Serendipity SOUL | Monday Open Thread | Fugees & Lauryn Hill Week!

Hello!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It’s Fugees & Lauryn Hill week at 3 Chics.


Wiki: The Fugees (pronounced /ˈfuːdʒiːz/) were a Haitian American hip hop group who rose to fame in the mid-1990s. Their repertoire included elements of Hip hop, soul and Caribbean music, particularly reggae. The members of the group were rapper/singer/producer Wyclef Jean, rapper/singer/producer Lauryn Hill, and rapper Pras Michel. Deriving their name from the term refugee, Jean and Pras are Haitian, while Hill is American. The group recorded two albums—one of which, The Score (1996), was a multi-platinum and Grammy-winning success—before disbanding in 1997. Hill and Jean each went on to successful solo recording careers; Michel focused on soundtrack recordings and acting, though he found commercial success with his song “Ghetto Supastar“. In 2007, MTV ranked them the 9th greatest Hip-hop group of all time.[1]

This entry was posted in Current Events, Music, Open Thread, Politics and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

51 Responses to Serendipity SOUL | Monday Open Thread | Fugees & Lauryn Hill Week!

  1. Ametia says:

    Obama Hosting All Women Senators For Dinner … via @tomkludt
    5:28 PM – 22 Apr 2013

  2. rikyrah says:

    Yup: Cutting spending means … you have to cut spending

    Posted by Jonathan Bernstein on April 22, 2013 at 4:37 pm

    submit to reddit

    The Republican strategy on sequestration has been clear for months now: sequestration is terrific because spending cuts are good…and every specific program cut by sequestration is a terrible injustice that Barack Obama should have avoided.

    The first round of complaints were about White House tours, of all things. That was actually useful, in a clarifying sort of way; if Republicans couldn’t support cutting spending on White House tours, it’s highly unlikely that there were any specific cuts they could defend. Certainly not cuts that could affect middle class Americans or wealthy contributors (who are presumably a lot more likely to be Washington tourists than, say, the people whose Head Start or housing assistance has been cut).

    Today’s GOP complaint is about cuts to the Federal Aviation Administration, which in turn lead to cuts in air traffic control, which in turn means airport delays. More cuts are on the way.

    Be careful — you’re going to hear people blaming “both sides” for these cuts, but that’s absolutely wrong. For example, James Joyner notes that Obama resisted a measure which would have given him more flexibility to choose which cuts to hit, and claims:

    The result is this kind of nonsense: Deep and stupid cuts to areas of the budget where we all agree that spending makes sense. Not even the most die-hard Tea Partyer wants to do away with air traffic control. And, yet, here we are.

  3. rikyrah says:

    Blame where blame isn’t due

    By Steve Benen
    Mon Apr 22, 2013 3:45 PM EDT

    When the Senate minority killed expanded background checks last week — and in the process, stopped the entire legislative effort to reduce gun violence — I thought it would put to rest the assertion that Congress would function more effectively if only President Obama would “lead” more. Alas, I thought wrong.

    By the rules of the Beltway punditocracy, Obama did everything right: he took his message to the public, to the media, and to lawmakers directly. The president leveraged public opinion, accepted compromises, activated his electoral operation, and remained focus on achievable, popular, mainstream goals. The Republican filibuster prevailed anyway.

    In a column that’s remarkably difficult to understand, Maureen Dowd is blaming Obama for the GOP’s intransigence.


    There’s something rather amazing about the argument itself: after 20 years of complete inactivity on gun reforms, President Obama was quickly able to persuade a majority of the country and a majority of the Senate to endorse sensible reforms. What a feckless leader!

    I realize Dowd’s column has generated quite a bit of scrutiny, but the more I read it, the more I’m puzzled by it.

