Archive for chris hayes

Josè Díaz-Balart Meets With President Obama and Reports to All In

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

misspelled amnesty sign anti-immigrant
You can almost hear Morgan Freeman, the voice of God, intoning over the National Guard that Governor Good Hair Perry saw fit to deploy on women and children, "This is NOT what Jesus Would Do, Governor Perry!!"

With a few lightning bolts and a suitable coda of thunder to punctuate.

Chris Hayes really went All In Friday evening, when he got the early scoop on colleague Josè Díaz-Balart's enviable interview with President Obama on the day of his historic meetings with Central American rulers on the other end of the humanitarian crisis on the borders.

Díaz-Balart went there, thoroughly, about the complicity of the United States' recreational drug habit in the traffic, and the trafficking, that lie at the heart of this current disaster. He is not wrong, in saying that every line of cocaine done in the U.S. impacts cultures in Central and Southern America.

His MSNBC morning program will offer more interview footage next week. Here is the first look.

Then the promised footage with Chris Hayes in the evening lineup.

Prior to that, Hayes had done a powerful segment on the actual face of the ongoing deportations, with some fascinating facts on the Obama administration's quieter policies.

Do you suppose we could trade the Statue of Liberty back to France for a working guillotine? It would take care of immigration reform and the death penalty glitches in one fell swoop.

quotdumb_fux_newsquot_small_poster

For contrast, perennially thirsty Senator Marco Rubio and Pundette Megyn Kelly are cozying up at Fox Noise, hyping their unique, peculiar brand of 'immigration reform assassination' that works so well over at Fvx Nation.

cheaperthanalobotomy

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

Afternoon-Evening Links

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

links

Family's car catches fire in Longleat lion enclosure

Is Bulgaria Next For Putin? Should You Care?

Dear Chris Hayes: Please Stop Legitimizing Right-Wing Nut Jobs

Obamacare? Are you nuts? (Video)

Why are we not hearing more about this? (Or have I just missed that someone is talking about it?)
U.S. Ground Troops Being Deployed To Poland

Milbank On Planet Denial: No Rebirth Of The Militia Movement

Nigeria abductions: Headmistress pleads for girls' lives

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

7 Dem. Redcoats Join All GOP Senators Turning Their Backs On The Constitution

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

GOP

GOP

Its was a sad day in Congress yesterday. As I reported, Darrell Issa demonstrated his immature and perhaps disqualifying behavior in a showdown with fellow committee member, Rep. Elijah Cummings. Issa's behavior has him now mocked and ridiculed everywhere except of course, with his main "employer," Fox News.

Elsewhere on the Capitol Hill, the GOP celebrated in infamy a 50th vote to repeal Obamacare. While there hasn't been enough time to vote on a jobs bill, immigration reform or an extension to jobless benefits, Speaker Boehner was able to squeeze in a futile symbolic vote which came up exactly like the last 49 attempts -- without any chance of forward movement. The cost of this clown show of votes in manpower? Millions of dollars in staff hours alone.

Hard as it may be to conceive, there was a greater affront to justice and our Constitution which took place yesterday. It happened in the Senate. The upper house voted on the president's nomination of Debo Adegbile to lead the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division.

As Chris Hayes on All In points out, the precedent has been set now. If you have been a practicing attorney and been dealt a high profile case -- and won -- you're not viable for Senate approval as a presidential nominee. By doing your job, and doing it well, you're disqualified.

Our constitution has made clear that as Americans, we have certain rights, though the interpretations vary and that's what drives the religious right and the ultra-right Republicans. They love to hide behind, twist and turn their interpretations of these, especially the right to bear arms,  to freedom of speech and religious beliefs. What they did yesterday was abridge the Bill of Rights -- the sixth amendment. The part of that amendment that I'm referring to "... to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence [sic]."

HuffPo:

All Republicans and a handful of Democrats voted to sink Debo Adegbile’s nomination to lead the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division. The overriding reason for their opposition was that he once represented Mumia Abu-Jamal, a death row inmate convicted 30 years ago of killing a Philadelphia police officer.

Adegbile did not make the decision to take on the case. When he became the head of the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund in 2012, the group was already representing Abu-Jamal, and Adegbile continued to do so on a narrow constitutional issue. In other words, he was just doing his job by advocating for his client.

