The Daily Drift

Welcome to the Expanded Sunday Edition of The Truth be Told.
Our latest comment:
Give them hell
~ Felicity Jones

Hey, wingnuts, yeah we're talking to you ...!  

 

The Truth Be Told is read in 205 countries around the world.

Republicans - Can't even do a kiddie rollercoaster right ... !

Today is - National Rollercoaster Day

 

Don't forget to visit our sister blog Carolina Naturally

Some of our readers today have been in:

The Americas

Brazil - Canada - Colombia - Dominican Republic - Mexico - Nicaragua - Puerto Rico - United States

Europe

Armenia - Belgium - Bosnia/Herzegovina - Bulgaria - England - Estonia - Finland - France - Germany  Iceland - Ireland - Italy - Latvia - Lithuania - Netherlands - Norway - Poland - Portugal - Romania 

Russia - Scotland - Serbia - Slovenia - Spain - Ukraine - Wales

Asia

Bangladesh - Burma - China - Hong Kong - India - Indonesia - Korea - Malaysia - Pakistan - Qatar  

Saudi Arabia - Sri Lanka - Thailand

Africa

Libya - South Africa - Zimbabwe

The Pacific

Australia - Philippines

President Obama Basically Just Called Republicans Idiots In Latest NPR Interview

During a recent interview with NPR, President Obama discussed the Iran deal and what he thinks of his Republican opposition to what’s been proposed.Obama basically just lays all his thoughts out on the table, saying:

The notion that somehow we are going to be safer by rejecting a deal that prevents Iran from getting a nuclear weapon and instead leave — leaves Iran the option of installing more and more advanced centrifuges, shrinking their breakout time, that that somehow is going to make our neighbors more secure, I think is kind of a — well, it doesn’t make any sense.
I think what is much more likely is if we reject this deal and Iran’s pursuing breakout times that are shrinking because they’re installing more and more advanced centrifuges and stockpiling more and more highly enriched uranium is that some of those neighbors who feel threatened by Iran start thinking maybe they should be pursuing their own nuclear program. And that’s exactly the kinds of scenarios that we need to prevent.

Basically saying, rejecting this deal may lead to a future nuclear war. Embracing this deal, and understanding what it actually is, is what will lead to a more peaceful region.
Obama then spoke of his critics who reject the deal, and may be doing so purely based on ideology rather that facts supported by evidence.
The president said:

Some of them, who announced their opposition before they’d even read the bill or read the agreement, and that is that they will put forward arguments that, you know, after a few minutes, can be shown as illogical or based on the wrong facts, and then you ask them, ‘All right, what’s your alternative?’ and there’s a deafening silence.
And what that tells me is that there may be ideological opposition to doing any business with Iran.

Essentially saying, they’re opposing this deal based on feelings of contempt against Iran, and not based on any factual evidence, and with no alternative — basically calling the Republicans in opposition stupid and lazy. They just want to hate the deal to hate it, and are too stupid to read the deal, find out why they hate it, and write up their own plan.
These Republicans are basically the Internet trolls of the Legislative Branch of United States government. They have nothing to substantiate their claims, and when you call them out on their bullshit, they’ve got nothing but knee-jerk reactions and hissy fits with no basis in reality.
The president is far too classy to call Republicans idiots, so it was my pleasure to translate.

Fox News Outraged That Obama’s Acting Like An Uppity Negro By Eating At A Nice Restaurant

From the "An Oldie But A Goodie" Department:

by Tiffany Willis 

Oh Lawd, Obama’s acting like an uppity negro again and the right wing media is having none of that. Muti-millionaire Fox hack Neil Cavuto reported the world breaking news that President Obama and the First Lady had dinner at a pricey restaurant in Hawaii during the holiday season.
IKR? Who eats at a nice restaurant during the holidays? (hangs head in shame), This comes from the same network that spent over a week shaming the President just after he was first sworn into office — for having the sheer audacity to put mustard on his hamburger.

Cavuto spent several minutes suggesting that it was somehow unseemly for the President of the United States (also, he’s black) and his wife to enjoy an evening out where they might mix socially with their superiors.
Newscorp reports:

There was an effort to spin the story as a derogatory example of the President appearing out-of-touch or insensitive to the plight of less fortunate Americans who cannot afford such extravagances. But since there was never a similar disdain for white Republicans who commonly patronize exclusive clubs (even those that prohibit blacks and jews), the criticism rings hollow. What’s left is a transparent implication that the Obamas ought to stick to places that are more fitting for their class. You get the distinct impression that Cavuto and company believe that Burger King or KFC would be a more appropriate eatery for the First Family.

