The Republican candidate for President, Ron Paul, just confirmed what we already knew – that he is against the 1964 Civil Rights law that outlawed different forms of discrimination against blacks and women.
The Republican/Libertarian appeared on the show Hardball with Chris Mathews and made his feelings against The Act known. His son Rand Paul, stated the same sentiments against the Civil Rights Act when he successfully ran for Senate in 2010.
Below is the video, compliments of TPM
By the Associated Press
Georgia Gov. Nathan Deal has signed a bill that cracks down on illegal immigration by increasing some enforcement powers and requiring many employers to check the immigration status of new hires.
Deal on Friday signed the bill that has some similarities to a controversial bill enacted last year in Arizona.
Most parts of the Georgia law are set to enter into effect July 1. But opponents have said they plan to file lawsuits seeking to block it.
A requirement for private employers to use a federal database to check the immigration status of new hires is set to be phased in.
The new law also authorizes law enforcement officers to check the immigration status of certain suspects and to detain those who are in the country illegally.
John McCain is often called many things for many reasons (we will not get into them now). But one thing you must respect Mr. McCain for is the many years he spent in captivity while flying bombing missions in the Vietnam war. John McCain was a prisoner of war and faced bouts of torture from his captors.
So when McCain talks about torture, it would be a wise idea to listen to someone with first hand knowledge. In a Washington Post op-ed written on Thursday, McCain responded to the claims of many in his own Republican party that intelligence gathered under torture led to Osama Bin Laden’s capture. Mr. McCain spoke about some of the acts employed by United States personnel, namely water-boarding;
Much of this debate is a definitional one: whether any or all of these methods constitute torture. I believe some of them do, especially waterboarding, which is a mock execution and thus an exquisite form of torture. As such, they are prohibited by American laws and values, and I oppose them.
After stating his personal feelings on water-boarding, Mr. McCain – the Republican 2008 Presidential nominee and Ranking Member of the Senate Armed Services Committee – dove into the debate head-on, saying that any claims by former Bush officials that torture led to Bin Laden’s capture were “false.”
But this must be an informed debate. Former attorney general Michael Mukaseyrecently claimed that “the intelligence that led to bin Laden . . . began with a disclosure from Khalid Sheik Mohammed, who broke like a dam under the pressure of harsh interrogation techniques that included waterboarding. He loosed a torrent of information — including eventually the nickname of a trusted courier of bin Laden.” That is false.
I asked CIA Director Leon Panetta for the facts, and he told me the following: The trail to bin Laden did not begin with a disclosure from Khalid Sheik Mohammed, who was waterboarded 183 times. The first mention of Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti — the nickname of the al-Qaeda courier who ultimately led us to bin Laden — as well as a description of him as an important member of al-Qaeda, came from a detainee held in another country, who we believe was not tortured. None of the three detainees who were waterboarded provided Abu Ahmed’s real name, his whereabouts or an accurate description of his role in al-Qaeda.
This must be shocking news for those on Fox News and most of the Republican leaders, who, on the Sunday talk shows had a field day promoting the lie that torturing Khalid Sheik Mohammed revealed the name of the courier to Osama Bin Laden. Instead of accepting the fact that Bin Laden was captured on President’s Obama’s watch, these partisan Republican leaders got their talking points from Fox News, and ran with it.
Mr. McCain continued;
In fact, the use of “enhanced interrogation techniques” on Khalid Sheik Mohammed produced false and misleading information. He specifically told his interrogators that Abu Ahmed had moved to Peshawar, got married and ceased his role as an al-Qaeda facilitator — none of which was true. According to the staff of the Senate intelligence committee, the best intelligence gained from a CIA detainee — information describing Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti’s real role in al-Qaeda and his true relationship to bin Laden — was obtained through standard, noncoercive means.
One of the claims John McCain made in the 2008 presidential election was that he was still a maverick. Well you can’t get more mavericky than this.
At a time when Republicans are looking for any kind of victory, even trying to take one away from a Democratic President, one Republican is standing up and speaking the truth – a rare act. And for that, John McCain has regained his maverick status.
Hopefully, it’ll stick around for a while.
So Newt decided to throw his hat in the ring. Mr. Gingrich has decided that what America needs now is a Republican President who’s on the ball. One who is able to see through the fraud and trickery of the Democrats. The only problem is, fraud and trickery is Newt’s middle name. Try as you may, you won’t find a politician more trickier than Newt Gingrich.
