Wacky Senator John McCain(R-AZ) Hates America and Israel When It Suits His Agenda

Wacky Senator John McCain(R-AZ) Hates America and Israel When It Suits His Agenda

Having succeeded in his smear campaign against UN Ambassador Susan Rice, John McCain has launched a second pre-emptive strike against another would-be Obama cabinet member, former Nebraska Republican Senator Chuck Hagel. But this time McCain's petty payback against a GOP colleague who supported Barack Obama for President in 2008 may run into tougher sledding. After all, thousands of Hagel's fellow veterans signed petition in his support last week, followed up by a Washington Post op-ed signed by a bipartisan group of former national security advisers including Brent Scowcroft. And as it turns out, back in 2006 John McCain endorsed as his ideal Middle East peace envoy another prominent Republican who opposed the Iraq surge, encouraged negotiations with Iran and riled some hardline supporters of Israel. That "smartest guy I know" was the man many neoconservatives call James "F**k the Jews" Baker.

McCain's destiny is to go down in history of man who writes about honor, but has none. A man who serves the agenda of the radical right rather than an American agenda. A man so bitter over not becoming president he does not care how much he lies and smears others.

Why Republicans Don’t Care What the Nation Thinks About Morality and Fiscal Cliff

Why Republicans Don’t Care What the Nation Thinks About Morality and Fiscal Cliff

Are House Republicans – now summoned back to Washington by Speaker John Boehner — about to succumb to public pressure and save the nation from the fiscal cliff?

Don’t bet on it.

Even if Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell cooperates by not mounting a filibuster and allows the Senate to pass a bill extending the Bush tax cuts to the first $250,000 of everyone’s income, Boehner may not bring it to the House floor.

On a Thursday conference call with House Republicans he assured conservatives he was “not interested” in allowing such a vote if most House Republicans would reject the bill, according to a source on the call.

Democrats are confident that even if the nation technically goes over the cliff January 1, Boehner will bring such a bill to the floor soon after January 3 — once House Republicans have re-elected him Speaker – and it will get passed.

But this assumes Boehner and the GOP will be any more swayed by public opinion than they are now.

Public opinion is already running strongly in favor of President Obama and the Democrats, and against the GOP. In the latest CNN/ORC poll, 48 percent say they’ll blame Republicans if no deal is reached while 37 percent blame Obama. Confidence in congressional Republicans is hovering at about 30 percent; Obama is enjoying the confidence of 46 percent. And over half of all Americans think the GOP is too extreme.

Yet Republicans haven’t budged. The fact is, they may not care a hoot about the opinions of most Americans.

That’s because the national party is in disarray. Boehner isn’t worried about a challenge to his leadership; no challenger has emerged. The real issue is neither he nor anyone else is in charge of the GOP. Romney’s loss, along with the erosion of their majority in the House and Democratic gains in the Senate, has left a vacuum at the top.

House Republicans don’t run nationally. They run only in their own districts — which, because of gerrymandering, are growing even more purely Republican. Their major concern is being reelected in 2014, and their biggest potential obstacle in their way is a primary challenge from the right.

The combination of a weakened national party and more intense competition in primaries is making the Republican Party relatively impervious to national opinion.

This poses a large strategic problem for the Democrats. It could be an even bigger problem for the nation.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License

Robert Reich, one of the nation’s leading experts on work and the economy, is Chancellor’s Professor of Public Policy at the Goldman School of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley. www.robertreich.org.

 Conservatism has always run on spitefulness and what is good for the wacky plastic patriots that run the conservative movement, not what is best for the USA.

Anti-American Republicans Congratulate Themselves Over Benghazi Report That Undermines The Lies They Told

Anti-American Republicans Congratulate Themselves Over Benghazi Report That Undermines The Lies They Told

Fox News figures have tried to use an investigative panel's recent report on the Benghazi attack to congratulate their network on its coverage of the attack. But the report actually debunks several incorrect and misleading narratives Fox pushed about Benghazi.

On December 18, the independent Accountability Review Board, which was set up by the State Department to investigate the Benghazi attack, released their findings in a report that "sharply criticized the State Department" for oversights that led to insufficient security at the U.S. compound in Benghazi, as The New York Times reported.

During the December 19 broadcast of On The Record, host Greta Van Susteren asked Fox News contributor Sarah Palin for her thoughts on the report, and Palin answered, in part, "Kudos to Fox News for being the news outlet that stayed on top of this story. Americans deserve these answers." Van Susteren responded that she felt "some level of pride" for Fox's Benghazi coverage, because of "all the sort of heat we took from people, saying that it wasn't a story." She added, "[T]here's been a lot of resistance to my national security colleagues getting this information. So, I do take some pride with them."

Similarly, Fox contributor Kirsten Powers suggested on Special Report that the Benghazi report wasn't even necessary because of the program's coverage of the attack, saying, "Well, it's interesting that that report -- you could have known all that if you'd just watched this show. So, it's sort of funny that they had to do an investigation to figure all of that out."

In fact, the review board's report actually discredits Fox's coverage of the attack.

Fox figures spent ample time, for example, alleging that the Obama administration refused to send reinforcements to Benghazi during the attack, even going so far as to claim the administration made "a political decision not to rescue" Americans at the compound.

But the report determined there was "no evidence of any undue delays in decision making or denial of support from Washington or from the military combatant commanders," and continued, "Quite the contrary: the safe evacuation of all U.S. government personnel from Benghazi twelve hours after the initial attack ... was the result of exceptional U.S. government coordination and military response and helped save the lives of two severely wounded Americans."

Fox also hyped its "exclusive" report that requests for military back-up during the attack were twice denied "by the CIA chain of command" -- even though the CIA called Fox's claims "inaccurate" at the time. But as The Huffington Post pointed out, the Benghazi report debunks that claim. Quoting from the report, Huffington Post wrote, "[A] 'team leader' at the annex had 'decided on his own' to delay leaving the facility briefly to see if local security elements would arrive with reinforcements. After 'a brief delay,' and determining that they would not, the team leader made the decision to move some units toward the compound, the report said."

As the Washington Post's Erik Wemple noted, Fox's subsequent attempt to rebut the CIA's denial of their "exclusive" is also debunked by the report. While a FoxNews.com article claimed that "[t]rouble had been gathering for quite some time" near the compound in an attempt to cast doubt on the CIA's denial, the Benghazi report clearly showed that "[f]olks were winding down and things were quiet on the night of Sept. 11 just before the attackers descended," as Wemple wrote.

