The Three Reasons Republicans Might Actually Impeach Obama in Spite of Themselves
F6, these are the two i had from yesterday. Neither digested, yet.
By Brian Beutler @brianbeutler July 30, 2014
A fairly ironclad rule of modern American politics holds that after a president has been president long enough, a faction of his political opposition will begin calling for his impeachment. A corollary holds that the president’s party will use that appetite for impeachment to raise money.
It is also true that presidents don’t want to be impeached, and opposition leaders don’t want to introduce frivolous or unsupportable articles of impeachment, which means for the most part we’re talking about a mutually beneficial pandering ritual for activist voters.
But for three interlocking reasons, the latest production of the ritual—the one that's unfolding right now—is much more interesting and potentially combustible than the one that unfolded during George W. Bush’s second term, when Democratic legislators introduced articles of impeachment and Republican campaigners used the spectacle of impeachment to raise money and increase turnout ahead of the 2006 midterm.
1) Republicans are more reactionary than Democrats
In the 1990s, the Republican establishment was skeptical about shutting down the government and impeaching President Clinton, but went ahead and did both of those things. Upon Obama’s election, we were assured that Republicans had learned their lessons and wouldn’t be repeating either mistake. But last year Republicans shut down the government once again in spite of themselves. And though House Speaker John Boehner hasn’t allowed conservative hardliners to walk him into a political cul-de-sac in the nine months since the shutdown, Obama will be president for two and a half more years.
2) Obama will be president for two and a half more years
For all their agonizing about Obama’s putative lawlessness, nothing he’s done so far has been tyrannical enough to invite impeachment, or so it seems. And if Obama never does anything again, it stands to reason he won’t be impeached. But Obama’s not planning on doing nothing. Most importantly, he intends to take more executive action to curtail deportations .. http://www.politico.com/story/2014/07/barack-obama-immigration-legal-questions-109467.html .. of low-priority unauthorized immigrants. When he announces his plan, the Republican appetite for impeachment will grow in proportion to the scope of the policy. If it’s a very broad action, more conservatives and Republicans will call for impeachment, testing Boehner’s control over his conference.
3) Boehner doesn’t have a great deal of control over his conference
There is no comparing Boehner’s influence over House Republicans to Nancy Pelosi’s influence over House Democrats. This has been evident for quite some time. It is evident, too, in their disparate responses to questions they’ve both faced about impeachment. On Tuesday, whether he intended to or not, Boehner left the door wide open, when he told reporters, "We have no plans to impeach the president. We have no future plans. … It's all a scam started by Democrats at the White House." That is … not entirely true .. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/30/us/politics/impeachment-on-gop-lips-animates-base-of-democrats.html?_r=0 . And it's remarkably less Shermanesque than Speaker-in-wait Pelosi’s statement .. http://www.nytimes.com/cq/2006/11/08/cq_1916.html .. after Dems won the House in 2006: “I have said it before and I will say it again: Impeachment is off the table.”
If Boehner had “current” or “future” plans to impeach Obama, Republicans wouldn’t be wasting valuable time filing an unusual lawsuit .. http://www.newrepublic.com/article/118652/boehners-obama-lawsuit-proves-obama-isnt-lawless .. against him. But that lawsuit is meant to strike a balance that allows the GOP to channel its base voters’ resentment of Obama into midterm election victories without indulging their toxic, procedurally extreme tendencies. In that sense it’s best seen as a reflection of a real and growing (or soon-to-grow) desire to take it all the way. And as the entire White House political team is fond of noting, Boehner had “no interest in seeing a government shutdown” one week before he did it anyway. Republicans really are more liable to go where danger lies than Democrats.
Still, I’m not convinced that Democrats, including Obama, are eager to Jedi mind trick Boehner into actually impeaching Obama so much as they want the stench of impeachment to trail Republicans everywhere they go. I suspect they’ll be able to strike that balance up until Obama announces his deportation relief plan. After that, things get murky. But if Democrats truly welcome impeachment, particularly over something as politically crosswired as immigration, then Obama will go as far as he believes the law allows him to go, and let the chips fall where they may.
Amid Roiled Landscape Of Border Politics, Obama's Plans May Change
By Mara Liasson
Originally published on Thu July 17, 2014 7:40 pm
The Obama administration's request for more funds on immigration could get a congressional vote soon. Meanwhile, the crisis at the border is complicating Obama's plan to take unilateral action to ease deportations. The politics of immigration are shifting quickly.
