• Dr. Joyce Brothers, dead at 85.

• Dr. Kermit Gosnell found guilty on three counts of homicide.

• Jamelle Bouie wonders: Is impeachment just a matter of time?

• Minnesota becomes the 12th state to legalize marriage equality.

• Voters trust Hillary Clinton over GOP on Benghazi.

• Rand Paul assures evangelicals he doesn't support drug legalization.

So much for being the champion of the people, Rand.

If Paul isn't running for president, I'll eat my hat. Check out his letter to Harry Reid, where he has now officially wet his bed.

Sen. Rand Paul today issued a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid urging him to incorporate various national security concerns into the comprehensive immigration reform debate in the wake of the Boston Marathon bombings. Sen. Paul believes that comprehensive immigration reform requires a strong national security and until we can fully understand the systematic failures that enabled two individuals to immigrate to the United States from an area known for being hotbed of Islamic extremism, we should not proceed.

Paul sounds like a typical right wing xenophobe ala Peter King in his letter to Reid, which is chock full of fearmongering about our safety from "others" trying to get into America.

We should not proceed until we understand the specific failures of our immigration system. Why did the current system allow two individuals to immigrate to the United States from the Chechen Republic in Russia, an area known as a hotbed of Islamic extremism, who then committed acts of terrorism? Were there any safeguards? Could this have been prevented? Does the immigration reform before us address this?

There should be hearings in the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee that study the national security aspects of this situation, making sure that our current immigration system gives individuals from high-risk areas of the world heightened scrutiny

How is any form of immigration law going to tell us if a nine-year-old boy will become radicalized after living here for ten years?

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (797)

PLAYS: (11231)

Embed

It appears that Rand Paul had his little fee-fees hurt over the blowback from his attempt to whitesplain African American history to students at Howard University. Now he's suggesting that it's because...wait for it...racism against white people. No, really:

Paul acknowledged criticism for the speech he gave at Howard University Wednesday, saying, “I think some think a white person is not allowed to talk about black history ... which I think is unfair.”

Please. The students at Howard University didn't confront you because you were white, they did it because you were disingenuous and wrong.

he talked about how blacks once registered in large numbers as Republicans, how Democrats in Kentucky opposed constitutional amendments that gave African Americans expanded rights and how Henry Watterson, editor of The Courier-Journal from its creation in 1868 until 1919, opposed letting black people vote.

“Much of the public doesn’t know that anymore, and part of my reason for bringing it out was that so people know Republicans aren’t hostile to civil rights or somehow to African Americans,” he said.

Um...facts are inconvenient things, I know. But let me throw out a few chapters Paul neglected in his history lesson: Dixiecrats. The Southern Strategy. Lee Atwater. Ronald Reagan. Paul assumed because he elided through these telling chapters that these college students -- most of whom have had to deal with the effects of racism their entire lives -- would be ignorant of them. Again, that's not racist, that's just stupid and arrogant. Ta-Nehisi Coates:

Rand Paul went to Howard University, lied, and then got his ass kicked. That's not so bad. I got my ass kicked regularly at Howard. That was the reason my parents sent me there. But having gotten his ass kicked, his answer is to not to reflect but to make an allegation of racial discrimination.

One of the things I try to do in my work is -- in general -- take people at their word. It's very hard to communicate about anything without good faith. This, of course, assumes that communication is the goal. That was my assumption about Rand Paul. I was clearly wrong.

**The subject of this video is the kind of thing DC bipartisanship gets you

There is no word in the English language that allows the sun to poke through the clouds, inspires cherubic song and makes lobbyists high five while lording over a beer-joint urinal on in official Washington than "bipartisan". Bipartisan is just so darn cool. It's hip! It's now! It's Rand Paul's talking filibuster and Charlie Krauthammer's sardonic wit and Justice John Robert's dreamy blue eyes all rolled up into one big pig in a blanket!

Or, and I'm just thinking aloud here, perhaps when that word is uttered in Washington there is only once choice to be made: Run.

Because you see, there is actually bipartisanship that makes sense. It is all over the US. It will tell you that over 90 percent of the American public thinks there should be a 3-minute background checks before you purchase a combat weapon that can dismember kindergarten-aged kids, that the minimum wage should surpass that of Heilongjiang Province and that marriage equality is a concept long overdue.

But that is not the bipartisanship that exists in Washington. This brand of bipartisanship is based on Beltway "wisdom" and the status of who happens to be presenting the case. It's the variety that just gave us the 10-year anniversary of the tragedy in Iraq and rewarded Condoleezza Rice of the "smoking gun", "mushroom cloud" and "what does 'Bin Laden determined to attack in US' mean" with a new role as a political analyst on CBS - as if she can figure out day in and day out how to tie her shoes.

That's bipartisanship DC style. It ignored Columbine, Virginia Tech, Aurora, Trayvon Martin and finally got around to thinking we have a gun problem after grotesque inaction reached its logical conclusion, with 20 six and seven year olds mowed down like cattle in their classroom. Even so, while there is much support for gun safety measures, there is still some "bipartisan" opposition.