Even before the review board's report was released, Fox had been under fire for their false and misleading reporting of the events in Benghazi. Given the report's findings, Fox has no cause to take a victory lap.

One true American ideal is to be big enough, to have enough humility to admit when you're wrong. Fox news and other anti-American conservative news outlets and their gang og radical pundits, has no such values. They are moral nihilists who only believe in the conservative movement, not American values and ideals.

Conservative columnist George Will states that making it easier for people to vote is like Nazism

Conservative columnist George Will states that making it easier for people to vote  is like Nazism

George Will argues in his Washington Post column today that what he terms the Justice Department's "drive to federalize voter registration" is an unnecessarily complex answer to "the non-problem of people choosing not to vote," and that high voter turnout isn't all it's cracked up to be, citing the German elections of the early 1930s that resulted in Nazi dictatorship.

Describing "obvious reasons for non-voting," he writes:

    [T]he stakes of politics are agreeably low because constitutional rights and other essential elements of happiness are not menaced by elections. Those who think high voter turnout indicates civic health should note that in three German elections, 1932-33, turnout averaged more than 86 percent, reflecting the terrible stakes: The elections decided which mobs would rule the streets and who would inhabit concentration camps.

There's a lot to unpack here, but I'll try to keep it brief. Germany in the early 1930s was reeling from the global depression, increasingly bitter over the outcome of World War I and the punitive terms of the Treaty of Versailles, and overrun by extremist parties with their own paramilitary wings brawling in the streets and shooting at each other outside political rallies. Anti-Semitism was widespread, everyone hated the Weimar government, and nostalgia for the heady days of the Kaiser led most people to actually yearn for a dictatorship of some form. And in this toxic political environment, the Nazis managed to prevail over the other extremist groups -- largely due to popular support, but also through conspiracy and outright intimidation.

None of that, however, is an argument against the high voter turnout as a sign of "civic health." It's an argument against war, depression, anti-Semitism, Nazis, Communists, and political violence. Will could just as easily have argued that representative government, or elections themselves, aren't a sign of "civic health," given how they were misused and perverted by Hitler and his associates.

But that's not the only bit of illogic Will brings to bear. Federalized voter registration, Will argues, is "a step toward making voting mandatory." Here's his vision for how that comes to pass:

    Notice the perverse dialectic by which Washington aggrandizes its power: It promises to ameliorate problems exacerbated by its supposedly ameliorative policies. Notice, too, the logic of [Assistant Attorney General Thomas] Perez's thesis that "our democracy is stronger when more people have a say in electing their leaders." Therefore the public good would be served by penalizing nonvoting, as Australia, Belgium and at least 10 other countries do. Liberals love mandates (e.g., health insurance). Why not mandatory voting?

Keep in mind that the only argument the Justice Department has made is that it should be easier for people who want to vote to cast their ballot. From this, Will has divined an intention on the part of the government to impel people to vote, based on the obvious truth that "liberals love mandates," as demonstrated by the health care law that, notably, has precisely nothing to do with elections, voting, or anything remotely related to the topic at hand.

Will's take on and ignorance of history is typical of conservatives. Up becomes down, losing equals winning and taking away individual freedom is the ideal of the conservative movement's concept of freedom.

Wisconsin's Anti-American Governor Scott Walker (R) Wants To Give Teachers Guns, But Make Them Powerless Wage Slaves

Wisconsin's Anti-American Governor Scott Walker (R) Wants To Give Teachers Guns, But Make Them Powerless Wage Slaves

Wisconsin Republican Governor Scott Walker, who became nationally known for severely limiting the union rights of teachers and other public employees, has indicated support for arming those same school officials who apparently cannot be trusted to collectively bargain.

As Americans search for answers and policy solutions in the wake of the tragic school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, Gov. Walker has apparently decided that the problem is not too many guns -- it is that there are not enough.

Giving guns to teachers should be "part of the discussion," he said [3] on December 19. Walker refused to endorse an assault weapons ban or other limits on the types of guns or ammunition that can be sold.

Teachers Need Guns, Not Unions?

Walker's infamous Act 10 legislation drastically curtailed the collective bargaining rights of most public employees in the state, prompting months of historic protests and a recall effort. The governor justified the harsh legislation -- which he never mentioned during the campaign that installed him in office -- largely by demonizing unionized teachers [4] as overpaid and underperforming.

The six teachers killed in the Newtown massacre, all members of an American Federation of Teachers (AFT) union chapter, have been widely praised [5] for their heroism, with many shot while trying to shield their students.

I don't know why Walker (R) hates America. He is lazy, dumb as a rock, hates working class America and has never done an honest day's work in his life, yet he now lives high on the hog on the tax dollars of the public he treats like a Iranian mullah treats the Iranian people.

Guns Don't Kill People, Video Games Kill People

NRA Blames Everything Except Guns: Outdated Video Games and Hurricanes. Everything except guns.

The National Rifle Association, the nation’s largest gun advocates lobby, attributed the shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, to “school free zones,” arguing that “genuine monsters” are attracted to schools because its administrators and teachers are not armed. “Politicians pass laws for gun free school zones, they issue press releases bragging about them,” NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre said. “And, in doing so, they tell every insane killer in America that schools are the safest place to inflict maximum mayhem with minimum risk.”

“The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun,” LaPierre declared and urged Congress to “act immediately to appropriate whatever is necessary to put armed police officers in every single school in this nation.” The lobby will create a “National School Shield Program” that will help schools respond to attacks, led by former Rep. Asa Hutchinson (R-AR).

In a news conference repeatedly interrupted by protesters blaming the NRA for “killing our kids,” LaPierre shoveled out blame far and wide, going after reporters for glorifying killers like Adam Lanza, violent movies, video games, and music videos. He tore into gun safety advocates for exploiting the tragedy for “political gain,” targeted President Obama for underfunding police initiatives in schools, and said that the media demonized “local gun owners” and spread “misinformation and dishonest thinking that only delay meaningful action and all but guarantee that the next violence is a new cycle away.” “Add another hurricane, terrorist attack, or some other natural of man-made disaster, and you’ve got a recipe for a national nightmare of violence and victimization,” he said.

Only gun owners and gun lobbyists — who have spent years easing gun regulations across the country — were spared any responsibility.