On the topic of immigration, especially child migrants, Congress could vote as early as next week on the Obama administration's request for more funds and flexibility. Meanwhile, the crisis at the border is affecting the larger debate about immigration reform. And it's complicating President Obama's plans to take unilateral action to ease deportations of immigrants who've been here illegally for years. NPR's national political correspondent Mara Liasson reports.
MARA LIASSON, BYLINE: Immigration politics are volatile and complex, but until the flood of children on the border, immigration reform looked like a long-term winner for Democrats and a long-term loser for Republicans. But recent polls show that like any other chaotic situation from the Middle East to the VA, this one has taken a toll on Mr. Obama. A new Pew poll shows that only 28 percent approve of the way he's handling the border situation. That's why, says immigration reform advocate, Simon Rosenberg, the president needs to get the border under control fast.
(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING)
SIMON ROSENBERG: How this crisis gets resolved will dictate the next chapter in this ongoing debate. I think it's jumbled everything, and a lot will depend on whether or not the president looks like he's done a good job. And if he's handled this well, he's going to have a lot more political space with the public.
LIASSON: The White House is operating on two tracks. It's trying to resolve the immediate border crisis - in some cases that means accelerating deportations. Meanwhile, it's planning to move on the broader immigration problem. The administration is considering the legal and political ramifications of having the president take unilateral action to ease deportations for a whole other group of illegal immigrants - people who've been in this country for years.
Some Democrats have wondered whether the president could hurt his party if he uses his executive authority to offer wider deportation relief this fall before the midterm elections. But White House officials say there's no reason to delay. They point to polls that show public support is as strong as ever for providing a path to legal status for workers currently in the U.S. illegally. The White House plan remains as the president outlined it in a Rose Garden speech last month.
(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING)
PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: If Congress will not do their job, at least we can do ours.
LIASSON: With immigration reform blocked in the Republican House, Mr. Obama promised to act on his own, just as soon as his Attorney General and Homeland Security Secretary finish their review.
OBAMA: I expect the recommendations before the end of summer, and I intend to adopt those regulations without further delay.
LIASSON: There is a wide range of unilateral actions the president could take to build upon the action he took in 2012, when he used his executive authority to protect the dreamers - young people in college or the military who were brought here illegally as children. Beyond the dreamers, Mr. Obama could decide to provide temporary relief from deportation for the parents of dreamers, or people who work in certain industries or meet other criteria. What would be the reaction to such a move? It's hard to game out. There's no polling on how people would feel if the president unilaterally created a temporary worker program all by himself without congressional approval. There could be a huge backlash.
Daniel Garza, a conservative proponent of immigration reform, says the dreamers are a special case. Garza says most Americans will not feel the same way about other groups of illegal immigrants.
DANIEL GARZA: There's a lesser sympathy for the adults who have violated immigration law than there is for the children. I think people understand that children are brought here on their own. And I'm someone who is for immigration reform.
LIASSON: But Frank Sharry, an immigration reform advocate on the left, has a different analysis of what would happen if the president moved on his own to give large numbers of illegal immigrants relief.
FRANK SHARRY: I think that the combination of the thrills and reaction among Latinos and Progressives and Democrats will be equaled by the howls from the Republicans. And I think quite frankly, it will permanently cement the reputation of the Democrats as for immigrants and for the changing American electorate and Republicans as against it.
LIASSON: Sharry thinks if the president does move to expand deportation relief, he would force Republicans to say whether those immigrants should go back into the shadows or be deported right away. And he would unavoidably intensify the current debate about executive overreach.
SHARRY: It would be a bold move. It would create a huge reaction from the Republicans. It would protect millions of people and lead to a better quality of life. And the question is - is he brave enough to do it and what would be the political fallout?
LIASSON: Brave enough or foolish depending on your point of view. Widespread deportation relief is the kind of presidential action that could have long-lasting effects on the president's party and his legacy. But in the midst of the current crisis on the border, it's hard to determine if those effects would be positive or negative. Mara Liasson, NPR News, Washington. Transcript provided by NPR, Copyright NPR.