This kind of Washington bipartisanship looks at this war-of-choice that's now estimated to have cost in the trillions (yes, that's with a T), out-of-control health care costs via a crony-capitalism protection racket and a Pentagon so bloated with fat it's a surprise Rush Limbaugh doesn't eat it with a side of his happy pills for dinner, and concludes (behind the leadership of our very own ostensibly Democratic President) "let's rob the old moochers of their earned benefits!"

Continue reading »

They put out a three-page article this morning proclaiming Rand Paul as the New Face of Republican Politics. Not what I want to read over my morning coffee. How about you?

Led by Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), libertarians hope to become a dominant wing of the GOP by tapping into a potent mix of war weariness, economic anxiety and frustration with federal overreach in the fifth year of Barack Obama’s presidency.

The country’s continuing fixation on fiscal issues, especially spending and debt, allows them to emphasize areas of agreement with conservative allies who are looking for ways to connect with Republicans who aren’t passionate about abortion or same-sex marriage. A Democratic administration ensures consensus on the right that states should get as much power as possible.

Ron Paul, who has been speaking at college campuses since retiring from the House to Texas at the end of the year, feels that more Republicans are either engaging or co-opting the ideas he spent a career espousing on monetary policy, foreign policy and civil liberties.

“The viewpoint of the libertarian is we’ve been doing the wrong thing for a long time,” he said in an interview. “The group that’s in Washington now is going to have tremendous opportunity because there’s a lot more disenchantment.”

“It’s better late than never,” he added.

Better never, I say.

Missing in Politico's celebration of libertarianism: Even the smallest hint of truth regarding why there has been such focus on the debt and deficit, why Rand Paul is not the right messenger for their message, and the millions upon millions spent buying think tanks, media outlets and politicians to amplify the message.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (86)

PLAYS: (538)

Embed

On Face the Nation today, John McCain expressed frustration with Rand Paul and his gang of libertarian obstructionists who threaten to block any gun measure from coming to the floor for debate.

The Hill:

“I don’t understand it,” said McCain on CBS’s “Face the Nation.” “The purpose of the United States Senate is to debate and to vote and to let the people know where we stand.”

“What are we afraid of? Why would we not want… if this issue is as important as all of us think it is, why not take it to one of the world’s greatest deliberative bodies – that’s one of the greatest exaggerations in history by the way – but you know why not take it up, an amendment and debate. The American people will profit from it,” said the Arizona senator.

“I don’t understand why United States senators want to block debate when the leaders said we could have amendments,” McCain added.

A number of GOP lawmakers, including Sens. Rand Paul (Ky.), Mike Lee (Utah), Marco Rubio (Fla.), and Ted Cruz (Texas) wrote to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) vowing that they would “oppose the motion to proceed to any legislation that will serve as a vehicle for any additional gun restrictions.”

Interesting that it's the young wingnut guns opposing the "elder statesmen" of the Republican party. There is a definite civil war brewing just under the surface there. But I digress.

When 90 percent of Americans support background checks, it should be a slam dunk. As the president noted last week, 90 percent of Americans can't agree on what to have for breakfast, much less gun safety laws. Yet there we are, with a vast majority of the country in support of such a thing. I'll take the question one step beyond McCain and ask why they aren't rushing to get this done if they expect to be re-elected again?

Yes, there should be a debate. But for me, it just makes me furious that we're settling for a debate on background checks and little more. Background checks go without saying. Why can't we have a debate on clip size and assault-style weapons? Why can't we get these wingnuts on the record so they have to own their words after an assault weapon offs a lot of people in one place yet again, simply because they lacked the integrity or the guts to do the right thing? Instead we get this wimpy, simpy "Oh, won't it be grand if we get background checks!" nonsense.

Appearing with McCain, Sen. Charles Schumer expressed optimism that if the bill proceeded to the floor, a measure on background checks could pass.

“If we go to the floor, I’m still hopeful that what I call the ‘sweet spot’ background checks can succeed. We are working hard there. Sen. [Joe] Manchin (D-W.Va.) and Sen. [Mark] Kirk [R-Ill.] have a few ideas that could modify the proposal.”

McCain said he would welcome a debate on background checks on the Senate floor.

“Everybody wants the same goal to keep the guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally disabled. Background checks are being conducted. Are they sufficient, are there ways to improve those? Then I think that’s something that the American people and certainly Congress could be helped by if we have a vigorous debate and discussion,” said McCain.

Message to Americans: If we are so lucky as to get these young bucks to deign to debate this measure, won't it be grand to get a watered-down toothless background check measure that probably won't even come up in the House? Hey, at least we can say we passed...something.

Doesn't it seem like we're all being asked to simply 'bite the bullet'?