It wasn’t just Fox News that noticed the Obamas stepping out. Wing Nut Daily, Breitbart Spews, and the Daily Hollar were among the other wingnut rags that were offended by this choice of gourmet feasting. And of course, it was also featured it on the Fox Nation website. Even more “mainstream” outlets like The Hill and Mediaite ran with it. But the hypocrisy only validates the widely circulated meme about Fox News as being Rich people paying rich people to tell middle-class people to blame poor people. Why the President and his family cannot enjoy an evening of fine food and drink is never explained. When will the Obamas learn their place? Sit at the back of the bus, yo.

Documents Show The shrub junta Planned War In Iraq Well Before 9/11/2001

All of us knew it but couldn't prove it. Now we can prove it. Newly declassified documents published at the National Security Archive prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the shrub junta planned to topple Saddam Hussein and invade Iraq as early as January, 2001, and were making strategic plans and resource allocations as early as November, 2001.

January 30, 2001 – The shrub junta principals (agency heads) meet for the
first time and discuss the Middle East, including the shrub’s intention to disengage from the Israel-Palestine peace process and “How Iraq is destabilizing the region.” The shrub directs Rumsfeld and JCS chairman Hugh Shelton to examine military options for Iraq; CIA director George Tenet is directed to improve intelligence on the country. Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill and counterterrorism coordinator Richard Clarke are both struck by the emphasis on confronting Iraq, an aim consistent with Rumsfeld’s hiring of Wolfowitz and later Feith, well known for their bellicosity on the issue, for high-level Pentagon
positions. (Source: EBB/Franks Timeline (PDF))

When did we invade Afghanistan? Oh, that's right...it was October 7, 2001.
Walking through these documents makes it clear that the the shrub junta -- from Day One -- intended to invade Iraq at some point in their reign of terror. Here is a memo (PDF) dated January 23, 2001 outlining the "Origins of the Iraq Regime Change Policy". This was requested by the dark prince himself,  Dick Cheney before taking office, presumably as a way to justify policy formation around aggressive US efforts for "regime change" in Iraq.
This memo (PDF) written on November 27, 2001 should send cold chills up and down your spine. It is a list of talking points from Rumsfeld to Franks about how to handle a run-up to a full-scale Iraq invasion. November 27th, 51 days after Afghanistan was invaded. And check this talking point:

Afghanistan was never, ever a priority for the shrub junta. It was always about Iraq. To line up support for the plan, they were marshaling the catholics and anyone else they could get to start forming arguments for "just wars". An internal memo from Robert Andrews, Dep. Assistant Secretary of Defense on December 17, 2001 touted this:

A infamous catholic theologian outlines the moral justification for a pre-emptive strike against Iraq.
[...a list of reasons why it was so important follows]

• Introduces the concept of "regime factor,"
• illustrates the concept using the Iraq situation
• demonstrates how pre-emptive action against Iraq fits into the just-war tradition

That memo made its way to Douglas Feith, lunatic fringe wingnut extraordinaire, who left his approval in the margin:

The shrub is a 'brilliant' guy and a gentleman. Thanks for sending this along. DJF

Speaking strictly for me, the idea of catholic aides to the Pope pushing wars as "just" to our government smacks of intervention not of the divine kind. The article itself pushes along the lie about WMD, too, reinforcing what we now know was nothing more than fantasy in the black hearts of Cheney and his lunatic fringe brigade. But it added to the political cover the shrub junta needed to push the Iraq effort forward.
Iraq, for Cheney, the shrub and the crew, was a way to increase prestige and power. Nothing speaks to that louder than the oft-repeated words in this memo from Donald Rumsfeld on July 27, 2001 where he says this at least twice:

If Saddam's regime were ousted, we would have a much-improved position in the region and elsewhere.

The first time he mentions this, it's with some regret that we're not better friends with Iran. The second time he mentions it, it's in his closing argument for why toppling Saddam Hussein will strengthen US Arab-Israeli policy. It's like a talisman for Rumsfeld, this idea of improving our "US credibility and influence throughout the region".
Here's the punchline, courtesy of the National Security Archive summary:

At this point, the weight of evidence supports an observation made in April 2002 by members of the covert Iraq Operations Group – Iraq “regime change” was already on shrub’s agenda when he squatted in the office in January 2001. (Note 33) September 11 was not the motivation for the U.S. invasion of Iraq – it was a distraction from it.

Now, at least, our instinct about Iraq being the one true goal is confirmed. For whatever that's worth, anyway.

Harding had a love child

by Pamela Engel

An October 28, 1931, photo of Nan Britton and her daughter, Elizabeth Ann Britton, 12.  