Mother Jones has a piece out that goes through some of the more inflammatory remarks and doings of Newt, since he first joined congress in 1978, spanning some of his most infamous remarks to date. These include, but not limited to;
The article, written by David Corn and Tim Murphy, details the last 33 years of Newt Gingrich. But if you don’t have the time to read through the garbage that sums up Newt’s political and personal life, the New York Times published a piece summarizing some of the more outrageous and divisive statements;
The Democrats who won in 2008, including President Obama, are “left-wing radicals” who lead a “secular socialist machine,” he wrote in his 2010 book, “To Save America.” He accused them of producing “the greatest political corruption ever seen in modern America.” And then the inevitable historical coup de grâce: “The secular-socialist machine represents as great a threat to America as Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union once did.”
The slurs don’t stop there. He compared the Muslims who wanted to open an Islamic center in Lower Manhattan to the German Reich, saying it “would be like putting a Nazi sign next to the Holocaust Museum.” He is promoting the fringe idea that “jihadis” are intent on imposing Islamic law on every American village and farm.
Last year, he called for a federal law to stop the (nonexistent) onslaught of Sharia on American jurisprudence and accused the left of refusing to acknowledge its “mortal threat to the survival of freedom in the United States and in the world as we know it.” This nuanced grasp of world affairs was reinforced when he said that Mr. Obama displayed “Kenyan, anti-colonial behavior.”
In his world, advocates for gay rights are imposing a “gay and secular fascism” using violence and harassment, blacks have little entrepreneurial tradition, and Justice Sonia Sotomayor of the Supreme Court is a “Latina woman racist.” (He kind of took back that last slur.)
And even Newt’s own mother unintentionally threw him under the bus back in the 1990’s, when she quoted something he said about Hillery Clinton, then first Lady of the United States.
Yes, the fraud and trickery of Newt Gingrich is abundant. Just what we need in the White House!
According to a new poll by the Associated Press-GFK, Americans are beginning to appreciate the efforts of President Obama. The poll was taken after the President ordered the capture/killing of Osama Bin Laden, and shows his biggest rating in over 2 years.
WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama’s approval rating has hit its highest point in two years — 60 percent — and more than half of Americans now say he deserves to be re-elected, according to an Associated Press-GfK poll taken after U.S. forces killed al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden.
In worrisome signs for Republicans, the president’s standing improved not just on foreign policy but also on the economy, and independent Americans — a key voting bloc in the November 2012 presidential election — caused the overall uptick in support by sliding back to Obama after fleeing for much of the past two years.
Fox News and conservative radio have their work cut out for them over the next few months. Watch for the lies and mis-information from these media outlets to increase. Maybe somehow, they will resurrect Bin Laden before the 2012 elections!
Cliché Time…
If we are known by the company we keep, and birds of a feather flock together, then what exactly does it say about Mike Huckabee – the 2008 Republican presidential candidate and possible 2012 Republican candidate for President – when his closest advisor, Janet Porter says “President Obama is a Soviet Secret Agent?” Seriously!
Huckabee has joked that he “answers” to “two Janets.” One is his wife, Janet Huckabee. The other is Janet Porter, the onetime co-chair of Huckabee’s Faith and Values Coalition. And Porter, the former governor has said, is his “prophetic voice.” But that voice has said some weird things over the years: Porter has maintained that Obama represents an “inhumane, sick, and sinister evil,” and she has warned that Democrats want to throw Christians in jail merely for practicing their faith.
She’s attributed Haiti’s high poverty rate to the fact that the country is “dedicated to Satan,” and she suggested that gay marriage caused Noah’s Flood. And there’s this: In a 2009 column for conservative news site WorldNetDaily, Porter asserted that President Barack Obama is a Soviet secret agent, groomed since birth to destroy the United States from within.
So if Janet Porter is Mike Huckabee’s “prophetic voice,” and her opinions are clearly those of the insane, does that mean that Huckabee is therefore insane and thus, a crazy Republican is getting ready to possibly run for the job of Commander In Chief of this nation?
OMG!
We have all heard their claims, that former President George Bush is equally responsible for bringing down Osama Bin Laden as our current President, Barack Obama. And these Bush lovers credit the torturing and water-boarding of prisoners as the only pathway that led to Bin Laden.
Are they right? Is the Obama administration wrong for ending torture and abiding by the rules in the Geneva Convention – a treaty that America is a signatory to? A treaty that clearly states in Article 27;
Protected persons are entitled, in all circumstances, to respect for their persons, their honour, their family rights, their religious convictions and practices, and their manners and customs. They shall, at all times, be humanely treated, and shall be protected, especially against all acts of violence or threats thereof and against insults and public curiosity.
If we listen to the likes of Dick Cheney and Condoleezza Rice, we would be led to think that torture is the best thing since slice bread. But branch out a little and listen to others in the business of getting intelligence, and you’ll understand why torture or “enhanced interrogation,” loses its effect after a while.
Forbes today released an interview with a top United States interrogator in Afghanistan, who claimed that “torture played no role in locating Osama bin Laden.” According to the report, this interrogator refers to the support for torture made by former Bush administration officials as “propaganda [that] degrades our intelligence operations more than any other factor I can think of.”
He continues;
“Listen, water-boarding and/or other coercive techniques did nothing to contribute to our attempts to track down UBL (Usama bin Laden). What did succeed was weeks, months and years of diligent, laborious, and dedicated work – all within the bounds of legal and ethical boundaries…No torture, no waterboarding, no coercion – nothing inhumane – is considered a useful tool in our work.
I cannot even count the amount of times that I personally have come face to face with detainees, who told me they were primarily motivated to do what they did, because of hearing that we committed torture. Even the rumor of torture is enough to convince an army of uneducated and illiterate, yet religiously motivated young boys to strap bombs to their chests and blow themselves up while killing whoever happens to be around – police, soldiers, civilians, women, or children. Torture committed by Americans in the past continues to kill Americans today.”
But why would Cheney and Rice listen to anything an interrogator says? Torture was their policy. It had nothing to do with American exceptionalism, finding terrorists or saving the lives of American troops deployed abroad. It was their interrogation practice of choice.
Torture violates the very moral fabric of who we are as Americans and admitting it was wrong means their policies were wrong as well. And that is what it all boils down to… politics 101.
Donald Trump keeps sinking deeper and deeper into his self-indulging sea of ignorance. This time, it was on his weekly Monday morning appearance on Fox And Friends. Trying to defend himself against the racist elements of his almost presidential campaign, Trump claimed that he is the “least racist person there is.” His reasoning? He cites a black person winning his “Apprentice” show, some six years ago!
Hush! Trump is talking again;
Well, you know, when it comes to racism and racists, I am the least racist person there is. And I think most people who know me would tell you that. I am the least racist, I’ve had great relationships. In fact, Randal Pinkett won, as you know, on The Apprentice a little while ago, a couple of years ago. And Randall’s been outstanding in every way. So I am the least racist person.
If it wasn’t so sad, his statement would be hilarious. Here we are in the year 2011, and a potential presidential candidate’s only justification for why he isn’t a racist? – a black person won on his show. Is this a qualifying attribute our nation needs in the next leader? Are we scrapping so far down in the barrel that a serious consideration for the highest office in the nation, is being given to someone who references a minority winner on a reality television show as their only claim to acceptance or even tolerance to other racial groups?
Well if this is where we find ourselves, God help us, and thank you Randal Pinkett!
Osama Bin Laden, the mastermind of September 11 and the man who financed the killing of almost 3000 men, women and children on America soil – was hunted by the Bush Administration. But after the first few months of trying to find Bin Laden, George Bush got tired. To hear him say it;
We hadn’t [sic] heard from him in a long time, and the idea of focusing on a person is um, really indicates to me people don’t understand the scope of the mission. Terror is bigger than one person, and ah, he’s just… he’s, he’s, he’s a person that’s been marginalized.
So I don’t know where he is, nor, you know. I just don’t spend much time on it. I’ll be honest with ya.
We hadn’t heard much from him. And ah, I wouldn’t necessary say he’s at the center of any command structure. And again, I don’t know where he is. I ah, I, I, I repeat what I said, I truly am not concerned about him.
And now that Bush is out of office and another president was sworn in, Osama Bin Laden is dead, mainly because we this other president was concerned enough to make Bin Laden’s capture a top priority. That president, according to top figures in the Republican party, is not President Obama, but former President, Mr. George Bush.
Sarah Palin for example, would not even mention President Obama by name, but she made sure to thank Mr. Bush. This report from yahoo news;
A day after Osama bin Laden’s death, Sarah Palin offered measured praise to President Obama for his role in approving the operation to kill the 9/11 mastermind, though she didn’t once mention the Commander-in-Chief by name.