A comprehensive investigation of voter impersonation finds 31 credible incidents out of one billion ballots cast A Madison, Miss., precinct worker offers a voter a "I voted" sticker after voting in party primaries on Tuesday, June 3, 2014. Mississippi's new voter ID law was put to its first test in Tuesday’s primaries. Note: This is a guest post by Justin Levitt [ http://www.lls.edu/aboutus/facultyadministration/faculty/facultylistl-r/levittjustin/ ], a professor at the Loyola University Law School and an expert in constitutional law and the law of democracy, with a particular focus on election administration and redistricting. August 6, 2014 Voter ID laws are back in the news once again, with two new opinions [ http://www.wicourts.gov/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=118665 ] from the Wisconsin Supreme Court late last week dealing with the state's ID requirement, which would allow people to vote only if they provide certain forms of government-issued ID. The Court made some minor changes to the law [ http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/divided-court-upholds-wisconsins-voter-id-law-b99321108z1-269363811.html ] but otherwise upheld it. However, the ID requirement is still on hold pending a federal lawsuit [ http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/Frank.v.Walker.php ]. Part of this litigation — and any rational debate about the issue generally — hinges on two things: costs and benefits [ http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2017228 ]. The costs of these sorts of laws vary, because the laws themselves differ from state to state [ http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2013/10/voter-id-update-the-diversity-in-the-details/ ] (some are far more burdensome than others). The ostensible benefits, though, are all the same. And in addressing these purported benefits, the Wisconsin Supreme Court blew it. Twice. First, the court cited the idea that ID laws could enhance public confidence--that is, in theory, the laws might make us feel better about elections in that they might provide some security theater. It turns out, though, that this effect is hard to spot. People in states with more restrictive ID laws don’t generally feel better [ http://ssrn.com/abstract=1099056 ] about their elections than people in more permissive states. People who think elections are being stolen, and people who think they’re not, each hold on to that opinion no matter what the governing ID rules in their area. The factor that really influences whether people think the elections are fair? Whether their preferred candidates win. Second, the court said that ID laws can help stop fraud. It then cited an example of recent fraud … that ID laws aren’t designed to stop [ http://electionlawblog.org/?p=63868 ]. Specifically, it mentioned a case in which a supporter of Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker was charged with 13 counts of election fraud, including "registering to vote in more than one place, voting where he didn't live, voting more than once in the same election, and providing false information to election officials," according to an account by Talking Points Memo [ http://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/robert-monroe-voter-fraud-wisconsin ]. Wisconsin's ID law would not likely have prevented any of the alleged violations. This sort of misdirection is pretty common, actually. Election fraud happens. But ID laws are not aimed at the fraud you’ll actually hear about. Most current ID laws (Wisconsin is a rare exception) aren’t designed to stop fraud with absentee ballots (indeed, laws requiring ID at the polls push more people into the absentee system, where there are plenty of real dangers). Or vote buying. Or coercion. Or fake registration forms. Or voting from the wrong address. Or ballot box stuffing by officials in on the scam. In the 243-page document that Mississippi State Sen. Chris McDaniel filed on Monday with evidence of allegedly illegal votes in the Mississippi Republican primary, there were no allegations of the kind of fraud that ID can stop. Instead, requirements to show ID at the polls are designed for pretty much one thing: people showing up at the polls pretending to be somebody else in order to each cast one incremental fake ballot. This is a slow, clunky way to steal an election. Which is why it rarely happens. I’ve been tracking allegations of fraud for years now [ https://web.archive.org/web/20070622014244/http:/truthaboutfraud.org/index.html ], including the fraud ID laws are designed to stop. ... [(much more, full detail/sourcing) ...] http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/08/06/a-comprehensive-investigation-of-voter-impersonation-finds-31-credible-incidents-out-of-one-billion-ballots-cast/ [with comments]
"Do you think you need to see where you're shooting if someone's on top of you, trying to kill or rape you, while their hands are slowly squeezing your neck and they're yelling 'I'm gonna kill you'? I didn't think so." This is the NRA commentator's argument for arming the blind that the NRA just removed from its website.
"Every law-abiding, blind individual should be able to have whatever guns they want," says NRA video personality and local neckless man Dom Raso. (Raso, you may recall, also recently took the media to task for its absurd policy of referring to killings with guns as "shootings [ http://gawker.com/zany-nra-video-attacks-media-for-labeling-shootings-as-1586013338 ].")
The ugly truth: why presidential leadership can't solve gridlock .. Ezra Klein (Vox) and Frances Lee ..
"Ted Cruz Continues His Push To Repeal 'Every Bloody Word' Of Obamacare"
I think it says, basically because in recent years there has been a relative 'extreme' of regional polarization in the country. Also, the fact is that either party is in a position to gain control from the other. So there is no good reason for the minority party to reach across the aisle as in the public's eye compromise would diminish the need for change.
Note: The Statements made by Sargent Major Dan Page do not reflect the opinions of our local Oath Keeper Chapter, nor the national organization. Dan Page, speaking to the St. Louis/St. Charles, Missouri Chapter of Oath Keepers, explains how they plan to end American sovereignty and the Constitution, establishing martial law and merging the U.S. with the New World Order.
St. Louis County Police Officer Dan Page Suspended Following Inflammatory Video
By Michael McLaughlin Posted: 08/22/2014 10:28 pm EDT Updated: 08/23/2014 10:59 am EDT
A police officer who pushed a CNN journalist [ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxlCM2Hh8w8 , http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0Ow26ppqlA ] on live television in Ferguson, Missouri, this week has been relieved of duty following the discovery of a videotaped speech [the YouTube above, which initially was embedded in this article] in which he criticized President Barack Obama, Muslims and gays in the military.
St. Louis County cop Dan Page, a 35-year police veteran, also denounced hate crime laws and boasted of killings he claimed to have committed in the remarks delivered to a group called the Oath Keepers of St. Louis and St. Charles [ http://stlouisoathkeepers.info/ ]. Its members vow to uphold the Constitution and are drawn from the military, law enforcement and emergency responders.
"Policemen are very cynical. I know I am," Page says from a podium on the video. "I hate everybody. I'm into diversity. I kill everybody."
Reading from the Declaration of Independence and the Bible, and talking about his past as a Green Beret, Page claims on the video that the federal government has abused its power.
"We have no business passing hate crime laws. None. Because we're setting aside a group of people special," Page says. "We got a Supreme Court out of control with laws on sodomy," he says later.
But it was Page's flippant talk about violence that Belmar said he found particularly alarming.
He "was disturbed by the conversation being had. Chief Belmar does not expect this kind of rhetoric [ https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=839430506075727&id=122091914476260 ] from his officers, just like they don't expect it from him," according to a statement on the department's Facebook page. "Chief Belmar, on behalf of the St. Louis County Police Department, would like to apologize to the community, anyone that video has or will effect, and to the other hard working officers on the detail with the officer in question because they deserve better than that. While the officer has never been involved in an officer involved shooting, the statements made about killing are unacceptable and not what we are about as a Department."
There's even a disclaimer on YouTube to distance the Oath Keepers from Page's commentary.
"The statements made by Sargent Major Dan Page do not reflect the opinions of our local Oath Keeper Chapter, nor the national organization. Dan Page, speaking to the St. Louis/St. Charles, Missouri Chapter of Oath Keepers, explains how they plan to end American sovereignty and the Constitution, establishing martial law and merging the U.S. with the New World Order."
My mother was fond of saying "if you want someone to hear you, you must first listen to them" -- know them, understand the questions they are asking, and be sensitive to their concerns. If you do this, she would say, "you will be able to speak with people and not at them."
What happens when you don't follow this simple rule of communication was on display during the "In Defense of Christians" conference that was held in Washington from September 9-11.
Addressing an audience of 900 mostly Arab Christians, Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) launched into a passionate defense of Israel arguing that "Christians have no better ally than the Jewish State". The audience booed. Undeterred, Cruz continued, to more booing, "Those who hate Israel hate America" and "those who hate Jews hate Christians." When the audience would not stop, Cruz cut short his remarks charging, "Some here are so consumed with hate... if you will not stand with Israel and Jews, then I will not stand with you." He then walked off the stage.
It is generally known that Ted Cruz can be a demagogue, a quality that makes him immensely disliked by his colleagues. He is also [falsely, foolishly - third item in the post to which this is a reply] considered to be quite bright and calculating. And so as I have attempted to understand why he did what he did, two distinct scenarios come to mind. It is possible that he went to the IDC conference to provoke a "Sister Souljah" moment -- which he could then exploit with his supporters on the fundamentalist right as evidence of his political courage. It is more likely that he had no clue about the reaction his taunting remarks would receive and was, therefore, stunned by the audience reaction -- and that it was only mid-stream that he decided that he could use the audience reaction to his political benefit.