Decades after Nan Britton was shamed for publicly claiming to have had an affair with US President Warren G. Harding, DNA testing has seemingly proved she was telling the truth, The New York Times reports. Relatives of Harding and Britton submitted DNA to AncestryDNA, a division of Ancestry.com, and the results showed that Britton's daughter, Elizabeth Ann Blaesing, was Harding's love child.
"We're looking at the genetic scene to see if Warren Harding and Nan Britton had a baby together, and all these signs are pointing to yes," Stephen Baloglu, an executive at Ancestry, told The Times.
"The technology that we're using is at a level of specificity that there's no need to do more DNA testing. This is the definitive answer."
The affair was a major scandal of the day — Britton published a tell-all book, "The President's Daughter," four years after Harding died.
The memoir became an "instant best-seller," according to a Times article from 1998, as it predated the Monica Lewinsky scandal by decades and marked the first time the mistress of a US president wrote a book detailing her affair with America's leader.
Harding was rumored to have several mistresses, but Britton was still skewered in the press for claiming she had an affair with the president.
Britton grew up in Marion, Ohio, where Harding was a newspaper publisher. Britton's father reportedly knew Harding, and Harding's sister was one of Britton's teachers. She admired Harding from afar until she asked for his help finding a job, and he agreed to meet with her in New York, according to The Times. She was 31 years younger than him.

In 1917, four years before Harding became president, when Britton was 20 years old, she reportedly slept with him in a New York hotel room, according to The Times.
She said that the affair lasted more than six years and that the two met in various places, including Harding's office in the Senate and a closet in the West Wing.

Harding reportedly supported his daughter financially but did not acknowledge the child as his publicly. The two never met.

Harding died in office in 1923. Britton went public with the affair after she realized the financial support would dry up.
After Britton made the affair allegations, the Harding family "really vilified" Britton, according to Peter Harding, a grandnephew of the president.

"My father said this couldn't have happened because President Harding had mumps as a kid and was infertile," he told The Times.

Though Britton reportedly destroyed the letters she and Harding sent each other, the letters Harding sent to another mistress, Carrie Fulton Phillips, have been published online by the Library of Congress. 

He wrote her poems:

And created code words for their correspondence:

Their affair reportedly lasted from 1905 until 1920, according to the Library of Congress, meaning he most likely had several mistresses at once.

Harding was married to his wife, Florence, from 1891 until he died.

Some Harding family members seem willing to accept the DNA evidence of the late president's love child, but others still aren't so sure.

Richard Harding, 69, another grandnephew of the president, told The Times that the love-child rumor was "still to be proven" but that he would welcome the new family members if he saw enough evidence supporting the claim.

He said of the Britton relatives: "I hope they'll find their new place in history is meaningful and productive for them."

Medicaid expansion isn't bankrupting states ...

It's saving them money and will continue to ...

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has an update on how Medicaid expansion has been working out for states. We've seen plenty of reports about how states aren't only able to cover more of their uninsured, but how they're saving money by not having to spend it on other programs. That's confirmed, again by CBPP..
Kentucky, for example, has saved $109 million and Washington has saved $465 million through June, according to a recent report from the State Health Reform Assistance Network. By the end of 2015, Colorado expects its expansion to save $308 million while Oregon projects $275 million in savings. Medicaid expansion has had similar impacts in other states, as we’ve shown.
These savings come in two main forms, both due to strong enrollment. First, by expanding Medicaid, states have been able to move people who received health services through targeted Medicaid programs, such as family planning services and care for certain women with breast and cervical cancers, at the state’s regular matching rate of sharing the costs with the federal government into the new eligibility group for which the federal government is now paying the entire cost.
Second, as more people have gained health coverage, demand for health services for uninsured low-income people that states fund entirely, such as funding for hospitals to offset their uncompensated care costs and behavioral health services, has fallen. States that experience greater-than-expected expansion enrollment may therefore experience a larger-than-projected drop in demand for these services. That in turn could mean even greater state savings in these programs.
So here's what's becoming clearer through these results: states are saving enough to outweigh those costs they'll incur when they have to start chipping in to pay for the expansion. Beginning in 2017, states will start paying a modest percentage of the tab, eventually reaching—but not exceeding—10 percent. With the kinds of returns the expansion states are seeing now, the expansion will still more than pay for itself.
That's the main argument the 10 or so holdout Republican governors and legislatures have been using—that it'll end up bankrupting their states once federal support starts shrinking. That's clearly a bogus argument. If moral concerns aren't enough to bring these Republicans around—and clearly they are not—then maybe fiscal concerns eventually will.

More

Jimmy Carter says he has cancer, revealed by recent surgery

Former President Jimmy Carter announced he has been diagnosed with cancer in a brief statement issued Wednesday."Recent liver surgery revealed that I have cancer that now is in other parts of my body," Carter said in the statement released by the Carter Center. "I will be rearranging my schedule as necessary so I can undergo treatment by physicians at Emory Healthcare."
The statement makes clear that Carter's cancer is widely spread, but not where it originated, or even if that is known at this point. The liver is often a place where cancer spreads and less commonly is the primary source of it. It said further information will be provided when more facts are known, "possibly next week."
Carter, 90, announced on Aug. 3 that he had surgery to remove a small mass from his liver.
Carter was the nation's 39th president, defeating Gerald Ford in 1976 with a pledge to always be honest. A number of foreign policy conflicts doomed his bid for a second term, and Carter lost to Ronald Reagan in a landslide.
After leaving the White House, he founded the center in Atlanta in 1982 to promote health care, democracy and other issues globally often with wife, Rosalynn by his side, and won a Nobel Peace Prize in 2002.