DOWNLOADS: (96)

PLAYS: (600)

Embed

While support for gay marriage has surged the last ten years in America there are still those in the Senate that cling to the religious right's archaic beliefs about the subject. And then there are those like Saxby Chambliss who are utterly asinine in how they express their views.

Support for gay marriage is picking up steam all over the country — except on Capitol Hill.Take Sen. Saxby Chambliss. When asked if his views had changed on gay marriage, the Georgia Republican quipped: “I’m not gay. So I’m not going to marry one.”

“I’m not gay. So I’m not going to marry one.” WTF does that mean? Gay marriage is not for non-gays, you ass. Gay marriage is for teh gays, hence the name, get it? How repulsive is this man? Is there any wonder why Congress is so frakked up with morons like this?

And then there's Senator Rand Paul, the media darling of the past few weeks. Right after he stood up against the droning of US citizens on US soil he immediately began to kowtow to the religious right with his push for "Life at Conception Act" and when asked again about gay marriage, said this:

“I believe in traditional, historic and the religious nature of marriage,” said Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, the tea party Republican and possible 2016 presidential candidate. “Marriage is always a state issue, and I think it should remain a state issue.”

States' rights doesn't work as an excuse with this issue because married couples move from state to state all the time. And that's not even getting into the civil rights issue either.

Oy, my head hurts. Please make it stop.

If you know anyone who reads birther Joseph Farah's World Nut Daily, they are surely steeped in the wisdom of Larry Klayman, "proud Jewish Christian," columnist and founder of Judicial Watch and Freedom Watch. In recent columns, he's accused Obama of "inciting" a race war, warned that conservatives were in danger of becoming the "new n*ggers," relegated to the back of the bus, and said that gun control laws were Obama's "Stalinist power grab." (Sorry, I won't link to them.)

And here is the Kafkaesque position in which we now find ourselves: pushing hard for responsible oversight of the drone program and neoliberal civil liberties policies of President Barack Obama, while at the same time, defending him against the most rabid conspiracy theories of the extreme right. And here's only our latest dilemma: While Rand Paul was filibustering against executive overreach, was he really only trying to validate the paranoid fantasies of the extreme right? Whether he was trying or not, it seems to have had the same effect:

In whatever world Judicial Watch founder Larry Klayman inhabits, President Obama has “unleashed black helicopters in our major cities to intimidate people and set up committees to determine who in its estimation is a ‘subversive’ and may have to be eliminated.”Klayman, once again calling for armed rebellion, writes in WorldNetDaily that President Obama is trying to crush an “imminent rebellion by the informed masses” against his “mission to enslave the nation in his brand of Marxist ideology” by “removing the people’s Second Amendment right to bear arms.”

He dubs Obama a “modern-day disciple” of King George III and laments that he won re-election by “pitting the poor and middle class against the so-called rich, black against white, Latino against Anglo, gay against straight, and Muslim against Jew and Christian.” He concludes that if “all non-violent means” to depose Obama are exhausted, conservatives must follow the example of the Founding Fathers and stage an armed revolt.

Continue reading »

Rand Paul was the wrong messenger for the anti-drone message, and his "filibuster" was nothing more than a grab for 13 hours of airtime to air wingnut theories. Here are just a few samples of what he spewed for the record on Wednesday night:

“I will speak until I can no longer speak.”
“No, no said the queen.”
“Everybody is al Qaeda.”
“Hold your tongue said the queen turning purple.”

“If there’s a gentleman or a woman w/ a grenade launcher attacking our buildings or our Capitol, we use lethal force.”

“No we won’t drop bombs on restaurants.”

“Your notification is the buzz of the propellers on the drone as it flies overhead in the seconds before you’re killed. Is that what we really want from our government?”

“Gobbledy-gook!”

“The leap of logic is so fantastic as to boggle the mind. “

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (153)

PLAYS: (302)

Embed

ANOTHER UPDATE: At a White House briefing today, Jay Carney said there is no authority for U.S. drone strikes against Americans on U.S. soil.

UPDATE: That ever-popular comedy team of Grampy McCain and Lindsey Grahamcracker are attacking Rand's filibuster -- which means it had an impact.

I watched a lot of Rand Paul's filibuster Wednesday, and as much as progressives loathe much of what Paul stands for, I do agree with his take in this instance. (Even a stopped clock, etc.) I have been one of his harshest critics as C&Lers know, but I wonder if an unintended consequence will come out of this move. It was a very political ploy on his part and a smart one, but I will always welcome a much-needed discussion on drone attacks both foreign and domestic, targeted assassinations and on our right as U.S. citizens to due process.

The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution each contain a Due Process Clause. The Supreme Court of the United States interprets the Clauses as providing four protections: procedural due process (in civil and criminal proceedings), substantive due process, a prohibition against vague laws, and as the vehicle for the incorporation of the Bill of Rights.

Highlighting this to the American public is a very good thing and should never be minimized.

Here's Spencer Ackerman:

Continue reading »