All of this weird and wacky blame games is to fight against, not some reasonable restrictions on guns -like renewing the assault weapons ban ( originally signed into law by Bush 41), but Wayne is arguing against any and every kind of restriction. We have some reasonable limits on speech - like you cannot call in fake emergencies or accuse an innocent person of something that affects their ability to make a living. Conservatives seem incapable of having any rational discussions about almost every issue, especially guns that they worship like hand held gods. 4 dead in Blair Co. shooting; 3 troopers injured.

Postscript: Robert Bork, 1927-2012. Bork was a reprehensible conservative reactionary.

Yuletide's Holiday Outlaws

Red Lobster Throws Hissy Fit Over Obamacare, Sees Sales Plummet

Tell Radical Republicans No Deal - 8 Deficit Reducers That Are More Ethical—And More Effective—Than the 'Chained CPI'

8 Deficit Reducers That Are More Ethical—And More Effective—Than the 'Chained CPI'

News reports say the President’s proposed deal includes the “chained CPI,” which would impose drastic Social Security cuts and tax hikes for everybody but the wealthy. And HHouse Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi says that “Democrats will stick with the President," even as he capitulates to GOP tax proposals.

They should both think again.

The “chained CPI” is being offered as part of a “deficit reduction” deal, even though Social Security is forbidden from contributing to the deficit. Even if you accepted this unreasoned act, it remains morally unacceptable to reduce spending on the backs of the elderly, women, the poor, veterans, disabled Americans, and the poor.

It’s even more unethical to do it when other options available could save much more money, And it’s even worse when we see who isn’t “sharing in the sacrifice” – a list that includes hedge fund managers, Wall Street gamblers, billionaires, drug companies, defense contractors, and tax-dodging corporations.

Independent estimates say that the “chained CPI” will slash Social Security benefits by $122 billion over the next ten years. Here are eight solutions that will save more money—and really will reduce the deficit—without compromising either our ethics or our sense of fairness:

1. Close multiple loopholes in the capital gains law: $174.2 billion. (1.42x)

Lawmakers could save nearly one and a half times as much money as they’ll get from stripping seniors, the disabled, veterans, and children of their benefits—1.42 times as much, to be precise—by closing capital gains loopholes.

They include the “carried interest” loophole, which taxes hedge fund managers’ service fees at the low “investors’” rate; the ‘blended rate,’ which taxes some quick derivatives trades as if they were long-term investments; the ability to ‘gift’ capital gains to avoid taxation; a dodge for bartering capital gains; and the ability to ‘defer’ gains to future years.

A more aggressive approach—eliminating the capital gains altogether—ould yield more than $900 billion in savings, but that might affect middle-class families and seniors. By using the “chained CPI,” America’s seniors, vets, and disabled are taking a hit so that hedge fund managers can keep their loopholes.

(Source: Calculations based on figures cited by the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities.)

2. Refuse to compromise on the President’s $250,000 figure for increased taxation: $183 billion (1.5x)

The President’s initial tax plan—the one he and his party ran on, the one that voters endorsed—called for letting the Bush tax cuts expire for income above $250,000. That would bring in an estimated $366 billion in added revenue over the next ten years. Now, say reports, he and the Republicans will agree on a figure that’s “somewhere in the middle.”

If true, the deal’s deficit reduction impact will be reduced by $183 billion. That’s one and a half times as much as the “chained CPI” will take from seniors, the disabled, veterans, and their dependents. They’ll pay—so that people earning $250,000 and up don’t have to.

(Source: CBPP estimate, divided in half.)

3. Reduce the budget for US overseas military bases by 20 percent: $200 billion. (1.6x)

The United States maintains 702 military ‘installations’ in 63 foreign countries (it has 4,471 bases altogether), according to the Defense Department’s annual budget statement.

These figures don’t include bases in Iraq and Afghanistan. We’re talking about our military presence in nations like Germany, South Korea, and Japan. While the total cost of these bases is kept secret, the best analysis I’ve seen estimates their ten-year cost at approximately $1 trillion.

A twenty percent cut in that budget is extremely modest under the circumstances, and would save 1.6 times as much as the “chained CPI” cut.

(Sources: US Defense Department; David Vine via Juan Cole and Tom Engelhardt.)

4. Allow the government to negotiate with drug companies: $220 billion. (1.8x)

Current law specifically forbids the government from using its negotiating power to obtain lower rates for Medicare prescriptions—even though much of the research behind the drugs involved was performed at government expense.

If we allow the government to negotiate with drug companies, that will save an estimated $220 billion. That’s 1.8 times as much money as the “chained CPI”—and it comes from the drug companies, not vulnerable Americans.

(Source: Outterson and Kesselheim, Health Affairs.)

5. Enact DoD-friendly cuts to military budget: $519 billion. (4.25x)

A defense think tank conducted an exercise to help the military prepare for the possibility of forced spending cuts under sequestration (the so-called “fiscal cliff”). It convened what it called “a series of strategic choices exercises,” using “experts from across the defense community,” in order to decide how best to cut $519 billion from defense spending cuts over ten years.

The participants were not peaceniks—most were in the defense community, while some were Congressional staffers—and the think tank’s staffed by ex-military and military-friendly consultants. Nevertheless, they were able to come up with options that seemed acceptable by balancing short-term readiness with long-term preparation.

It was a surprisingly smart exercise—and it sounds like a very good way to build consensus around defense cuts (even though that was not its intent). A project leader described the exercise as “listening to the future,” while the report itself said that “Failing to recognize and make strategic choices is effectively a form of self-sequestration.”

We can listen to our future selves, since we’ll all need Social Security some day, and say: Make these cuts. That’s better than “self-sequestering” by letting politicians cut Social Security.

(Source: “Strategic Choices: Navigating Austerity,” Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments)

6. Enact Rep. Jan Schakowsky’s ‘Fairness in Taxation Act’ for very high earners: $872.5 billion. (7.15x)

In 2011 Rep. Jan Schakowsky introduced the “Fairness in Taxation Act,” which would have created additional tax brackets for very high earners. As Rep. Schakowsky noted at the time, today’s tax structure “fails to distinguish the merely ‘well-off’ from the ‘super-duper rich.’”

The bill adds the following tax brackets:

• $1-10 million: 45%

• $10-20 million: 46%

• $20-100 million: 47%

• $100 million to $1 billion: 48%

• $1 billion and over: 49%

It also taxes capital gains and dividend income as ordinary income for those taxpayers with income over $1 million.