Using this litmus test to disqualify people from high government office, we'd have to veto Conservative hero Chief Justice John Roberts and the late President John Adams. They both defended and successfully gained acquittal for their clients accused of heinous or treasonous crimes. All Adegbile did was seek justice as was his obligation under the law. And he didn't get a guilty man freed, he got the sentence moved from death to life -- both would keep him off the streets. I pause to wonder if this victim of this murder was a black carpenter instead of a white cop if we'd even be having this discussion.

As Chris Hayes commented on the Republicans and Democrats who voted down this nomination based on providing adequate legal defense (and by the way, winning) to a defendant in court, "Shame on you, senators!"

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

CPAC -- Conservatives On (Gay) Cruise Control (NSFW)

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

Gay

Nothing like getting out of town and hanging out with the boys to get those conservative juices flowing. And by juices, I mean body fluids. And by boys hanging out with one another, I do mean bedding one another. Oh those sly conservatives. And you thought they were all button-down types. Read on. You, or at least they, will get a "bang" out of this.

How interesting that during the day, the many firebrand keynote speeches talked about everything wrong with this country, blaming everything on Obama -- education, healthcare, Benghazi, education, lack of jobs, the economy, over regulation and the XL Pipeline.

According to coverage on the CPAC convention, the XL Pipeline is actually gay code for eXtra Large Penis.

HUFFPO:

COLLEGE FRESHMAN IN TOWN FOR CPAC - (M4M) - 18

Coming into town Thursday afternoon through Sunday afternoon for a convention and looking to have some fun here. Mostly looking for very hung individuals to mess around with. I have a thing for really big cocks. I can deepthroat anything and love to swallow.

Okay, maybe this was just one guy in the ultra-right wing element who is looking to explore new horizons. An exception, not the rule. One bad apple kind of thing.

CPAC 24 M4M (NSA) M4M (CPAC)

It is that time again and I want to have some NSA [no strings attached] fun after the speeches. I want to fu*k your mouth while I sign you up on the healthcare marketplace. [closet liberal or closet gay] I want you to be the gipper and go down on my jellybeans. I want to be discreet.

Well, maybe two gays slipped through the cracks. After all, if you heard the speeches from the guests so far during the CPAC convention, you'd know that gays are not part of the conservative agenda. If they are anything, they're the entertainment. The naughty entertainment.

CPAC m4m - 43 (National Harbor)

Radical libertarian would like to tie up and abuse proglodyte and leftover journalists. Boys who look like Sally Kohn or Chris Hayes who need to be tied up, slapped around and fu*ked. Also any Rick Santorum supporters in the closet  or younger versions of Lindsay Graham or John McCain. Of if you are just a decent constitutionalist type, we can have regular non-hate sex or a drink. Your place.

These are just three of the volumes of gay sex-seeking personal ads on Craigslist -- dudes just looking for love while the conservatives are in town. Seems like CPAC is quite a freaky annual outing -- and I do mean outing.

But, just so you don't think that the these convention folks are all bigots, there was this ad:

CPAC Head - 34 (DC)

Cpac ad picture

Masculine, super-discreet and clean cut black guy looking to give head to masculine guy in town for CPAC. DDF only. Any race.

In case, like myself, you didn't know what DDF stood for, I looked it up. It means Drug and Disease Free. Good for those ultra conservatives. They really are concerned with healthcare. Just not Obamacare.

I'm sure not all conservatives are freaks. Others are just plain ignorant or in some cases, stupid. But from this HuffPo report, there's certainly lots of partying going on, and from these ads -- this mostly boys club gives new meaning to the expression, "boys will be boys." It's more like boys will be into other boys.

File this under the 'GOP hypocrite files.' These are the same people who fight same sex marriage, pass bills restricting women's right to choose and religious freedom bills designed to be anti-gay bills. Who are they fighting for with their rhetoric? Probably tonight's No Strings Attached anonymous hook-up.

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

96% Of Senate Republicans Vote To Damn And Punish U.S. Military Veterans

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

up yours

We'll pay for you to go to war, but we won't take care of you when or if you come back. It's a one way ticket.

A whopping 96% of the Republicans in the Senate voted against legislation on Thursday that would have expanded federal healthcare and education programs for veterans, saying the $24 billion bill would bust the budget. 96 percent! I'd say that's almost unanimous as a party stance on the bill.

So you have to ask yourself, why? Is it really going to "bust the budget?"

Interestingly the same question was put before Senator Bernie Sanders (I - VT) by Chris Hayes last night on All In. Sanders response is heated, passionate and shows the real fallacies of the Republican thinking on this matter and just how much these GOP-ers are hypocrites when it comes to veterans. As a party they're always willing to start wars, just never prepared to fund them. Then afterwards, these same warmongers have a tendency to turn their backs on the lucky ones -- those that live through these atrocities. Our fighting men with real injuries and losses become just chess pieces, not real -- not flesh and blood. But to their families and friends they sure are real. Denying them dignity and aid is a total affront.