Speaking at a tribute to military veterans in Colorado, the former Alaska governor credited Obama’s “decisive leadership” in the mission–referring to him as “the president.”
But she notably praised former President George W. Bush by name, insisting he had laid the groundwork for the successful operation. “We thank President Bush for having made the right calls to set up this victory,” she said.
The capture and killing of the most wanted man in the world, and Republicans are trying to take credit. If you listen to them, George Bush himself kicked down the door to Bin Laden’s room and pulled the trigger.
Former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice sat down for an exclusive interview with Lawrence O’ Donnell last night, and continued her defense of the Bush administration and their decisions to invade Iraq. She also credits Mr. Bush for the capture and killing of Osama Bin Laden, saying that a lot of the things Bush did, directly lead to Bin Laden’s demise.
When Lawrence pointed out that the decision to go into Iraq was wrong and based on a flawed report, Miss Rice got irritated and threatened to walk out on the interview.
Five months after September 11th 2001, the Bush administration shifted focus from Afghanistan and zeroed in on Iraq. One would think that after this interview, the reasons would be more clear. One would be wrong to think that.
Judge Napolitano of Fox News should be fired, but don’t hold your breath for that to happen, Fox openly demands that their employees make the kind of remarks Napolitano made yesterday. The Fox News ding-bat accused the President of “illigally killing” Osama Bin Laden. All this, because the President is not a Republican, and possibly because he’s black.
The Fox News Napolitano went on the propaganda machine better known as Fox Network, and basically called the president a murderer, saying, “this business of the president deciding to kill people is very dangerous and very unlawful.” He continued;
“Where will it stop. Who will President Obama kill next? Can the president now send the seals to kill colonel Qhadaffi? President Assad? Prime minister Putin? Fidel Castro? Hugo Chavez or Kim Jon Il? Can he kill whomever is an obstacle to his purposes?
Can he kill Bradley Manning or Juliane Assange? Or Khalid Sheikh Mohammed? Could he kill Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh or me? Can the president kill anyone who was once a friend but became our enemy?
Although the Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh or “me” question may be a valid one in some circles, Napolitano’s rant, is of course, based purely on capturing some political ground for Republicans lost after Obama gains over the last week. And of course theres the racial element thats always present.
According to his own diatribe, Osama Bin Laden was the most wanted man in the world. He wasn’t wanted because of his pleasant ways and wonderful mannerism at the dinner table, he was wanted because he personally went on a mission to kill as many American citizens as he possibly could. And because of his hate and contempt for Americans, Osama Bin Laden was sought after by multiple administrations including that of Bill Clinton, who the Republicans, including Fox News, blamed for the attacks on September 11th. According to the Republican’s theory, if Bill Clinton had killed Bin Laden when “he had the chance to,” then September 11th, 2001 would not have happen.
George Bush tried to find and kill Bin Laden – a search that lasted about an hour. He sent in troops to drop bombs in known caves in Pakistan and Afghanistan, with the hope of killing Bin Laden. Drone attacks were often used but most of the time resulted in other terrorists being killed. “We want him dead or alive” was the famous Bush line. Judge Napolitano didn’t see the need to question these drone attacks or the other bodies they provided, but he now has issues with President Obama accomplishing what previous administrations couldn’t.
The Fox News employee suggests the only time a President is “legally” allowed to kill someone is, “in self defense, in war on a battlefield or after a verdict by a jury for the death penalty. ” Well it seems to me that two of the three reasons given, were present in the case of Osama Bin Laden.
And keeping with the mindset of Fox News, Mr. Napolitano lied to his sheeple, telling them that there are no pictures, just Obama’s word. Of course we know this to be a lie. There are pictures and a video of the mission. But even if there were none, how does Napolitano explain the survivors who were present in the mansion with Bin Laden? According to all the news reports and Pakistan officials, Bin Laden’s wife was shot in her leg, there were other dead bodies from the mission and there were children on the compound. If you are to believe Napolitano’s “all we have is Obama’s word,” then you will have to believe that Bin Laden’s wife volunteered to be shot in the leg, and the dead bodies are not really dead. You will have to believe that all the children found at the compound were paid off, probably with candy, to perpetrate afraud.
The whole point here is that Fox News and their sicko employees can’t accept the fact that a Democratic President – wait a minute, Bill Clinton was a Democratic President and they wanted him to kill Bin Laden – strike that… They can’t accept the fact that a black Democratic President accomplished what other administrations tried, and failed to do.
The video below explains