The very wealthy would still be paying much less than they paid under Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower, when the top rate was 91 percent. For that matter, these rates are lower than those we had under most American Presidents of the last century.

This bill brings in more than seven times the “chained CPI” savings by asking the ultra-rich to pay their fair share, instead of targeting seniors and other Americans in need.

(Sources: Rep. Jan Schakowsky; Economic Policy Institute.)

7. Eliminate corporate tax loopholes: $1.24 trillion (10x)

A 2007 Treasury Department report (prepared under President Bush) concluded that “corporate tax preferences”—that is, loopholes—resulted in lost revenue of $1,241,000,000,000 over a ten-year period.

That number looks pretty good—especially when it’s stacked up against the “chained CPI” figure of $122 billion.

If we can’t afford to honor our commitment to America’s veterans and their families, or to our seniors, or to the disabled, we sure can’t afford these corporate tax loopholes – excuse me, I meant “preferences."

(Source: United States Department of the Treasury background paper.)

8. Create a financial transactions tax for high-volume Wall Street trading: $1.8 trillion (14.75x)

And here’s our grand prize winner: A financial transaction tax like the one they’ve imposed in the United Kingdom. The UK tax rate is tiny—0.25 percent of each transaction, levied on both parties—but the overall impact is substantial.

Not only would this tax bring in substantial revenue, it would also discourage the massive volume of ultra-high-speed computer-driven transactions that have turned the stock market into both an imperceptible ‘black box’ and a real-time mega-casino operating in nanoseconds.

‘Algorithmic trading’ and other forms of Wall Street speculation don’t build economic value or encourage wise investment. Instead they’re used to drive the kinds of speculation that’s driving out smarter investments – and brought our economy to its knees in 2008.

Dean Baker of the Center for Economic and Policy Research estimates that a UK-style tax would bring in $1.8 trillion over ten years. It could also lead to healthier investment—and potentially might even help prevent another crash. More than 200 economists signed a letter supporting the concept of a financial transaction tax.

So the choice is clear: Tax the folks who ruined the economy, and protect the rest of us in the process, or ask seniors, etc. to sacrifice needed benefits. Guess which one they’re leaning toward right now?

(Source: Dean Baker, “The Deficit-Reducing Potential of a Financial Speculation Tax“)

Conclusion These figures don’t even include the tax hike that the “chained CPI” will impose on all but the highest levels of income. But even without those numbers, the public already hates the idea. Confirming our interpretation of polling data yesterday, a new Washington Post poll shows that 60 percent of the people polled found the idea “unacceptable” and only 34 percent found it acceptable.

Imagine how they’ll feel when they learn that’s it coming anyway – and that it’s being used to protect hedge fund managers, Wall Street tycoons, Big Pharma, military contractors, and tax-evading corporations?

Democrats should not “stick with the President” on this one—and the President should not stick with this proposal.

President Obama is being nice. He is offering up things that Republicans should like if they were serious and genuinely concerned about the debt. Conservatives are not concerned. They are happy to let middle-class families eat dust. The president should let the wacky cult of conservatism hang by it's own petard, the debt they created with no plan to pay it back except giving seniors, vets, and children the shaft.

Why is America Hating Wacko John Lott all over the media being asked for serious input on gun laws?

Radical Republican Group Tells Congressional Conservatives To Hold Hurricane Sandy Relief Package Hostage

Radical Republican Group Tells Congressional Conservatives To Hold Hurricane Sandy Relief Package Hostage

Club For Growth, a conservative advocacy group, is urging Republicans to vote against the $60 billion Hurricane Sandy relief package that the Senate plans to take up this week, according to a statement on its web site.

The group, which scores congressional votes to document lawmakers’ conservative stances, issued a “Key Vote Alert” this afternoon telling Republicans it would hold a vote in favor of the relief package against them. The statement also calls on lawmakers to offset any money spent for disaster relief with spending cuts:

    The Club for Growth urges all Senators to vote “NO” on the Hurricane Sandy relief bill (HR 1) scheduled for consideration in the upper chamber this week. The vote on final passage, and perhaps procedural votes, will be included in the Club’s 2012 Congressional Scorecard.

    When a natural disaster occurs, there is a textbook response by Congress – they cobble together an overpriced bill that isn’t paid for, there’s no accountability or oversight, and it’s filled with pork. This proposal is no different.

    If lawmakers are interested in improving the bill, they should release the funds in installments to make sure the resources are spent wisely. They should also strip out all immaterial line items, and fully offset all expenditures with spending cuts elsewhere. Serious reform would also include a way for the states to take over the responsibility for future disaster relief funding so that accountability is more localized.

Republicans have made a habit of holding disaster relief hostage to spending cuts in the aftermath of recent natural disasters, like the tornadoes that devastated Joplin, Missouri last spring and Hurricane Irene, which pummeled the East Coast last fall. House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) also threatened to hold disaster relief hostage to spending cuts after an earthquake struck his home state, and Republicans reneged on their support of a deal to fund disaster relief last year.

Multiple Republicans have already indicated that they would not support the relief package without equal spending cuts from other programs.

This is what made America great? Conservatives stab working Americans in the back to advance some murky agenda and teach us all a lesson about money. We're not spending the money because someone misbehaved, we're spending it because it is good for people, good for the economy and the decent thing to do after a national catastrophe.  

3,500 Comments Later, Racist Conservatives Apparently Don't Like Jamie Foxx & Django Very Much

How Walmart Helped Make Newtown Shooter's AR-15 the Most Popular Assault Weapon in America

Tea Party Nation Attacks Teachers over CT School Shooting

10 Arguments Radical Gun Fetishists Make, and Why They're Wrong

10 Arguments Radical Gun Fetishists Make, and Why They're Wrong

2. Guns don't kill people, people kill people.

Maybe, but people with guns kill many, many more people than they would if they didn't have guns, and guns designed to kill as many people as possible. We don't know if the murderer in Newtown was suffering from a suicidal depression, but many mass shooters in the past were. And guess what? People suffer from suicidal depression everywhere in the world. People get angry and upset everywhere in the world. But there aren't mass shootings every few weeks in England or Costa Rica or Japan, and the reason is that people in those places who have these impulses don't have an easy way to access lethal weapons and unlimited ammunition. But if you want to kill large numbers of people and you happen to be an American, you'll find it easy to do.
3. If only everybody around was armed, an ordinary civilian could take out a mass killer before he got too far.