If Iraq and Afghanistan weren't bad enough in body count, those scarred, wounded, maimed, and mentally suffering from these battles deserve every bit as much attention upon their return as the unfunded battles that sent them overseas. But that's not the thinking of the GOP senators. They will only budge on the funding IF we tack on an unrelated sanctions bill that's sure to push us into war with Iran and raise the death count all even higher.

Sanders points out that Republicans have an 'open checkbook' policy when it comes to the costs of war.  Other costs always have to be offset by cuts. Not the case for wars: the sky's the limit for the neo-cons. But somehow it's nothing or next to nothing for our returning vets who fought their wars.

If you want to see the harm the Republicans are inflicting on our veterans, just catch this piece with Chris Hayes and Bernie Sanders. Then ask yourself how anyone who cares about this country can vote for a Republican incumbent senator the next time around?

If Democrats want to keep the Senate and retake the House, all they need to do is show this piece.

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

Workers push to join unions becomes big headache for MSNBC, liberal hosts

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

msnbc lean forward

I often hear from indignant or disappointed Twitter followers that the progressive MSNBC political show hosts don't go to bat for this or that cause, and have threatened to boycott the network if their favorites let them down. I understand the frustration, but unfortunately, demands like those are not always realistic.

What many don't realize is, at least in some cases, on-air personalities are unable to speak out for contractual reasons. "Breach of contract" is nothing to sneeze at. For example, protesting on MSNBC air time or threatening to walk out on their jobs because of Martin Bashir's departure was very likely not an option. They'd get their asses sued faster than Megyn Kelly can say "Santa Claus is white."

However, perhaps publicly backing workers who want to join unions is different, and the AFL-CIO is all over them about that. I'm no legal expert, so I have no idea if this particular action would be contractually kosher or not.

Via The Hill:

The AFL-CIO is calling upon liberal MSNBC hosts to meet with workers at the cable network who are trying to unionize.

In a letter sent to Rachel Maddow, Ed Schultz, Rev. Al Sharpton, Chris Hayes and Lawrence O’Donnell, the nation’s largest labor federation said the television personalities should speak out in support of workers at Peacock Productions, who produce programming for MSNBC.

Workers at Peacock have complained about their access to health insurance, low pay, long hours and job insecurity, according to the AFL-CIO letter. [...]

The union drive has become a headache for MSNBC. The liberal-leaning network covered the battle between unions and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) over collective bargaining. But the network hosts have been silent regarding the Peacock workers who are fighting their employer.

"All In" host Chris Hayes has already secretly met with workers, per Salon.

Ed Schultz has been a strong and consistent supporter of labor unions on his show. He regularly travels to GOP-run, union-busting states and brought us live reporting that is sorely missing elsewhere in the "news" media. And according to Salon, he has pushed back against criticism that he has not stood by workers.

As Rachel likes to say, "Watch this space."

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

A Big Fluke You, Evangelicals.

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

Sandra Fluke

Last night, Chris Hayes had Sandra Fluke and right-wing radical and Washington Examiner contributor Tim Carney going tete-a-tete on his All In show. They were discussing the two cases the Supreme Court has agreed to hear (probably in March, verdict in June) on corporate religious freedom rights, as they might affect the Affordable Care Act.

When you hear Sandra Fluke speak so eloquently below, you can see why this "whore" according to Rush Limbaugh was fought hard in being allowed to address a congressional panel on Women's Health and Contraception hearing by the terrified, misogynist, Republican party. How dare she spew common sense in such easy to understand words. The GOP was justified in trying to keep her silenced as she destroys all of their fanatical arguments so easily.

It's clear that the evangelicals are on the road with their bullhorns blazing, their pulpits popping  and their zealotry oozing. The more they speak, the easier it will be for the nine SCOTUS justices to see how giving religious freedom as a foundational justification to a company is wrong. It's tantamount to giving corporations the license to pick and chose which laws they wish to abide by and those they chose to ignore. Giving a corporation first amendment rights designed for individuals, (in this case religious freedom), will be the slipperiest slope they may ever have adjudicated. It's very doubtful that under scrutiny and behind closed-door discussions, the SCOTUS members will want to totally destroy human American with Corporate America. It could happen, but I wouldn't bet on it. Not if they are presented arguments like these:

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare