitement but among the older people there, I saw if not resentment, skepticism. I didn’t see a lot of warmth in that crowd out there the President chose to address tonight. And I thought that was interesting. He went to maybe the enemy camp tonight to make his case.

I mean that’s where Paul Wolfowitz used to write speeches for, back in the old Bush days. That’s where he went to rabble rouse the “we’re going to democratize the world” campaign back in ’02. So I thought it was a strange venue.

Maddow: I think we’re used to, I think you’re right Chris that we are used to seeing real bumper sticker, jingoistic speeches by George W. Bush frankly in front of military audiences. I think one important observation made today is how many times he spoke before military audiences, really in a departure from every president who came before him. Dana Milbank had a great article about that today in the Washington Post and Bush did that because he liked to get that adulation from the military politically and I’m guessing personally. President Obama today talking about balancing the military against our other needs as a nation is an anti-bumper sticker. It’s not the kind of thing that brings crowds to their feet. It may in fact be the most adult thing that’s ever been told to an American, a modern American audience on a military issue.

Matthews was already back tracking a bit later in the evening. He knows he's going to get whacked for this one and rightfully so. His explanation wasn't much better. Just because the neo-cons have used and abused our military and their installations as props doesn't make it the "enemy camp" when a Democratic president goes there.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (602)

PLAYS: (1251)

From Think Progress--Politico’s Allen And VandeHei ‘Interview’ Cheney So That They Can Write His Op-Ed:

Despite Cheney’s well-known and worn-out attacks on Obama, Politico’s Mike Allen and Jim VandeHei secured an interview with the former vice president in order to inform their readers today of the shocking revelation that Cheney thinks Obama is projecting “weakness” on Afghanistan. The paper’s top reporters sat down with Cheney for a 90-minute interview and transcribed Cheney’s attacks without challenge, criticism, or rebuttal.

[...]

Instead of playing Dick Cheney ghostwriters, perhaps Allen and VandeHei can take a lesson from McClatchy’s Jonathan Landay on how to fact check his baseless smears.

I would say Andrea Mitchell could take a lesson from them as well instead of hyping The Politico's "exclusive interview".

Speaking of pathetic journalism, what is Jon Meacham smoking with this article: Why Dick Cheney Should Run in 2012:

I think we should be taking the possibility of a Dick Cheney bid for the Republican presidential nomination in 2012 more seriously, for a run would be good for the Republicans and good for the country. (The sound you just heard in the background was liberal readers spitting out their lattes.)

Why? Because Cheney is a man of conviction, has a record on which he can be judged, and whatever the result, there could be no ambiguity about the will of the people. The best way to settle arguments is by having what we used to call full and frank exchanges about the issues, and then voting. A contest between Dick Cheney and Barack Obama would offer us a bracing referendum on competing visions. One of the problems with governance since the election of Bill Clinton has been the resolute refusal of the opposition party (the GOP from 1993 to 2001, the Democrats from 2001 to 2009, and now the GOP again in the Obama years) to concede that the president, by virtue of his victory, has a mandate to take the country in a given direction. A Cheney victory would mean that America preferred a vigorous unilateralism to President Obama's unapologetic multilateralism, and vice versa.

I wonder: Now that Howard Dean's been the first person to say it out loud, will the media lemmings follow? We'll see:

Former DNC Chair Howard Dean called on Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn) to resign as chair of Senate Homeland Security Committee if he can't bring himself to oppose a Republican filibuster of health care reform legislation.

Appearing on "The Joe Scarborough Show" on WABC, Dean stressed that he had no problem with Lieberman opposing the bill on its philosophical merits, or lack thereof. But he insisted that it was irresponsible and unprincipled to not allow the legislation to come to an up-or-down vote.

"I think that is a very complicated guy," said Dean. "He does because he says he's a principled guy but there's nothing principled about holding up a bill... If he was a principled guy he'd resign his chairmanship."

"If you are with a caucus you don't owe the leader any vote on any substance," Dean added. "I have no problem with him voting against the public option... You owe it to Harry Reid to allow him to run the Senate. And if you're not willing to do that the proper thing to do is to step aside."

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1517)

PLAYS: (4321)

November 23, 2009 MSNBC The ED Show

SCHULTZ: Welcome back to THE ED SHOW.

Take a look at this shocking billboard in Colorado, just 30 minutes outside Denver, west of Denver, Colorado. At the top it says "President or jihad?" And shows a cartoon image of the president of the united states wearing a turbine. At the bottom it says, quote, "wake up, America, remember Ft. Hood."

Joining me now is a man behind this billboard, Mr. Phil Wolf. Mr. Wolf, good to have you with us tonight. Thank you for your time.

PHIL WOLF, POSTED ANTI-OBAMA BILLBOARD: Thank you, sir.

SCHULTZ: Why did you take out this billboard?

WOLF: I think this billboard's a combination of some frustrations on questions that haven't been answered by the president.

SCHULTZ: Such as?

WOLF: Let's start with where's he from? What's his background? Who is he? Is he American? What does he stand for?

SCHULTZ: Okay. So you obviously don't think that the president of the United States is an American citizen.

Continue reading »