If that were true, then how come it never happens? The truth is that in a chaotic situation, even highly trained police officers often kill bystanders. The idea that some accountant who spent a few hours at the range would suddenly turn into Jason Bourne and take out the killer without doing more harm than good has no basis in reality.
4. We don't need more laws, we just need to enforce the laws we have.

The people who say this are the same ones who fight to make sure that existing laws are as weak and ineffectual as possible. Our current gun laws are riddled with loopholes and allow people to amass enormous arsenals of military-style weapons with virtually no restrictions.
5. Criminals will always find a way to get guns no matter what measures we take, so what's the point?

The question isn't whether we could snap our fingers and make every gun disappear. It's whether we can make it harder for criminals to get guns, and harder for an unbalanced person with murderous intent to kill so many people. The goal is to reduce violence as much as possible. There's no other problem for which we'd say if we can't solve it completely and forever we shouldn't even try.
6. The Constitution says I have a right to own guns.

Yes it does, but for some reason gun advocates think that the right to bear arms is the only constitutional right that is virtually without limit. You have the right to practice your religion, but not if your religion involves human sacrifice. You have the right to free speech, but you can still be prosecuted for incitement or conspiracy, and you can be sued for libel. Every right is subject to limitation when it begins to threaten others, and the Supreme Court has affirmed that even though there is an individual right to gun ownership, the government can put reasonable restrictions on that right.

We do have the right to have guns. That in no way means that we cannot have sensible gun laws - background checks, limiting the size of ammo clips, or having gun free zones. Better gun laws will not solve the problem by itself,  In the Wake of Another Mass Shooting, Let's Talk About America's Dangerously Gutted Mental Healthcare System

Contrary To Fox's Reporting, Fox's Krauthammer Admits Right-To-Work "Can Lead To Lower Wages"

Fox News Thug Steven Crowder is Lying About Not Provoking a Fight With Patriotic Michigan Union Protester

Fox News Thug Steven Crowder is Lying About Not Provoking a Fight With Patriotic Michigan Union Protester

A video of Fox News contributor Steven Crowder getting punched by a Michigan union protester was selectively edited, and that editing was revealed during Crowder’s appearance on Sean Hannity’s show on Fox News.

The original video shows Crowder getting punched by a protester on Tuesday while Crowder was trying to stop an Americans For Prosperity tent from being torn down. The video, which is appraching a million views on YouTube, was picked up by the right as evidence of “union thuggery”:

...Unfortunately for Mr. Crowder, a look at the video broadcast on the Sean Hannity show appears to show quite clearly that he left out an important section of the footage when he put together his edit. A section of the Fox News broadcast preserved by the Web site Mediaite shows that Mr. Hannity’s producers at Fox News started the clip five seconds earlier than Mr. Crowder did. What the extra footage reveals is the man who punched Mr. Crowder being knocked to the ground seconds before and then getting up and taking a swing at the comedian.

How did the patriotic union protester end up on the ground if Crowder did not push or punch him first. It seems that Crowder is lying. At the very least in the sense that he claims to be nothing but a poor innocent victim. More here, Fox News' Conservative Thug Steve Crowder Absurdly Challenges MI Protester To Duel In The Octagon. Crowders' mission from Fox news and the anti-American Koch brothers was to create violence so they would have something to smear unions with.

Why Are Republicans Lying To America About "Right-To-Work" Laws

Why Are Republicans Lying To America About "Right-To-Work" Laws

In the wake of Michigan passing a so-called "right-to-work" law, which significantly weakens the ability of unions to bargain on behalf of workers, right-wing media pushed numerous myths about the anti-union policy.

Are workers in states without right-to-work laws forced to join unions?

Do right-to-work laws lead to higher wages and benefits?

Will right-to-work laws lead to lower unemployment in states that adopt them?

Do right-to-work laws protect workers from supporting political activities they disagree with?
MYTH: Workers In States Without Right-To-Work Are Forced To Unionize

Fox Graphic Declared States Who Haven't Passed Right-To-Work Laws "Forced-Unionism" States. During the December 10 edition of Fox's America's Newsroom, Fox News aired a graphic contrasting states who have passed right-to-work laws with "forced-unionism" states:

[Fox News, America's Newsroom, 12/10/12, via Media Matters]

On Fox, Dobbs And Mallory Factor Describe States Without Right-To-Work Laws As "Forced-Union" States. During the December 10 edition of Fox Business' Lou Dobbs Tonight, host Lou Dobbs and his guest, anti-union activist Mallory Factor, were highly critical of states that do not have right-to-work laws, repeatedly calling them "forced-union" states. Graphic from the show:

[Fox Business, Lou Dobbs Tonight, 12/10/12]
FACT: Workers In States Without Right-To-Work Laws Are Not Forced Into Unions

Economist Dean Baker: "Workers At Any Workplace Always Have The Option As To Whether Or Not To Join A Union." In a 2011 post for the Center for Economic and Policy Research, economist Dean Baker pointed out that workers always have a choice whether to work for a union, whether or not their state has passed right-to-work laws:

    "Right to work" is a great name from the standpoint of proponents, just like the term "death tax" is effective for opponents of the estate tax, but it has nothing to do with the issue at hand. It is widely believed that in the absence of right-to-work laws workers can be forced to join a union. This is not true. Workers at any workplace always have the option as to whether or not to join a union.

    Right-to-work laws prohibit contracts that require that all the workers who benefit from union representation to pay for union representation. In states without right-to-work laws unions often sign contracts that require that all the workers in a bargaining unit pay a representation fee to the union that represents the bargaining unit. [Center for Economic and Policy Research, 2/28/11]

Maine Center For Economic Policy: "Right-To-Work Laws Are Essentially Unfair" And "Not Needed To Protect Nonunion Workers." The Maine Center for Economic Policy similarly found that right-to-work laws are not fair because nonunion employees in a unionized workplace would have a "free ride" and the laws are "not needed to protect nonunion workers" because federal laws already protect workers from being forced into joining a union:

    Right-to-work laws are essentially unfair. If Maine passed a right-to-work law, nonunion employees in a unionized workplace would have a "free ride." They would receive the benefits of union representation, in terms of job protections, wages and benefits, without paying for any of the costs.

    [...]

