Today's edition of quick hits:
* President Obama makes a spirited pitch in support of comprehensive immigration reform, appearing at a big event in Nevada.
* My favorite line in Obama's remarks: "When we talk about that in the abstract, it is easy sometimes for the discussion to take on a feeling of us versus them. And when that happens, a lot of folks forget that most of us used to be them."
* Congratulations, Secretary Kerry: "The Senate confirmed President Barack Obama's nomination of Sen. John Kerry, D- Mass, to be secretary of state Tuesday. The vote was 94 to 3, with three Republicans -- Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, and Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla. -- voting against him."
* The Virginia GOP scheme to rig the presidential election died in a state legislative committee today, following an 11-to-4 vote.
* On a related note, Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder (R), who's been open to the scheme, said today's he's "very skeptical" of the plan, adding, "I don't think this is the appropriate time to really look at it."
* He did a surprisingly good job: "Ray LaHood, the former Republican congressman from Illinois who has run the nation's Transportation Department under President Obama, will not serve a second term, he told department employees in a letter on Tuesday."
* Egypt's top military officer warned today "of the potential 'collapse of the state' if political forces in the country did not reconcile, reflecting growing impatience with the country's growing unrest."
* Let this headline sink in for a moment: "Father of Newtown victim heckled at hearing."
* Hmm: "Fox News Sees Its Worst Ratings Since 2001."
* The Washington Free Beacon is "an important innovator in the right-wing pseudo-journalism world. Hackneyed spin, routine misstatements, and paranoid hyperbole are not the accidental by-product of ideological zeal but its stated goal."
Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.
Leave a Comment:
This plan isn't on Michigan Governor's agenda at this time, he needs to wait until the lame-duck session to ram it through without discussion, and of course with appropriations attached to make it referendum proof.
Agree. "Not the right time" does not, to me, sound quite the same as "not the right idea". And I suspect the same is true about other states (including my own Virginia); let's wait till the media's eye moves on to the next shiny object and *then*.... ka-boom!
"lot of folks forget that most of us used to be them."
The people who are opposed to immigrants don't understand that concept. They look at you and say, "Huh?"
To understand that concept requires empathy, the ability to put yourself in another's place and want to treat them the way you would want to be treated. The right wing doesn't have that capacity which is why they oppose any program whatsoever that may help other people and not themselves. Sometimes they even oppose programs that would help themselves if those programs also help "the other."
Obama is pitching, we're catching. Sounds like amnesty to me.Then we'll have another and another, just like fiscal cliffs.
For those of us who revel in whiny, comedic entertainment, the yellow couch over there at FOX&FRIENDS is becoming a bemoaning davenport, or is it a crying sectional, or is it a lamenting sitting -cushion?
Whatever the appropriate term, just take a gander over there and see the world of hurt these people are in. They remind me of Johnny Cash's cover of the 9 inch nail song because their empire of dirt is all they got!
Oh, and sorry about the ratings Rupert! Bring on more clowns and maybe your ratings will go back up! -Kevo
Rational gun control legislation is NOT TOO MUCH TO ASK...but these irrational gun nuts and their leaders in the NRA try to make any attempt as "they are gonna take away your guns" and put you in concentration camps so buy more guns and bullets today...all of which is a big LIE.
No one is trying to take away anyone's guns. Background checks, registrations, mental health registrations and evaluations and limiting high capacity ammo clips and military assault weapons is NOT TOO MUCH TO ASK. Yet these gun freaks stand around creating this irrational drama like " you'll have to pry it from my cold dead hands" and then hoot and hollar and applaud themselves like they just said something meaningful. Idiots. Only another idiot with a gun will be prying it from your cold dead hands...one who went rambo or tripped most likely.
How can we talk about control or regulations with this kind of paranoia in the air. No one is saying you don't have the right to have a gun but we want to draw the line at grenade launchers and tanks etc. Preaching to the choir but the NRA is a lobbying group pushing a product and should not be allowed to dictate policy...and some of their very verbal supporters completely lack empathy making them sociopaths with guns....or republiguns
"No one is trying to take away anyone's guns"
I wouldn't say no one. I mean there is me.
I would fight my tush off to get guns out of this country.
I think this more than anything forms the foundation of my attitude toward guns. That and world events at the time this was originally broadcast.