In either case, Cruz displayed a shameful insensitivity to the concerns of Middle East Christians and a total lack of awareness of their history and current needs. Like too many of his colleagues, he can only see the Middle East through then lens of what is good for Israel. Because he comes out of the Christian fundamentalist world and now operates in the bubble of Washington politics, he simply had no understanding of his audience and no desire to listen to them and learn from them.
Immediately upon leaving the event, he issued a statement to Breitbart (a far-right website) calling the audience reaction "a shameful display of... ignorance and bigotry." He lamented that while he had wanted to lay out a litany of examples of Christians and Jews persecuted by "Islamic radicals," his efforts to do so were upended by "bigotry and hatred" and "the corrosive evil of anti-Semitism."
In fact, in this entire sad and sordid affair, the only ignorance and bigotry on display was that of the Senator, himself. He cared not a bit for the feelings of Arab Christians. Blinded by his own lack of understanding and concern, Cruz appeared to be more interested in scoring political points with his conservative base, than in taking the time to know what Christians in Lebanon, Palestine, Jordan, Syria, Egypt and Iraq really feel and want.
If he had listened to the six Patriarchs of Eastern churches (as President Obama did in a lengthy meeting with the prelates on Thursday), all of whom also addressed the conference, he would have heard them speak of their history of coexistence with Muslims. They, of course, are deeply concerned with the rise of extremism and horrified by the brutally violent excesses of those who are using a distorted Islam to create the terror they use to consolidate political power. But far from wanting to pour fuel on the fires of a "clash of civilizations" that pits Jews and Christians against Muslims, the leaders of these Eastern churches seek the defeat of extremism and the creation of a social order that can build societies based on equal rights for all and reconciliation among all faith traditions.
But Cruz wasn't listening. He came to the event with preconceived notions and prepackaged message. He was speaking at Middle East Christians, using them as a prop to promote his own agenda. Unfortunately, he is not alone.
For decades now, American politicians have paid scant attention to the realities of the Arab World and the history and needs of its people. Their awareness of the region has been framed by Israel and oil. One, they felt was necessary for their electoral ambitions, the other was important for our economic well-being. Seeing the world through this narrow lens produced a "willed ignorance" about broader regional realities. It was not just that politicians did not know about what Arabs were saying or what they wanted, they did not want to know -- since they felt that there was no benefit in knowing.
This has created a dangerous state of affairs. In the past four decades since the end of the war in Vietnam, we have spent more money, sent more weapons, fought more wars, lost more lives, and have more interests at stake in the Middle East than anywhere else in the world, and yet we still have too little understanding of its people, their history and culture, and their needs. Because we have had no understanding of Egyptians, Palestinians, Lebanese, Syrians and Iraqis, we have engaged in tragic and costly foreign policy blunders that have taken a terrible toll in human life and the prestige of our country across this critical region.
In my polling [ http://www.amazon.com/Arab-Voices-What-Saying-Matters/dp/0230120687 ], I find that Arabs like our values and culture, our science and technology, our products and our people. What they hate is our policy, because they see its impact on their lives and the insensitivity it demonstrates to their concerns. They want to like us, but feel that we reject them.
It appears that policymakers want to have it both ways. They want to pass insensitive anti-Arab legislation and make outrageous statements about Arabs and Muslims -- all for politically expedient ends -- and yet they are confounded by the Arab reactions to these taunts and insults.
So it was with Ted Cruz on Wednesday night. Despite his reputation, he was set to deliver a speech with which I am certain many of his congressional colleagues would have concurred. After all, they might say, what could anyone find offensive in praising Israel and denouncing radical Islam -- especially to an audience of fellow Christians? But it was not the message this audience needed or wanted to hear, precisely because they are suffering -- and because many of them have suffered at the hands of Israel. Because he didn't really want to help them, or care to know them or to listen to them they booed and booted him off the stage.
There is a lesson in this, for those who care to learn. And it's not only about the importance of communicating. With the Israeli-Palestinian conflict simmering on low boil; with violent extremists gaining ground in the heart of the Arab East; with Lebanon on the brink, overwhelmed by refugees and in danger of being engulfed the sectarian conflict brewing next door; and with ancient Christian churches threatened with extinction -- the President has announced that we are now about to reengage militarily in Iraq and Syria. Before we do, it is important that we not repeat the mistakes we made in Iraq and Afghanistan. We need to be certain that we understand the people and the cultural and social dynamics at work in each of these countries before it's too late and our efforts to help become yet another in a series of fatal errors that have marked our history of involvement in this region about which we know so little.