    A right-to-work law is not needed to protect nonunion workers. Several federal laws already protect the rights of nonunion employees in unionized workplaces, such as the NLRB vs. General Motors Supreme Court decision in 1963, and the Communication Workers vs. Beck decision of 1988. Under federal labor law, workers cannot be legally required to join a union as part of a collective bargaining contract. [Maine Center for Economic Policy, 2/19/11]

Center For American Progress: "Right-To-Work Has Nothing To Do With People Being Forced To Be Union Members." The Center for American Progress report titled "Right-to-Work 101" explained that federal laws already guarantee that no worker can be forced to join a union:

    In states where the law exists, "right-to-work" makes it illegal for workers and employers to negotiate a contract requiring everyone who benefits from a union contract to pay their fair share of the costs of administering it. Right-to-work has nothing to do with people being forced to be union members.

    Federal law already guarantees that no one can be forced to be a member of a union, or to pay any amount of dues or fees to a political or social cause they don't support. What right-to-work laws do is allow some workers to receive a free ride, getting the advantages of a union contract -- such as higher wages and benefits and protection against arbitrary discipline -- without paying any fee associated with negotiating on these matters.

    That's because the union must represent all workers with the same due diligence regardless of whether they join the union or pay it dues or other fees and a union contract must cover all workers, again regardless of their membership in or financial support for the union. In states without right-to-work laws, workers covered by a union contract can refuse union membership and pay a fee covering only the costs of workplace bargaining rather than the full cost of dues. [Center for American Progress Action Fund, 2/2/12]

NLRB: Workers That Don't Want Full Union Membership "Pay Only That Share Of Dues Used Directly For Representation" Of Union Contract They Work Under. The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) explains that workers do not have to be full union members, but instead must only pay for the union representation they receive by working at a union shop, regardless of their membership status:

    The NLRA allows employers and unions to enter into union-security agreements, which require all employees in a bargaining unit to become union members and begin paying union dues and fees within 30 days of being hired.

    Even under a security agreement, employees who object to full union membership may continue as 'core' members and pay only that share of dues used directly for representation, such as collective bargaining and contract administration. Known as objectors, they are no longer full members but are still protected by the union contract. Unions are obligated to tell all covered employees about this option, which was created by a Supreme Court ruling and is known as the Beck right. [National Labor Relations Board, accessed 12/6/12]

MYTH: Right-To-Work Leads To Higher Wages And Benefits

USA Today Op-Ed: Right-To-Work Creates Higher Wages, Which Help Grow Economy. In a December 6 opinion article in USA Today, Mackinac Center for Public Policy's F. Vincent Vernuccio claimed:

    In other words, though Michigan's economy is going in the right direction, it can't let up now. And that's where a right-to-work law comes in to play.

    Consider a few top-line facts about right-to-work states. Private-sector employee compensation in right-to-work states has grown by an inflation-adjusted 12.0% between 2001-2011, according to data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis and Bureau of Labor Statistics. That compares with just 3.0% over the same period in states where workers can be forced to join a union as a condition of getting a job.

    With growing paychecks come growing populations. Between 2000 and 2011, right-to-work states have seen an increase of 11.3% in the number of residents between the ages of 25-34 according to the Bureau of the Census. Non right-to-work states, over that same period, have seen an increase of only 0.6%. [USA Today, 12/6/2012]

Republicans have a difficult to impossible time winning debates when forced to stick to that facts. That is why they have so many spoke-people, media and politicians constantly bombarding the public with false information. America cannot afford to trust a radical conservative movement that creates its own reality.

Anti-American Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder (R)  Signs Union Busting Bills Behind Closed Doors

Twinkie-maker Hostess  CEO Admits Company Took Employees Pensions and Put It Toward Executive Pay

SCOTUS Case on Patenting Human Genes Will Likely inflict "Devastating Harm on the American People"

SCOTUS Case on Patenting Human Genes Will Likely inflict "Devastating Harm on the American People"

(Editor’s Note: Last week, the Supreme Court decided to hear an intellectual property case where it will decide [3] whether human genes can be patented. The case started several years ago when the Public Patent Foundation filed a lawsuit with the ACLU challenging some patents that concerned genes affecting breast cancer and ovarian cancer. Daniel Ravicher is one of the lead attorneys on the case. He was interviewed by Steven Rosenfeld for AlterNet radio.)

Steven Rosenfeld: Daniel, first, congratulations for having the Supreme Court take the case.  Were you surprised?    

Daniel Ravicher: Well, thank you for having me on and thanks for the congratulations. No, we weren’t surprised that the Supreme Court agreed to hear our case because the lower court had come to such an incorrect decision. In fact, the lower court decision was a split decision amongst three judges. That was even further proof that the lower court decision was not correct.

SR: As your brief says the key central question is, ‘Can genes be patented?’ When you get into the brief, you have some really interesting language, where you talk about the laws of nature versus what I would call the products of man. Talk about that distinction.

DR: Well, the Constitution gives Congress the power to grant patents to inventors in order to promote progress. The theory is that if we grant patents to people who come up with an invention that will incentivize people to create these inventions.

It’s always been understood that if you were to grant patents on things that God gave us, the laws of nature, E=mc2, or natural phenomenon, like gold or water, that would be too much power given to the patent holder. They then can use that patent to exclude other people from making or using the covered thing. So there’s a line between that, what God gave us, that cannot be patented and that, what humans make. Now of course, everything a human makes comes from what God gave us, right? Humans don’t create materials out of thin air. They change what’s been given to us.  So there has to be enough of a change from what we were given by God to what we’ve actually created with human ingenuity.

SR: Now in this case, you have a company, a biotech firm that has isolated two genes that are used to identify whether a woman is likely to have breast cancer or ovarian cancer. In your brief, you discuss not only how they’ve sought patents for these but in the application and use of these, they’ve actually prevented other researchers from studying these genes. They’ve prevented women from getting second opinions based on other tests that cannot be developed that are tied to using these genes. Talk about why that is, first of all, a constitutional violation and why it’s just so offensive. 

DR: Let’s remember that these patents were granted by our federal government. Some bureaucrat in the Washington DC area decided that it was smart to give one company the exclusive control over the patented thing and eliminate every other American’s right to do that thing. In this case, the patent holder claims to have been the first entity to realize that if you have certain mutations in a couple of different places along your genetic code in every cell of your body, then you’ve got an increased risk of breast or ovarian cancer.

The vast, vast majority of breast cancer is not genetically caused. It’s through environmental and behavioral decisions of the woman or man. Men can also get breast cancer. But there is a small percentage of people who can get breast cancer because they received genetic mutations from one of their parents. In fact, that type of breast cancer is generally much more aggressive and begins much earlier in life. So this is critical information, and because there’s no exception from patent infringement for fair use, unlike in copyright law and trademark law where we do have exceptions for fair use or the exercise of constitutional rights, there’s no constitutional exception in the patent laws.  Any making or using of the patented thing is infringement.

We represent women, real women, who have a family history of breast and ovarian cancer that led their doctors to tell them that they should have their genes looked at. It’s almost as simple today as having your temperature taken by a thermometer. To do it, you actually have to withdraw blood from the patient, and you just run it through a machine, and the machine prints out the answers for you. It’s not very difficult at all. In the near future, most patients will likely have their entire genome mapped so that they can understand what diseases they’re at risk for.

The patent holder, in this case, wasn’t letting anyone else do that or offer that service, even to poor women who couldn’t afford their test, because they were making super-competitive profits.  They were charging ten times as much, if not more, to do the test than it actually cost to do. They had no sympathies if a woman wasn’t capable of affording it. As you mentioned, they wouldn’t let women even who paid them to take the test, if they wanted to get a second opinion from a different lab, from a different person doing the analysis, the patent holder wouldn’t let them do that. Women had to make very life-altering decisions about prophylactic surgeries, to either undergo or not undergo, based on just this one company’s opinion about their genetic code. We have proof that they had given patients both false negatives and false positives in the past, which is not necessarily because they’re bad guys, it’s just because in all things medical there can be mistakes and errors. That’s why we need second opinions. It’s because of their aggressive use of these patents to impede on women’s rights, that’s why we took the case. 

SR: I’ve read, in some of the business press, like ‘corporate counsel’ columns, that the patent bar was baffled that there would be a civil liberties argument here. Indeed, in your brief, you say that there are First Amendment violations, and I think there’s also Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8.  What are those constitutional infringements?   

DR: The Article 1, Section 8 issue is that granting these patents violates the Constitution in that they don’t promote progress. They actually deter progress by granting a monopoly over a fact of nature to one entity. The First Amendment breaches come in because these patents can be used to impede the speech between doctors and their patients. It also impedes upon thought, because these patents are so broad that if you merely recognize that someone does or does not have an alteration in one of these genes and then correlate that to the risk or lack of risk for early-onset aggressive breast and ovarian cancer, you’ve infringed their patent just by having that thought. So the government is now granting patents, making it illegal to think certain thoughts, to think about science, to think about knowledge, and that impedes upon the First Amendment.

SR: It’s like a prior restraint in a sense? 

DR: The government acts… A lot of people try to say, ‘Well, this is a private company.’ The government is an actor here that is granting… Every Tuesday there are 4,500 things you’re no longer allowed to do, because the patent office granted 4,500 patents every Tuesday. There is insufficient checks and balances to ensure that when they do that, it is justified. They have a financial conflict of interest. The patent office makes 10 times as much money when it grants a patent as opposed to when it denies it. So there are all sorts of problems with our patent system, which have caused it to create real serious negative harms to the public, like in our case.  

SR: I’m wondering how much this case is indicative of larger trends? Whether it’s problems with the patent system itself, as you were just discussing, or since we’re in this ascendant biotech era, how many other applications are out there? I wonder, for example, if you really can distinguish between patenting human genes or Monsanto doing seed stock? I know you’ve been involved in that litigation.

DR: Unfortunately, I hope I’m wrong, but I think this is just the first of many instances where our patent system is going to be causing devastating harm to the American people. Because, to date, most American people don’t realize how the patent system negatively affects them. If they know anything at all, they think patents are rewards for garage inventors. But that’s not at all the case. The patent system is an excuse for corporate welfare, where the government intervenes in free-markets and freedom and gives control to corporations. It’s in some ways, I’ve called it ‘outsourced fascism.’ There’s no adequate control. Our patent office is complete rubber stamp that gives corporate America anything it wants so it can raise prices and reduce availability.

We go and talk about alternative fuels. You know who’s got the most patents on alternative fuels? The oil companies. Why? Because they want to keep those technologies from being developed and brought to the marketplace.

That a corporation would even consider wanting, or the courts consider granting a patent on genes is a result of the decadent, purely profit driven culture of conservative Republican thinking. Money and profits are the only morality. Other considerations are just excess baggage to the conservative concept of values.

10 Things Republicans Don't Want The Nation to Know About the Fiscal Cliff

Michigan's Anti-American Republicans Pass 'Right to Work' for Less Bills Without Hearings or Input from Residents

Michigan's Anti-American Republicans Pass 'Right to Work' for Less Bills Without Hearings or Input from Residents

AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka and President Barack Obama spoke out against "right to work" for less legislation yesterday. These types of laws reduce wages and benefits for working families.

Two days ago, I reported that Michigan Republicans, along with Gov. Rick Snyder, were planning on making Michigan the nation’s 24th “right to work” for Less (RTWFL) state by the end of the year. The timetable was, apparently, far more aggressive than that. The very next day after Snyder announced RTWFL was “on the table,” he held a joint press conference with House Speaker Jase Bolger and Senate Majority Leader Randy Richardville saying that he was asking for the legislation to be passed and that he would sign it into law.

“I do not view this as something against the unions,” Snyder said. Rather, he went on, it’s about “workers [having] the right to choose who they associate with.”

What happened next must have set a new record for the speed at which the Michigan legislature gets bills passed. By the end of the day, both the Senate and the House vacated existing “placeholder” bills, dropped in new RTWFL language and passed a total of three bills—two in the Senate and another in the House. No committee hearings. No floor debate. The Democrats could do virtually nothing as the Republicans steamrolled the bills through without any formal public input whatsoever.

A procedural speed bump put in place by Democrats delayed moving the Senate bills to the House by one day and there is a mandatory five-day waiting period before the House can take action. This allows union-supporting citizens to express their disdain for these new laws, just as they did on Thursday as thousands of Michiganders descended on the capitol building. In the onslaught of this informal public input, House Speaker Bolger locked down the capitol building. Tempers flared, protestors were maced and it took a court order requested by the Democrats to get the building opened again.

The bills include a $1 million  appropriation. Michigan law precludes citizen referendums to overturn laws with appropriations, so not only was there no opportunity for public input before the bills were voted on, there will be none afterwards, as well.

Michigan AFL-CIO President Karla Swift told me, “Today was a dark day for democracy in Michigan. The people were shut out of their own capitol so that lawmakers could better serve corporate special interests. But working people in this state are resilient, and will keep fighting until their voices are heard.”