He has remained active for the center in recent years, making public appearances at its headquarters in Atlanta and traveling overseas, including a May election observation visit to Guyana cut short when Carter developed a bad cold.
Carter also completed a book tour this summer to promote his latest work, "A Full Life."
Carter included his family's history of pancreatic cancer in that memoir, writing that his father, brother and two sisters all died of the disease and said the trend "concerned" the former president's doctors at Emory.
"The National Institutes of Health began to check all members of our family regularly, and my last remaining sibling, Gloria, sixty-four, was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer and died in 1990," Carter wrote. "There was no record of another American family having lost four members to this disease, and since that time I have had regular X-rays, CAT scans, or blood analyses, with hope of early detection if I develop the same symptoms."

Carter wrote that being the only nonsmoker in his family "may have been what led to my longer life."

"Our thoughts and prayers go out to President Carter," said Dr. Len Lichtenfeld, deputy chief medical officer of the American Cancer Society.

"There's a lot we don't know," but the first task likely will be determining where the cancer originated, as that can help determine what treatment he may be eligible for, Lichtenfeld said. Sometimes the primary site can't be determined, so genetic analysis of the tumor might be done to see what mutations are driving it and what drugs might target those mutations.

"Given the president's age, any treatments, their potential and their impacts, will undoubtedly be discussed carefully with him and his family," he added.

Carter Center spokeswoman Deanna Congileo called the surgery earlier this month "elective" and said Carter's "prognosis is excellent for a full recovery." She declined to answer further questions at the time.

An Emory spokesman declined comment Wednesday. The health care system's Winship Cancer Institute in Atlanta touts its designation as a National Cancer Institute center and a recent U.S. News and World Report ranking among the top 25 cancer programs in the U.S. on its website

Angry Twitter users hammer Fox News for insulting Jimmy Carter on day he announced cancer diagnosis

Angry Twitter users hammer Fox News for insulting Jimmy Carter on day he announced cancer diagnosis

On Wednesday, former U.S. president Jimmy Carter revealed he has advanced cancer. That prompted an outpouring of support by many — and a nasty tweet by Fox News.

36 Retired Top-Ranking Military Officers Just Told Congress To Back Obama On Iran Deal

36 Retired Top-Ranking Military Officers Just Told Congress To Back Obama On Iran Deal

Republicans in Congress hated the deal with Iran before it was even completed or released to the public. They know a successful deal with Iran would be...

Liberals Have Obama’s Back as Al Franken Supports Iran Deal

Liberals have President Barack Obama’s back on the Iran deal, as Senator Al Franken (D-MN) came out in strong support of it in an op-ed published Thursday on CNN. Count Franken as a yes vote for sanity.

Franken writes that he didn’t come to this conclusion lightly, “Since the deal was announced, I’ve consulted with nuclear and sanctions experts inside and outside government; Obama administration officials, including Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz; ambassadors from the other countries that negotiated alongside us; advocates for Israel on both sides of the issue; my constituents in Minnesota; and, of course, my colleagues in the Senate.”

The Democratic Senator explained that the deal isn’t perfect, but he called it “strong”, saying it is “the most effective, realistic way to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon anytime in the next 15 years.”

Franken addressed some of the criticism of the deal which has inaccurately claimed that President Obama is just “trusting” Iran.

“You don’t have to trust the regime’s intentions to understand the reality it would face: Attempting to cheat on this agreement would carry an overwhelming likelihood of getting caught — and serious consequences if it does… But there’s no doubt in my mind that this deal represents a significant step forward for our national security.”

And what are the alternatives coming from the critics? They have no alternatives, except war. Franken wrote that their alternatives “run the gamut from unrealistic to horrifying. For example, some say that, should the Senate reject this agreement, we would be in position to negotiate a “better” one. But I’ve spoken to representatives of the five nations that helped broker the deal, and they agree that this simply wouldn’t be the case.”

That is very troubling, and a fact that should be at the forefront of this debate. There will be no better deal. That is not in the alternative plans. Franken pointed out that we would not be able to come back to the bargaining table and “… of course, Iran would be able to move forward on its nuclear program, endangering our interests in the region — especially Israel — and making it far more likely that we will find ourselves engaged in a military conflict there.”

Military conflict is the alternative to the imperfect deal.

Franken charged that some critics lusted after such a conflict and reminded them of their epic fail the last time they pulled this card, “… with one of my colleagues suggesting that we should simply attack Iran now, an exercise he believes would be quick and painless for the United States. But this is pure fantasy, at least according to what our security and intelligence experts tell us. And it’s certainly not the lesson anyone should have learned from the disastrous invasion of Iraq.”

The Minnesota Senator said prior to the historic Iran deal, our choices were dire, “… allowing it to have a nuclear bomb or having to bomb the country ourselves. This agreement represents a chance to break out of that no-win scenario.”

Liberals want to avoid unnecessary wars. All options should be explored first. President Obama’s foreign policy doctrine is diplomacy first, which was a major draw for voter support in 2008 and 2012, as the nation had yet to recover from the Bush administration’s misguided and disastrous Iraq invasion.

Senator Franken is signaling that the liberals in the Democratic caucus have examined this incredible deal (and it is incredible, to sit down with enemies and hammer something this tough out) and are choosing to vocally support and advocate for it. The House Democrats are already on board.

While the country is sighing a huge breath of relief, it must be noted that once again it is Democrats who are saving us all from another crazy Republican scheme.

Republicans Routed As House Democrats Set To Give Obama Total Victory On Iran Deal

President Obama has a liberal firewall in the House of Representatives as Nancy Pelosi has kept her Democrats together, and they are ready to deliver total victory for the president on the Iran deal.

Politico reported:

But Obama’s backstop in the House, where the Democratic Caucus is dominated by liberals, is holding firm.

Close to 40 House Democrats have come out in favor of the deal since it was first announced in mid-July, while 16 senators have voiced their support. And there are dozens of additional Democrats who’ve signaled in interviews and statements that they are inclined to back Obama’s deal, which aims to stop Tehran’s development of a nuclear weapon in exchange for lifting economic sanctions. Most notably, not one of the 151 House Democrats who signed a May letter in support of the broad outlines of the agreement have announced opposition to the final product.

House Democrats are resisting a multi-million dollar effort to turn them against the deal. The dye was cast long ago on the fate of the Iran deal because of two key factors.

House liberals were outraged when Speaker John Boehner attempted to humiliate President Obama by going behind his back and inviting Netanyahu to address Congress. Boehner and Netanyahu’s behavior backfired and unified House Democrats around their president. Any chance that Boehner had of getting Democratic votes for a resolution of disapproval of the Iran deal was destroyed the moment he disrespected the president.

The second factor is the structure of the agreement to allow a vote on the Iran deal. The White House made it nearly impossible to kill the Iran deal by only agreeing to give Congress the ability to pass a resolution of disapproval. President Obama knew that he would veto any resolution of disapproval and that the odds are practically zero that Republicans would be able to muster the two-thirds majority that would be needed to override his veto.

Chuck Schumer’s announcement of opposition to the deal has not been followed by a wave of Democrats joining him. It is doubtful that Mitch McConnell will be able to get enough votes in the Senate to override the president’s expected veto, but even if he does, Obama’s ironclad support in the House means that Republicans will lose.

There will be a great deal of media generated wringing of hands and speculative coverage of the Iran deal resolution vote, but the unless House Democrats budge, Obama wins no matter what else happens.

The president is well on his way towards achieving a major victory for peace, as House Democrats are signaling that they’ve got Obama’s back.

Republican Grip On House Seats Slipping Away As Democratic Momentum Grows Ahead Of 2016

There are new indications that the Republican hold on several House seats is slipping as the nation heads into the 2016 presidential election.

Nathan Gonzales of the Rothenberg & Gonzales Political Report wrote:

Two Republican cabal incumbents moved into more vulnerable categories in the latest Rothenberg & Gonzales Political Report/Roll Call ratings. Frank Guinta moves from Tilts Republican to Tossup in New Hampshire’s 1st District, while Rod Blum of Iowa joins Nevada's Cresent Hardy in the Tilts Democratic category from Tossup.

State Senator Morgan Carroll should give Republican Mike Coffman a strong challenge in a presidential year. The 6th District race moves from Favored Republican to Leans Republican. And in California’s 36th District, there is no evidence that Democrat Raul Ruiz is in significant danger. His race moves to Safe Democrat.

In New Jersey, Democratic strategists believe Republican Scott Garrett is uniquely vulnerable due to an evolving district dominated by Bergen County and after private comments he made about the national republican congressional cabal’s support of gay candidates. It’s up to Democrats to prove this race will be different than the last six, but we’re moving the race out of Safe Republican to Favored Republican.

It would be stunning if Democrats did not pick up House seats in 2016. The larger and diverse presidential electorate will benefit Democrats. The Republican House majority is over inflated because of the 2014 midterm results. The Republican cabal House bubble is due for some deflation, and with Republicans pouring their money and resources into Senate and White House campaigns, there will be plenty of vulnerable House Republicans in Democratic voting districts that will be ripe for the picking.

A massive Democratic landslide victory would be necessary for them to take back the House, but the possibility of cutting Boehner’s majority in half is realistic. House races are discussed less than they should be, but there are opportunities available for Democratic pickups.

The amount of seats that Democrats could gain will depend on the strength of the Democratic nominee. A very strong Democratic nominee will have a down-ballot impact on House races. A weaker nominee increases the possibility of ballot splitting. The impact that Hillary Clinton could have on House elections is one of the many reasons why House Republicans are devoting the time and resources to partisan investigations of Benghazi and her emails.

If you want to understand why House Republicans are so desperate to stop Hillary Clinton, keep in mind that a strong Clinton candidacy could cost several of them their jobs in 2016.

Kansas Secretary of State Kobach wants to purge 30,0000 voters because he can

Kansas Secretary of State Kobach wants to purge 30,0000 voters because he can

Kris Kobach isn’t anti-voter fraud.
He’s just anti-voting.

Kim Davis court ordered to issue marriage licenses, refuses, continues digging legal hole

Kim Davis court ordered to issue marriage licenses, refuses, continues digging legal hole

When you’re in a religio-wingnut legal hole, sometimes dog commands you keep digging.

Boehner’s Ten Big Lies About Protecting Jobs and Growing the Economy

There is literally no bill too small for Boehner to lie about and claim it is a jobs bill.…

John Boehner: Stupid and Lying

John Boehner, in his latest parcel of lies about all the things Republicans haven’t been doing, makes claims that while the House has been busy serving the “people’s priorities” that Obama has been doing nefarious deeds, like vetoing the dozen or so jobs the Keystone XL Pipeline would have created, or vetoing their attempt to, as they put it, “restore the 40-hour work week,” which was, in fact, an attempt to deprive millions of Americans of their healthcare. There is literally no bill too small for Boehner to lie about and claim it is a jobs bill.

According to the narrative, the House has been struggling bravely on against every attempt Obama has made to stop them from creating jobs. The truth is, the House has not created any jobs. It has not even attempted to create any jobs. It has attempted to deprive Americans of their healthcare. It has attempted to further enrich the wealthy at the expense of American workers.

Listed here are some of the things that Boehner claims “Republicans have done to protect jobs and grow our economy”:

1. We’ve paved the way for stronger trade agreements, which means more jobs and higher wages for America’s workers. Trade is good for our country: it supports more than one in five American jobs, and manufacturing jobs tied to trade pay 16 percent more. New trade promotion authority (TPA) will ensure that the country makes better trade agreements. This is a big win for American workers, and will help us sell more goods stamped with “made in America.” (H.R. 2146, 114th Congress)

In point of fact, like it or not (and many do not), the White House fully supported the TPA, calling it “a good thing.” According to the administration, “Now, thanks to the new rules of the road laid out by Congress, our latest trade deal — the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) — can put in place high, enforceable standards that reflect our values on the environment, on workers’ rights, on transparency, and more.” This was not a victory of House over White House but a rare convergence of viewpoints between the two. In fact, Jeffrey Zients pointed out on the White House blog this spring that “Trade authority has a long bipartisan history, dating back to President Franklin Roosevelt. In the decades since the New Deal Congress passed the first trade negotiating legislation, Congress has renewed and modernized that authority 18 different times, under both Democratic and Republican Presidents alike.”

2. We’ve protected 99 percent of Americans from permanent tax hikes. On January 1, 2013, income taxes were scheduled to go up on just about every American. Republicans were able to protect 99 percent of Americans from permanent tax increases while locking in lower rates on the estate tax and the tax on capital gains and dividends. (H.R. 8, 112th Congress)

Boehner and the House Republicans are not interested in protecting 99 percent of Americans from tax hikes. They are interested in protecting 1 percent of Americans from tax hikes. The estate tax, the tax on capital gains, and on dividends, as Boehner well knows, have nothing to do with the average American. For example, the latest Republican attempt to repeal the estate tax, H.R. 1105, would not only have added “hundreds of billions of dollars to the deficit to provide large tax cuts exclusively to the very wealthiest Americans,” but would have shifted “a greater share of the tax burden onto working Americans at a time when the top one percent already holds more than 40 percent of the Nation’s wealth and wealth disparities have risen to levels not seen since the 1930s.” At a time when Obama’s plan is to tax the rich and help the middle class, the GOP is trying to do the opposite.

3. We’ve cut government spending by $2.1 trillion and counting. Republicans have won the most significant spending reductions in modern history – more significant than under Reagan & O’Neill and Clinton & Gingrich. These spending cuts have helped reduce the deficit and improve confidence in our economy. (H.R. 83, 113th Congress)

This was in fact, as Office of Management and Budget Director Shaun Donovan put it last December, a “bipartisan compromise,” which is not exactly a “Republican win” as Boehner would have it. In fact, H.R. 83 “Avoid[ed] a dangerous government shutdown that would have hurt our economic progress” which contained “ideological and special interest rider provisions” put their by the GOP and objected to by the White House, designed to further weaken Wall Street reform and provided less than a full year of funding for the Department of Homeland Security. All this bill did was keep things going – temporarily. It is at the least disingenuous of Boehner to claim it in any way “protected jobs” or “grew our economy.”

4. We’ve backed American energy production, the biggest driver of jobs and growth in America. From supporting the shale revolution and fighting for the Keystone XL pipeline to blocking new fees on producers and cutting funding for the EPA, we’ve done all we can to blunt the Obama administration’s attempts to decrease American energy production. This has helped make America the world’s top oil and natural gas producer. (H.R. 83, 113th Congress; S.1, 114th Congress)

John Boehner (as did Mitt Romney in 2012) likes to pretend that Obama is opposed to energy production. In 2012, InvestmentWatch proclaimed “Fact: Under Obama, U.S. energy production is at an all-time high.” And the U.S. Energy Information Administration estimated in 2013 “that the United States will be the world’s top producer of petroleum and natural gas hydrocarbons…surpassing Russia and Saudi Arabia.” Far from trying to decrease American energy production, Obama has been advocating energy independence.

5. We’ve protected small businesses from ObamaCare mandates that make it harder to hire. In addition to repealing a paperwork mandate in ObamaCare, we recently gave small businesses relief from rules that make it harder to hire veterans. (H.R. 4, 112th Congress; H.R. 3236, 114th Congress)

As the Statement of Administration Policy describes it, the so-called “Jobs for America Act” H.R. 4 “would undermine [the Affordable Care Act] by shifting costs to taxpayers and causing fewer Americans to have employer-sponsored health insurance coverage,” and “throw all major regulations into a months-long limbo,” as well as ” impose other unnecessary requirements on agencies that would seriously undermine their ability to execute their statutory mandates.” Boehner can frame this any way he wants to (and has), but in essence, H.R. 4 was just another Republican attempt to deregulate “while at the same time allowing taxes to increase on 26 million working families.” In other words, it was not intended to “protect jobs” or “grow our economy.”

6. We won passage of three free trade agreements that are already paying dividends for American workers. The Republican majority successfully won passage and implementation of long-delayed trade agreements with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea. (H.R. 3078, 3079 & 3080, 112th Congress)

The Statement of Administration Policy for H.R. 3078, which was a piece of bipartisan legislation, shows White House support for this bill, stating that it “forms an integral part of the Administration’s larger strategy of doubling exports by the end of 2014.” The Statement for H.R. 3079 shows the same executive branch support, stating that “The Agreement is an important part of the Administration’s efforts to spur economic growth, increase exports, and create jobs in the United States, while promoting our core values.” In other words, this is just another case of Boehner pretending something was done despite, not because of or in agreement with the White House.

7. It is now easier for entrepreneurs to acquire the capital they need to start and grow a business. It shouldn’t be easier to start a business in Belarus than it is in the United States, but it is, the experts say. The Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act helps aspiring entrepreneurs overcome government barriers to starting and expanding a business. (H.R. 3606, 112th Congress)

Boehner pretends the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act is a Republican victory over White House obstruction, but in fact, the relevant Statement of Administration Policy points out that “The President outlined a number of ways to help small businesses grow
and become more competitive in his September 8, 2011, address to a Joint Session of Congress on jobs and the economy, as well as in the Startup America Legislative Agenda he sent to the Congress last month. In both the speech and the agenda, the President called for cutting the red tape that prevents many rapidly growing startup companies from raising needed capital.” In other words, far from representing a victory over Obama, H.R. 3606 is just an example of the House finally doing what President Obama had urged it to do a year previously.

8. It is now easier for inventors and innovators to launch new products and businesses. The America Invents Act, the most significant update to our nation’s patent system in 60 years, cuts down on costs and speeds up the process by which patents are approved while better protecting intellectual property. (H.R. 1249, 112th Congress)

According to the Statement of Administration Policy, “The bill represents a balanced and well-crafted effort to enhance the services to patent applicants and America’s innovators provided by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO).” Again, H.R. 1249 does not represent a House victory over an unwilling president. The Statement makes clear that “House passage of H.R. 1249 would foster innovation, improve economic competitiveness, and create jobs at no expense to taxpayers – all of which are key Administration goals.”

9. It is now easier for job-seekers to find the right skills to land the right jobs. Millions of good-paying jobs in America go unfilled because workers lack the proper skills. With the SKILLS Act, we modernized the nation’s workforce development system by eliminating programs that weren’t working and giving flexibility to the states. (H.R. 803, 113th Congress)

Boehner pretends H.R. 803 was a step forward, but the Statement of Administration Policy makes clear this bill was not an attempt to improve, but rather to hinder, job access, stating that, “While H.R. 803 takes some positive steps, the bill does not adhere to the Administration’s key principles for reform. The bill would eliminate, or allow the consolidation of, many targeted programs, without providing the critical assistance needed by vulnerable populations such as veterans, low-income adults, youth, adults with literacy and English language needs, people with disabilities, ex-offenders, and others with significant barriers to employment. H.R. 803 would freeze funding for the next seven years and would fail to support efforts to innovate and replicate effective approaches.” As the statement puts it, “any effort to streamline the current system must allow for sufficient funding to meet the needs of workers and job-seekers.” Boehner put a lot of talk into the SKILLS Act, but not much action.

10. It is now easier for graduates to get a good start in their careers. We took the politics out of student loans, plain and simple. By linking interest rates to the markets, people will see more stable and predictable rates over time, making it easier to pay for college and start contributing to the economy. (H.R. 1911, 113th Congress)

Here again Boehner is pretending his bill did something it did not do. He talks about lower interest rates, but as the Statement of Administration Policy points out, “the bill would not guarantee low rates for today’s students,” and “changes would impose the largest interest rate increases on low- and middle-income students and families who struggle most to afford a college education.” Furthermore, “the bill does not include the President’s proposal to extend repayment options to borrowers who have already left school and often face the same debt burdens as current and future students.” H.R. 1911 promoted the idea that interest rates should be raised to reduce the deficit. That’s right. Far from “stable and predictable rates over time,” the rates proposed would be unpredictable and subject to change, and force students to pay more so Congress could spend more elsewhere.

As noted, the public’s approval of Congress and of John Boehner is dropping. This endless repeating of “people’s priorities” lies is not helping the speaker’s case one bit.

Here’s How Republican Pretender Candidates Want To Defeat ISIL

What alternative plan have the contenders proposed?

One Congressman Has The Courage To Admit The True Consequences Of His Vote For The Iraq War

The North Carolina congressman said his mistaken Iraq vote weighs on his mind as he considers the Iran nuclear deal.

The Truth Be Told

Conniving Teabaggers Caught In Sex Scandal Campaigned On ‘Love Of Family’ And bible verses

Two married Michigan teabagger State Representatives, recently caught lying, cheating and stealing from taxpayers, got elected by reciting bible verses and touting their great love for their spouses.

Read more 

Hillary To Andrea Mitchell: Let's Not Let Trump Distract Us From What Rubio Said

 Trump's comments are getting a lot of attention, but very little attention is paid to the jaw-dropping questions that sparked them.

Don Lemon Interviews Trump’s Biggest Fans, Chaos Ensues

If you’ve ever wondered what Trump supporters are like in person, you’re about to find out.
It turns out, they’re predictably...

Don Lemon Interviews Trump’s Biggest Fans, Chaos Ensues

Nugent’s creepy defense of Trump

I like to watch Megyn Kelly while naked on my couch 

TMI! - TMI! - TMI! 

The agony of the mental image of Nugent naked on the couch ... our poor brain will never be the same!

Erick Erickson's RedState Story: Clinton A 'Homely Woman' Who Slept 'Her Way Into Power'

Sexist Much?

Just one week ago, Erick Erickson said, "No candidate should do something like that, I'm embarrassed to even talk about what he's implying."

Wingnuts fall in love with Texas cop who said Black Lives Matter is a hate group ‘no different than KKK’

Wingnuts fall in love with Texas cop who said Black Lives Matter is a hate group ‘no different than KKK’

A police officer in Texas said this week that the Black Lives Matter movement had not succeeded because it was “nothing but a hate group."

Republican asshole who ‘rehomed’ adopted daughters with rapist to get ‘courage’ award at Cruz dinner

Republican asshole who ‘rehomed’ adopted daughters with rapist to get ‘courage’ award at Cruz dinner

Arkansas' Justin Harris, a Republican, will be given the “Power of Courage” award by the Family Council Action Committee.

Georgia Cuts Off STD Test Funding To Screw Planned Parenthood

Also Nose To Spite Face

Did we mention Georgia has some of the highest STD rates in the country?
Read more 

I’d Like a Refund, Please: Taxpayer Dollars Going to Scientology Scam

Let's be clear: not a word of any part of Scientology or any of its so-called "tech" is true or effective. Scientology isn’t a religion, no matter what it claims

Taxpayer Dollars Going to Scientology Scam

Florida principal tries to quietly ban book to appease 'christians' ...

But sets off shitstorm instead

"This case is very startling. A handful of parents are making choices for every other parent in that school."

'Christian' Florida Couple Raped 13-Year-Old Girl 500 Times Because dog Said It’s OK

'Christian' Florida Couple Raped 13-Year-Old Girl 500 Times Because dog Said It’s OK

‘Christian’ Slumlord Leaves Poor People Living With Rats

And Collects Millions From Government