This video was a huge amount of work, and I am quite proud of it. We are often told of the Abrahamic God's perfect moral standard, but this is a standard God Himself does not follow, a double standard, as clearly evidenced in the bible. So, if God is not subject to His own standard of perfect goodness, how can He possibly be defined as perfectly good?
"God is a 'do as I say, not as I do' kinda guy," is not my line; it's something I once heard Richard Coughlan say and I thought it described the Abrahamic God very well.
Pascal's Wager is still a common argument amongst the majority of theists (who are inexperienced in this discussion). I see it all the time. If you see it, do me a favor and send them this video, which covers one of the possible rebuttals.
Billions of people claim to “know” God. How could they all be wrong? Simple. Just listen to them. If ten people claim to know your friend Jimmy, yet they all describe Jimmy in different, incompatible ways, then either they don’t know Jimmy, or Jimmy has been doing some lying.
If you want to see more of that Carl Sagan impression video (plus more of my live antics), then check out this video, compiled by my buddy C0ct0pus (who also has a pretty good channel btw): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5aVeT-ThoIg
On this Thursday, April 3 edition of the Alex Jones Show, Alex breaks down the factors behind the latest mass shooting in Ft. Hood, including the fact that the shooter was prescribed anti-depressant drugs and that the shooting occurred in a gun-free zone. Alex also discusses the latest in geopolitics, with former congressman and presidential contender Ron Paul joining today's show to explain how Congress's $1 billion aid package to Ukraine will impoverish Ukrainian citizens at the expense of American taxpayers.
Visit http://www.InfowarsLife.com to get the products Alex Jones and his family trust, while supporting the growth of our expanding media operation.
NEW ITEM Silver-Bullet - Colloidal Silver** NEW ITEM Fluoride Shield** NEW ITEM Super Male Vitality** NEW ITEM Survival Shield - Nascent Iodine** NEW ITEM Patriot Blend 100% Organic Coffee** NEW ITEM Immune Support Blend 100% Organic Coffee**
US Senator Censored For Calling Obama Out As A Tyrant
Published on Jan 27, 2014 by TheAlexJonesChannel
Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) appeared on CBS Face the Nation on Sunday morning and was met with a barrage of questions from host Bob Schieffer about his involvement in the government shutdown. Apart from being the victim of Schieffer's accusations that the Tea Party senator was to blame for the shutdown, it also appears that Mr. Cruz was the victim of editing by CBS.
INFOWARS LIFE-MAKE A HEALTHY CHANGE TODAY! http://www.infowarsshop.com/ - Infowars...Fluoride Shield** NEW ITEMSuper Male Vitality** NEW ITEMSurvival Shield - Nascent Iodine** NEW ITEMPatriot Blend 100% Organic Coffee** NEW ITEMImmune Support Blend 100% Organic Coffee** NEW ITEM[[HERBAL SURVIVAL KIT]]** NEW ITEM contains herbal remedies for the most common survival ailments.
U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz has told a conservative conference that President Barack Obama is lawless, providing the right wing rhetoric that makes him so popular in his home state.
Just because I'm making fun of Alex Jones, it doesn't mean I want to take away your guns. As a matter of fact, if you truly support the 2nd Amendment, then a crazy blowhard like Alex Jones is the LAST man you should want to speak for you. Screaming about the NWO and advocating violent behavior doesn't exactly give the impression of responsible gun ownership - and almost certainly does more harm than good.
The ultimate irony: the religion that so often claims to have a monopoly on morality is based on appealing to people's desire to have a get-out-of-jail-free card for literally everything immoral they've ever done.
I don't talk about God because I know He exists; I talk about God because I know you exist. Movies like "God's Not Dead" grossly misrepresent atheists. Allow me to make a few corrections. You're free to express your religious beliefs; I wouldn't want to take that from you. Your beliefs are not free from my criticism. Don't think for a second that just because I freely give my criticisms, that I'm a secret believer. That isn't even logical. Have some empathy. Understand that I'm critical of your beliefs for many reasons: they affect my life, they're untrue, and I simply find it interesting. Fair enough?
Rachel Maddow reports on the publication by USA Today of the U.S. Senate handbook, full of the bureaucratic rules that keep the Senate running, from where to acquire office plants to how to select telephone on-hold music.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