Michigan Democratic Party chair Mark Brewer was a bit more gloomy. Referring to the role multimillionaire Dick Devos played in the RTWFL legislative action, he issued a statement saying, “The Tea Party takeover of the Michigan GOP is officially complete. Snyder, Bolger and Richardville have shown they are nothing more than puppets for Dick DeVos.” DeVos is reported to have assured Republicans that if they faced recall, he would bankroll their fight against it. He’s reported to have threatened to withhold campaign donations from the same lawmakers if they didn’t vote to pass the bills.

I spoke to a number of union members who were in Lansing yesterday. Katie Oppenheim, a nurse and Michigan Nurses Association member, said, “What can I say? It is a sad day in Michigan—in so many ways. As a nurse and union member, I fear for the safety of patients and nurses. Through collective bargaining, we have been able to negotiate adequate staffing, adequate rest periods and safety equipment. I think the corporate mentality will completely take over.”

Rick Catherman, a teacher and Michigan Education Association (MEA) member from Chelsea, wrote me after an exhausting day, much of which was spent outside in the freezing cold, waiting to be allowed back into the capitol building. It was a “Day of ‘The Big D’s,'” he wrote—“Democrats, Demonstrators, Disappointment, Disgust and Determination! For the state Democrats, it was a day of disappointment and disgust with their colleagues for rushing this damaging legislation through with no committee meetings or testimony, or opportunity for input from citizens of Michigan. Union workers, however, were determined demonstrators."

Catherman continued:

It was great to see state leaders standing with the demonstrators. Lansing Mayor Virg Bernero, MEA president Steve Cook, Karla Swift, UAW president Bob King, along with current state representatives and senators—all were there with us.

The energy in the capitol building from demonstrators was amazing–teachers standing with nurses, auto workers and service and food workers, all standing up for the citizens of Michigan. Nurses standing up for their patients, teachers standing up for our students. It was amazing.

Christine Barry, owner of the state blog Blogging for Michigan, reflected on the day’s events in light of our state’s important place in the labor movement.

My great-grandfather and my uncle were in the hole, my other uncle was in Little Fisher and my grandma and grandpa were on the outside,” she said, referring to significant labor protests in Michigan labor history. “We already fought this battle. We fought this battle with door hinges and water hoses and broomsticks and rolling pins. We were beaten and shot at and we were hungry and cold. We faced down the National Guard and the company police and we won the right to unionize our work. We have union shops because we earned them, and no corporate hack is going to take them away and call it freedom.

One of the biggest ironies — or, perhaps, hypocrisies — of yesterday’s action is the language used by Gov. Snyder and Republicans as they justified what they did. They referred repeatedly to “choice” and “freedom.” However, on the very same day, the House passed incredibly regressive anti-Choice legislation limiting women’s access to reproductive and abortion services and also a committee passed a replacement bill for the now-repealed Emergency Manager law, an anti-democratic law that disenfranchises local communities and takes away their voice in elected government. These are odd ways to celebrate “choice” and “freedom.”

Michiganders are tough and resilient. It’s only through highly gerrymandered state House and Senate districts that Republicans are able to have such complete control over our state legislature. Michigan elected President Barack Obama by a 10-point margin last month and sent Democrat Debbie Stabenow back to the U.S. Senate by an even wider margin. In 2014 and beyond, those who betrayed Michigan’s labor legacy are sure to pay the price politically. What is done can be undone and so it shall be.

Taking worker rights away is typical of how radical conservatives define freedom; they want the freedom to take away the freedom of workers. "Right to work" is one of those Orwellian terms Republicans apply to evil legislation that are actually laws that take away the right to organize and have some kind of voice in the work place.

Fox's Steve Doocy Casts Suspicion On Routine Revisions To Jobs Numbers

5 Groups of Americans Who Shouldn't Have the Right To Vote, According to Neo-Fascist Ted Nugent's Twisted Logic

Sleazebag of the Week: Anti-American Commentator Bill O'Reilly Erases Bush's Debt To Launch False Attack On Obama

Sleazebag of the Week:  Anti-American Commentator Bill O'Reilly Erases Bush's Debt To Launch False Attack On Obama

Bill O'Reilly deleted almost the entire tenure of George W. Bush to falsely allege that President Obama has borrowed more money than all past presidents combined.

During his Fox News program, O'Reilly criticized Obama over the size of the national debt and claimed, "It is hard to believe, but in the last four years, the Obama administration has borrowed more money than every other president combined." Yet O'Reilly then described that time frame as being "from George Washington through the first five months of Bush the younger's administration."

Perhaps O'Reilly chose to exclude the majority of Bush's presidency to avoid acknowledging that the national debt nearly doubled during Bush's two terms. According to the Treasury Department's daily debt calculator, when Bush took office on January 20, 2001, total debt stood at $5.728 trillion. The national debt on January 20, 2009, Bush's last day in office, was $10.627 trillion.

O'Reilly claims Obama "borrowed more money than every other president combined"; if this were true, Obama would have added more than $10.627 trillion to the debt during his tenure. But as of publishing, the Treasury Department calculator states the debt is $16.338 trillion -- which means it increased less than six trillion dollars under Obama.

O'Reilly also aired an exchange with Fox contributor Charles Krauthammer that distorted how federal money is being spent. Krauthammer claimed that the government is spending money, in part, on "giving Sandra Fluke free contraceptives that she can't afford." He added, "The fact that Obama's own HHS is trying to loosen the rules, the work rules for welfare, so we go back to the old system of people living forever on the dole -- that's where they want to spend the money."

Krauthammer's claims are disingenuous. Women's health advocate Sandra Fluke did not ask the government to give women free contraceptives; the Affordable Care Act provision for which she advocated requires private health insurance policies, for which most women already pay a premium, to cover women's preventive health care services. While Krauthammer suggested the administration wants people to "live forever on the dole," most food stamp recipients participate in the SNAP program for less than one year. And Health and Human Services did not loosen welfare work requirements, but instead granted states more flexibility in complying with existing rules.

If Bill O'Reilly was a real patriot he would not have to lie to score cheap political points for his radical UnAmerican side of the political fence.

America hating conservatives Whine About Oscar Omission for '2016: Obama's America' -- Here's Four Simple Reasons Why It Got Snubbed. The movie was made by neo-Nazis. One of whom has since been caught having an affair with another conservative with "values".