Lately I've been thinking what it would be like if we really were going after people's guns, and doing so using the tactics of the anti-abortion terrorists. Like pouring glue into the locks of gun stores, publishing 'wanted' posters of gun-store owners, forming gauntlets of screaming protesters outside gun stores, etc. It's not as if the right can justifiably claim to be opposed to such tactics.
FBI currently does the background checks. No one has the right to your medical records. Period. True assult weapons (machine guns) are already banned. Putting your name in a national data (aka registering your gun) is one step away from confiscation. Limiting the amount of rounds you can have is an infringement of the 2nd Amendment. What part of the that don't you liberals understand?
Chicago area school is set to run a drill tomorrow that will simulate a school shooting. This will include firing blanks down the hallway to familiarize the students and staff with the sounds of gunfire. http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2013/01/29/cary-grove-drill-to-include-shooting-blanks-in-hallways/
The adult (and I use that term loosely) who thought of that should be fired! What kind of trauma is good as a "practice drill"? Time for parents to get on the phone and start a ruckus.
So I guess this what 'duck and cover' looks like in the early 21st century.
"Fox News Sees Its Worst Ratings Since 2001."
Hmmmmm..was there a mass die-off of over 65s, did the South secede again and/or the Rapture happened and I missed it?
They still beat out MSNBC - by double in almost every category/slot. They also lead over CNN and CNBC too - again in every time slot/demographic. Maybe MSNBC is climbing and Fox is dropping - I haven't been keeping track but did check today because of Steve's post. Point is, I am not sure what the angle is of mentioning it. They still lead them all by a decent amount.
I am not of fan of either Fox or MSNBC these past couple of years. They both have there bias and obvious political leaning. I do watch what there lead is on the morning news for purely entertainment. If something is bad for the Republicans MSNBC trumpets it and Fox won't even mention it and vice versa. It really is telling and humorous. I do like Rachel's show though - when I can watch.
....says the troll.
Shall make no law.. I still push letting the liability insurance industry regulate the price of guns and ammo with their unique services.. the 2nd amendment reads like Leviticus (or the entire Bible!) to me.. A concept that has seen it's time and been dimmed by the age of reality. Sorry Constitutionalists, it is not my intent to sully the Constitution but even that is not immune to impermanence, corporations are people but "git yer hands offa my gu-un".. Right!
The Constitution is not "outdated" as you attest to Trollop. It gives people like you the right to say whatever you want. However, it doesn't give you or Obama the right to infringe on any of those rights, including the Right to Bear Arms. This was not for hunting, it is meant to discourage tyranny and oppression by a central government. Once a general population is disarmed, it's like taking candy from baby for a dictator to rule the people. Dictator's love gun control. Both of my great grandfather's served in WWI to earn their citizenship and I will never turn my back on the greatest country in the world or the Constitution. Obama pays no attention to the Constitution. What the Obama administration fails to realize is that people like me, are resourceful and independent and will are willing to stand up against tyranny. And I promise you, the sheep-fold of blacks, poor, illegals and homosexuals do not have the testicular-fortitude that we do. We have money, land, gold/silver, firearms, ammo, food, knowledge and a strong desire to remain independent. You and the liberals have nothing but a false sense of Hope & Change and are headed towards a crash-course with reality.
Silver
Amendment II
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed
No where in the Second amendment does it say that an individual has the right to bear arms. It says a Militia which is more than one person. it says A well-regulated Militia which means a group of people who drill and practice their arms. It says the security of a free State. A State is not an individual it is a government and in the case of the US an elected one. It says the right of the people (again not a person, but persons) have the right to keep and bear arms.
Also Article 1 Section 8 Clause 15 specifically states that Congress has the power to suppress Insurrections. What "discourage tyranny and oppression by a central government" is actually insurrection and the Federal government has the right to suppress. When was last time the US government suppressed an insurrection? It was the Civil War.
Another thing who decides what is tyranny and what is not? who decides what is oppression and what is not? Because there a lot of gray area there. I have been studying the Constitution for over 2 decades and your interpretation of it is appalling. I wish you would read the actual document.
Very few of us were them Most of us were born here of parents born here and we have to go back to our grands to find the first to arrive. But then again the Spanish had invaded Mexico already and the Mexicans were living in Texas and California before they were states.
The true native Americans were nearly exterminated by the first colonists.
The thing to grasp in my opinion is that the illegals are here and deporting them is no guarantee they won't come back. Do we want to spend a fortune trying to militarize our borders or do we prefer to accept the illegals who are here and put them on equal footing? If they no longer must hide from the law then they can finally demand fair pay and treatment rather than be used by greedy pigs. They also will be far less likely to become criminals if they can actually stand up and be counted.
As for the paranoia from the right--hey buzz these people came here because we are what we are not to change us into Northern,Mexico!
So Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, and Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla voted against Senator Kerry? Congratulations to the new Secretary of State! He's pissing off part of the extreme moron wing of the Republican party -- a good sign.
John Kerry, is a traitor for falsely testifying against his military-breathen and is a liar for claiming his war-medals. So glad you're happy to support such an outstanding person.
On the idea that schools can solve gun violence with armed guards: I have, as an interior architect, worked on the design of "low security" buildings, such as courthouses and jails. These buildings have a max 1 or 2 entrances, high/unscalable windows, round-the-the-clock security at every entrance, and fire codes compliance above and beyond (to make up for lack of doors). Do you think we can afford doubling the cost of school buildings/staffing to achieve this? When we can't hardly afford school buildings as it is?
All the yelling about impeaching Obama can be either made into action or not...but according to the Constitution, the Senate is the only governing body that can do an impeachment hearing and it can't be successful without 66 votes
and what party has the majority in the Senate?
(article 1 section 3)
Rachel, great show about the "Changing GOP" with not just immigration but with everything.
Let's remind everyone that the definition of conservatism means "NO CHANGE" (look it up)
That means, when Republicans start "changing" their ways just to cater to NEW demographics...
They become DEMOCRATS! ...Use that on your next show!
The GOP cannot give up conservatism, you know, those Grand Old values.
They would have to start a new political party to cater to a new constituency.
I really want this message to get to you so I'm posting it in a few other articles so please do not get mad at me.
Thanks for your great show.
Dear Rachel, I'm a first time poster "newbie" here. Love your show, etc.
I am endlessly inundated with emails from the current administration which is
fine with me as I signed up for the club. However, today I received the mass
emailing about President Obama's Immigration reform, asking me to sign my name
in support of his "plan." I went and read the plan and aside from its
all-encompassing vague nature, I agree in concept...mostly. However, there is
an issue regarding immigration which I have yet to hear addressed and since I
get the majority of my NEWS from you, Chris Mathews and John Stewart, I pick
you (lucky you) to please hear me out. Forgive my ignorance, as I am not a
writer or a political wonk, but here goes...
Dear Government of The United States of America,
I support President Obama's plan for Immigration reform. However, I would like to
know the president's view in regard to The United States Constitution, Article
II; Section 1, which reads
"No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the
time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of
President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not
have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a
Resident within the United States."
I personally believe that any immigration reform should include the following (in some form better suited for professional writers)…"Any immigrant who entered into the United States of America illegally, even after said person follows the immigration reform path to citizenship, shall in the process of
having any natural born children in the United States of America, that it be
agreed that any children of said immigrant for one generation be
ineligible to run for President of The United States and excluded from the
rights granted to natural born citizens in The United States of America
Constitution in Article II; Section 1.
I would appreciate any and all enlightened opinion and positions on this
particular issue.
Thanks,
The Apostle William
I am worried about the "Pay fines and back taxes" part of immigration plan. I believe this will scare off the people we are trying to help. If I had lived here for 10 years without citizenship and suddenly had to pay for 10 years of back taxes and a fine, I would never try for citizenship because I know I would ever be able save up enough money. This is too punishing!!!!
Are you saying they would rather keep watching for INS than pay up and become legal?
I have yet to hear the whole story though. Most of them have paid into the system by having taxes withheld--employers that did not send the withholdings in are subject to penalties. If they paid but did so under a false SSN then are they going to be given credit and simply fined for using a false SSN? Will they be prosecuted for falsifying tax forms?Will they face civil action if they are using someone elses identity?
Considering the number of laws they broke I would think they would be happy to pay whatever they owe.