  4. rikyrah says:

    Americans don’t believe in shredding Constitution to fight terror

    Posted by Greg Sargent on April 22, 2013 at 2:49 pm

    The White House announced today that Dzokhar Tsarnaev will not be held as an “enemy combatant,” and will instead be tried in civilian court. This is a direct rebuff to four Republicans — Lindsey Graham, John McCain, Kelly Ayotte, and Pete King — who had been clamoring for him to be held indefinitely without trial or tried under laws of war in a military commission. Tsarnaev will be charged with conspiring to use weapons of mass destruction against people and property in the United States, resulting in death.

    You can expect GOP attacks on the decision to continue in coming days. Meanwhile, civil libertarians such as Glenn Greenwald continue to slam the Obama administration for its decision not to read the accused his Miranda rights. The administration has proclaimed the right to indefinitely detain anyone who it believes has given “substantial” support to Al Qaeda and its affiliates.

    Defending the civil liberties of suspected terrorists is generally not considered a popular position. And yet, in a bit of a surprise, a new poll released today finds that a plurality worries more about government trampling constitutional rights while battling terrorism than it does about government not doing enough to fight it. From the Post:

    Which worries you more: that the government will not go far enough to investigate terrorism because of concerns about constitutional rights, or that it will go too far in compromising constitutional rights in order to investigate terrorism?

    Will not go far enough: 41

    Will go too far: 48

  5. rikyrah says:

    David Axelrod ✔ @davidaxelrod

    Question: Where did Boston Bombers get the arsenal they used to shoot it out with police, killing one officer and badly wounding another?

  6. Ametia says:

    Apr 22, 1:01 PM EDT


    WASHINGTON (AP) — The White House says President Barack Obama will attend a memorial service for victims of the fertilizer plant explosion in the town of West, Texas.

    The service is scheduled for Thursday at Baylor University.

    Last week’s blast left 14 people dead and injured 200 others. The explosion was largely overshadowed by the Boston Marathon bombing.

    Federal and state investigators are still trying to determine what caused the fire that set off the explosion. Authorities say there are no signs of criminal intent.

    Obama was already scheduled to be in Texas this week. He’ll headline a Democratic fundraiser in Dallas Wednesday night, and then attend a dedication ceremony for President George W. Bush’s library.

  7. Ametia says:

    Roadside manicure services boom in Nigeria
    By Agence France-Presse
    Monday, April 22, 2013 12:52 EDT

    A comfortable salon may be the ideal place to have a manicure-pedicure, but in Nigeria’s sprawling economic capital, the curb above a open sewer works just fine.

    The roadside ‘mani-pedi’ is something of a Lagos institution and one of many examples of how residents in the mega-city of 15 million people defy what could be considered personal grooming norms.

    Privately tailored suits delivered to your home or office are a luxury reserved for the wealthy in some cultures, but in Lagos, many in the middle class are also in regular contact with their personal clothier.
    And, while paying for your toe and fingernails to be soaked, scrubbed, trimmed and moisturised is considered a luxury in some parts of the world, in Lagos, “it’s for everybody,” said Bashir Haruna, 32, a groom at a polo club who also hauls boxes at an appliance store for extra cash.

  8. Ametia says:

    Affidavit says Bachmann approved hidden payments to Iowa senator

    Posted by: Kevin Diaz under 2012 Presidential election, 6th District, Minnesota congressional Updated: April 22, 2013 – 11:35 AM

    WASHINGTON – U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann’s former chief of staff, GOP operative Andy Parrish, stated in a signed affidavit Monday that the Minnesota Republican approved payments made to a top aide who was barred by Iowa Senate ethics rules from accepting money for his work on her presidential campaign.

    The suspected payments to Iowa Sen. Kent Sorenson, first alleged in a Federal Election Commission (FEC) complaint filed by campaign whistleblower Peter Waldron, are now the subject of an inquiry by the Iowa Senate Ethics Committee.

    Sorenson or his company, Grassroots Strategy, allegedly were paid $7,500 a month through C&M Strategies, a Colorado-based company run by Bachmann fundraiser Guy Short, who was serving as the campaign’s national political director.

    “Congresswoman Bachmann knew of and approved this arrangement,” Parrish said in his affidavit. “She, like the rest of us, understood from Senator Sorenson that it did not run afoul of any Iowa Senate ethics rules. We relied on his representations in this regard.”

    Sorensen, who switched allegiances from Bachmann to Ron Paul days before the 2012 Iowa caucuses, has called the payment allegations “totally baseless.”

    Parrish, a close Bachmann aide who worked in her congressional office and on her presidential bid, said he was instrumental in recruiting Sorenson, a Tea Party figure who served as the chairman of Bachmann’s Iowa campaign

  9. Ametia says:

    Vice President Joe Biden to attend memorial service for Sean Collier, White House says
    04/22/2013 2:17 PM

    Vice President Joe Biden and Dr. Jill Biden will travel to Cambridge on Wednesday for the memorial service for MIT police officer Sean Collier, whom authorities say was killed in a confrontation with the Boston Marathon bombing suspects last Thursday night, a White House official said Monday.

    Collier’s public memorial will be held at noon on Briggs Field at MIT, according to the school.

    Collier was shot multiple times after 10 p.m. Thursday. He was found by other officers in his cruiser, and later declared dead at Massachusetts General Hospital.

  10. Ametia says:


    An alleged terror plot that has been uncovered intended to target “transport links,” an official with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police says.

    Canadian authorities are expected to announce at a 3:30 p.m. ET press conference that law enforcement officials “thwarted a plot to carry out a major terrorist attack, arresting suspects in Ontario and Quebec,” according to the Canadian Broadcasting Corp., a CNN affiliate.

  11. rikyrah says:

    This is cause they WHITE!


    The Morning Plum: Boston bombings probably won’t derail immigration reform push

    Posted by Greg Sargent on April 22, 2013 at 9:22 am

    submit to reddit

    Will the Boston bombings — which were allegedly carried out by two brothers of Chechen origin — go any way towards scuttling immigration reform? Some on the right are certainly going to try to use the bombings to slow or kill the reform push. But proponents of reform are now beginning to carefully push back on their argument.

    Here is how an aide to a Republican Senator who favors reform puts it to Mike Allen — an argument that’s worth considering, because we’ll surely be hearing more of it in the days ahead:

    “The … analysis that the Boston attacks are a setback for immigration reform appears wrongheaded, as we learn more about the story. The fault here wasn’t our immigration system, since the suspects immigrated legally a decade ago as kids and apparently were radicalized here. If anything, the fault lies with our society and domestic intelligence services. Given the facts, the events in Boston seem unlikely to stoke nativist sentiments that may derail immigration reform. To the contrary, to the extent it renews fears of terrorism, it will strengthen the case for reform, since the bipartisan proposal fixes major gaps in our national security posture.”

    It does seem unlikely that the Boston bombings will “stoke nativist sentiments,” except perhaps among those whose nativist sentiments are already pretty stoked to begin with. The circumstances of this case seem so unusual — and the motives for the bombings, based on what we know now, seem so tangled — that it’s hard to see ordinary voters relating it to the argument over immigration reform.

  12. rikyrah says:

    The birds that my coworkers and I have been following via the Cornell Bird Cam have had babies!!

  13. rikyrah says:

    White House blows off GOP pleas, will follow the law
    By Steve Benen

    Mon Apr 22, 2013 1:59 PM EDT

    The White House is aware of Republican arguments about trying Dzhokhar Tsarnaev as an enemy combatant in military commission, but President Obama has decided to ignore their pleas and follow the law instead.

    At a press briefing earlier, Jay Carney explained the administration’s position clearly. For those who can’t watch clips online, the White House press secretary told reporters:

    “He will not be treated as an enemy combatant. We will prosecute this terrorist through our civilian system of justice. Under U.S. law, United States citizens cannot be tried in military commissions, and it is important to remember that since 9/11, we have used the federal court system to convict and incarcerate hundreds of terrorists. The effective use of the criminal justice system has resulted in the interrogation, conviction, and detention of both U.S. citizens and non-citizens for acts of terrorism committed inside the United States and around the world.

    “The system has repeatedly proven that it can successfully handle the threat we continue to face. There are a number of examples of this, high profile examples: the Times Square Bomber, Faisal Shahzad, pleaded guilty and was sentenced to life in prison; Abdul Muttalib, the so-called ‘underwear bomber,’ was sentenced to life in prison; Warsame, a Somalian national and member of al-Shabab and has close associations with al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, is now currently in this system and we have acquired valuable intelligence from him through the process that is allowed in the system. So this is absolutely the right way to go and the appropriate way to go. When it comes to United States citizens, it is against the law to try them in military commissions.”

    Well, that settles that, whether congressional Republicans like it or not.

  14. Ametia says:

    DUH!! Kinda hard to be an enemy combatant, when you’re lying in a hospital bed full of drugs and wounded in the neck

    White House says surviving Boston suspect will not be treated as an enemy combatant

    Boston Marathon bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev will not be treated as an enemy combatant, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said Monday.

    Read more at:

  15. Grassley flips out: ‘I didn’t say that!’ about using bombing to delay immigration reform

    Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) on Monday became irate and yelled at Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) during a Senate hearing at the suggestion that he had used last week’s Boston Marathon bombing to try and delay immigration reform.

    At a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Friday, Grassley had said that knowing the immigration status of the Boston bombers would “help shed light on the weaknesses of our system.”

    “How do we ensure that people who wish to do us harm are not eligible for benefits under the immigration laws, including this new bill before us?” he asked.

  16. President Barack Obama-True Colors

  17. rikyrah says:

    Jindal backs creationism lesson plans
    By Steve Benen
    Mon Apr 22, 2013 10:20 AM EDT.

    I remember about a year ago when Ezra Klein noted that Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (R) is “considered among the most wonkish of the Republican Party’s class of rising stars.” It’s true; he is. When Jindal later argued he wants Republicans to “stop being the stupid party” and move away from “dumbed-down conservatism,” he did so in part because of his perceived intellectual credibility.

    With this in mind, consider this excerpt from a recent NBC News interview with Jindal (via the National Center for Science Education).

    Asked about the role of creationism in public-school science classes, Jindal argued, “I’ve got no problem if a school board, a local school board, says we want to teach our kids about creationism, that people, some people, have these beliefs as well, let’s teach them about ‘intelligent design.'”

    Intelligent design is a part of the creationist model, which argues intelligent life is so complex, it’s dependent on a supernatural intelligent designer. It is not based on any scientific facts.

    Jindal added that children should be exposed to competing claims — some of which are wrong — and can be encouraged to “make up their own minds.”

    As a matter of proper education, this is ridiculous. Classrooms are hardly the appropriate setting to expose kids to lessons known to be wrong. When teaching students about heliocentrism, we don’t usually invite critics who believe the earth is at the center of the galaxy in for a presentation. When teaching students the value of pi, we don’t encourage those who’d like to see it changed to just 3.0 to make their best in-class pitch.

    “Make up their own minds”? Between fact and fiction? This is what’s become of the most wonkish minds the Republican Party has to offer?

  18. rikyrah says:

    Federal disaster aid for me, not for thee

    By Steve Benen
    Mon Apr 22, 2013 9:35 AM EDT

    Officials are still coming to terms with the scope of the disaster in West, Texas, where a fertilizer plant exploded last week, leaving at least 14 dead. And while investigators still search for clues as to what caused the disaster, Texan lawmakers in Washington are looking for disaster aid to bolster the devastated community.

    Had these same officials not opposed post-Sandy relief, their position might not seem so jarring.
    Texas Sen. Ted Cruz lambasted the Sandy Aid package, voting against the measure in January…. However, in Washington Thursday, Cruz said that he was “working to ensure that all available resources are marshaled to deal with the horrific loss of life and suffering that we’ve seen” after an explosion at a fertilizer plant in Texas leveled the plant and nearby houses and business. […]

    Rep. Bill Flores, who represents West, also voted against the Sandy relief package but is now requesting federal aid for the disaster in his home district. Flores said Thursday that members of Congress with whom he has been in touch have pledged assistance.

    After Flores voted against the Sandy aid package, he justified his vote by saying the package was “too large” and did “more than meet the immediate needs of Sandy victims.”

  19. rikyrah says:

    Lindsey Graham: Tsarnaev an ‘Enemy Combatant,’ Demands Escalation of War on Terror

    By Bob Cesca · April 22,2013

    If Dzhokar Tsarnaev had somehow managed to evade capture and had traveled to a gun show in, say, neighboring Vermont, New Hampshire or Maine, he would’ve been able to easily purchase one or more military-style assault weapons without a background check thanks in part to the efforts of people like Lindsey Graham, who voted to filibuster the Toomey/Manchin amendment at the behest of the NRA. 45 senators, mostly law-and-order security state Republicans, with the support of the extremists in the gun lobby made certain that it will remain intact, allowing for criminals and terrorists to purchase unlimited stockpiles of firearms on the internet or from private sellers at gun shows irrespective of their history or status.

    After voting against the amendment, Graham said, “No matter how well-intentioned, the Manchin-Toomey amendment expanded background checks in an unwise way. The Internet provisions would have been burdensome and difficult for citizens to comply with.”

    Lindsey Graham wouldn’t dare to admit that he’s been entirely assimilated and, thus, puppeteered by the NRA and will do whatever they ask him to do (he enjoys an ‘A’ rating from the NRA). Rather, he’ll tell you that he voted against the amendment because of constitutional liberty — specifically, the right to own a firearm without government interference of any kind.

    But Tsarnaev and any other American citizen accused of terrorism for any reason whatsoever should be considered an enemy combatant in the war on terrorism, according to Graham, Liz Cheney and Rep. Pete King (R-NY). I hasten to note that I’m not here to defend Tsarnaev. As near as I can tell from the information I’ve observed throughout the last week, he and his brother are guilty. Fortunately, however, I’m not responsible for dispensing justice. We have a system for that, and the system mandates that all suspects are innocent until proven guilty.

    Nevertheless, from the moment Tsarnaev was captured, the usual suspects resumed their efforts to undermine American civil liberties and the judicial system with the familiar refrains of post-9/11 fear-mongering, with Lindsey Graham leading the charge. Even while authorities were engaged in the manhunt for Tsarnaev, Graham tweeted about the suspect as an enemy combatant in the war on terrorism:

  20. rikyrah says:

    The Conservative Paranoid Mind

    There’s a common thread linking conservatives’ positions on gun control, immigration, and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev: the constant need to stoke fear.

    By Michael Tomasky.


    And with regard to terrorism, they need people to live in fear of the next attack because fear makes people think about death, and thinking about death makes people more likely to endorse tough-guy, law-and-order, Constitution-shredding actions undertaken on their behalf. This is how we lived under Bush and Cheney for years. This fear is basically what enabled the Iraq War to take place. Public opinion didn’t support that war at first. But once they got the public afraid with all that false talk of mushroom clouds, the needle zoomed past 50 percent, and it was bombs away.

    Conservatism, I fear (so to speak), can never be cleansed of this need to instill fear. Whether it’s of black people or of street thugs or of immigrants or of terrorists or of jackbooted government agents, it’s how the conservative mind works. I don’t even think it’s always cynical and manipulative; conservatives often do see enemies under every bed. But that doesn’t mean they’re there, and it most definitely doesn’t mean the rest of us ought to make law and policy based on their nightmares.

  21. rikyrah says:

    ‘White Fear’ of Muslims, ‘The Darkies’ in The Wake of The Boston Bombings

  22. rikyrah says:

    This Week in God

    By Steve Benen

    Sat Apr 20, 2013 10:11 AM EDT.

    First up from the God Machine this week is a look at the latest developments surrounding one of my very examples of religious/political activism: Roman Catholic nuns, who’ve taken on an increasingly active role championing progressive causes, including the importance of economic justice and President Obama’s Affordable Care Act.

    The nuns’ efforts were not well received by former Pope Benedict, but many hoped the selection of a new, reform-minded pope might lead the church to adopt a fresh perspective. Alas, that has not happened (thanks to my wife for the tip).

    Pope Francis has reaffirmed the Vatican’s criticism of a body that represents U.S. nuns that the Church said was tainted by “radical” feminism, dashing hopes that he might take a softer stand with the sisters.

    Francis’s predecessor, Benedict, decreed that the Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LCWR), a group that represents more than 80 percent of the 57,000 Catholic nuns in the United States, must change its ways, a ruling that the Vatican said on Monday still applied.

    Last year, a Vatican report said the LCWR had “serious doctrinal problems” and promoted “radical feminist themes incompatible with the Catholic faith,” criticizing it for taking a soft line on issues such as birth control and homosexuality.

  23. rikyrah says:

    Debate escalates on Tsarnaev, legal process

    By Steve Benen
    Mon Apr 22, 2013 8:00 AM

    The latest available reports suggest Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is still unable to speak, due to a gunshot wound to the neck, but he’s begun to respond to questions in writing. NBC News reports that the bombing suspect, who remains in serious condition, “was communicating with a special team of federal investigators at Beth Israel Deaconess Hospital.”

    And while everyone involved certainly hopes these discussions produce answers, they coincide with a growing political debate, spurred on by conservative Republicans, about Tsarnaev’s legal fate.

    A Republican Senate candidate in Massachusetts, for example, wants the government to revoke the suspect’s citizenship status, though there is no law that makes this a legitimate option. Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas), the chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee who struggled badly with the details of the case last week, argued without proof that it’s “very probable” Tsarnaev received training from al Qaeda.

    And then there’s Sen. Lindsey Graham. The South Carolina Republican, who’s been leading the charge to designate Tsarnaev as an “enemy combatant,” conceded yesterday that federal law does not allow American citizens to be tried in military commissions — sorry, Susan Collins — but he nevertheless believes the mere possibility of an Qaeda connection is enough to push the legal envelope.

  24. rikyrah says:

    ‘Why aren’t they protecting us?’

    By Steve Benen

    Mon Apr 22, 2013 8:40 AM

    Neil Heslin, Carlee Soto, and Erica Lafferty, each of whom lost loved ones in the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary in December, appeared on CBS’s “Face the Nation” yesterday, still disappointed by the Republican filibuster that killed expanded background checks last week.

    “It’s not about the Second Amendment, it’s strengthening and adding to laws that already in effect,” said Neil Heslin, whose son Jesse Lewis was killed at Sandy Hook Elementary School. “I don’t think they did justice for all the victims of Newtown.” […]

    Carlee Soto, whose sister Vicki Soto was a teacher at Sandy Hook, chastised lawmakers for not doing enough to prevent future shootings. “My sister was not a coward, she protected her kids. Why aren’t they protecting us?” […]

    Erica Lafferty, the daughter of principal Dawn Hochsprung, echoed Soto’s comments. “My mom was not scared in the halls of Sandy Hook, they should not be scared to cast a vote to protect millions of innocent people,” she said.

    Lafferty added she felt “disgusted” by the Senate opponents of the bipartisan compromise.

  25. rikyrah says:

    Republicans Launch Their Campaign to Blame Obama for Boston By Attacking the FBI

    By: Jason Easley
    Apr. 21st, 2013

    Republicans took to the Sunday morning shows to attack the FBI, and to lay the groundwork for blaming President Obama for the Boston bombings

    Here is the video of Sen. Graham on CNN’s State of the Union

    Sen. Graham said, “The ball was dropped in one of two ways; the FBI missed a lot of things, is one potential answer, or our laws do not allow the FBI to follow up in a sound, solid way. There was a lot to be learned from this guy. He was on websites talking about killing Americans. He went overseas, as Chuck had indicated. He was clearly talking about radical ideas. He was visiting radical areas. And the fact that we could not track him has to be fixed. It’s people like this that you don’t want to let out of your sight. I don’t know if our laws are insufficient or the FBI failed, but we’re at war with radical Islamists and we need to up our game.”

    Meanwhile on Fox News Sunday, Rep. Peter King (R-NY) said, “This is at least the fifth case I’m aware of where the FBI has failed to stop someone…This is the latest in a series of cases like this … where the FBI is given information about someone as being a potential terrorist. They look at them, and then they don’t take action, and then they [those individuals] go out and commit murders.”

    It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see where Graham and King are going with this. Soon they will call for hearings on how the FBI handled the intelligence that they had before the events in Boston. Their purpose is twofold. They are looking for something to use to revive the Bush era war on terror policies, and they are searching for some way to blame President Obama for the attacks.

    There is a difference between saying that the FBI needs to review how they handled any information they may have had before the attacks, and using politically loaded language like the FBI dropped the ball. King and Graham are trying to set up a narrative that will tie any “failures” that they find to President Obama. That is where this is heading.

  26. rikyrah says:

    Arkansas Republicans: Shoot Lawmakers For Expanding Medicaid

    By Zack Ford on Apr 21, 2013 at 11:11 am

    Republicans in Benton County, Arkansas are not happy that their state legislators have agreed to expand Medicaid under Obamacare. In this month’s newsletter, columnist Chris Nogy encouraged his fellow Republicans to utilize their 2nd Amendment rights to make sure that lawmakers — particularly Republicans who vote with Democrats — are held accountable:

    So what do we do? While I believe that we as a party are done in Arkansas after this, if there is ANY hope of our survival, it is going to take not being forgiving. Not only for past actions, but to show those who will come in the future that the cost of failure to do the thing they were elected to do will be significant. We need to be making a point of this failure from this moment on. We need to make a public statement from our groups that we no longer support those who turned on us, that we will NOT be working to their re-election, that we will be actively seeking replacements, and perhaps even working towards recall. We as the Party have to stand up and say ‘no more – you were given a job, you campaigned on the promise to do this job, you had the ability to do this job, you had the votes each time to do this job, and yet for no legitimate reason you betrayed the trust put in you by the electorate and you are now completely and permanently politically finished.’

    We need to let those who will come in the future to represent us that we are serious. The 2nd amendment means nothing unless those in power believe you would have no problem simply walking up and shooting them if they got too far out of line and stopped responding as representatives. It seems that we are unable to muster that belief in any of our representatives on a state or federal level, but we have to have something, something costly, something that they will fear that we will use if they step out of line. If we can’t shoot them, we have to at least be firm in our threat to take immediate action against them politically, socially, and civically if they screw up on something this big. Personally, I think a gun is quicker and more merciful, but hey, we can’t.

  27. rikyrah says:

    Tea Party Smells Blood In Immigration Fight

    —By Kevin Drum

    | Fri Apr. 19, 2013 10:55 AM PDT

    Glenn Thrush and Reid Epstein report on one of the reasons that gun legislation failed in the Senate yesterday:

    In the end, [] moderates and conservatives in the upper chamber said they simply couldn’t deal with a flurry of progressive issues at once — from gay marriage to immigration to guns….One senator told a White House official that it was “Guns, gays and immigration — it’s too much. I can be with you on one or two of them, but not all three.”

    Some are taking this to suggest that voting against the gun bill gives conservatives a little more room to maneuver on immigration. So the silver lining here is that all the no votes on guns might mean a few more yes votes on immigration. Ed Kilgore is skeptical:

    I wouldn’t put much reliance on the idea that the demise of Manchin-Toomey is a blessing in disguise for progressives or for those still pining for a “bipartisan breeze” in Washington. For one thing, to continue the propitiation metaphor, the “base” is a jealous god, which views every act of ideological “betrayal” as sufficient to justify primary excommunication or primary challenges. For another, this fresh demonstration that “the base” has the power to compel party discipline on guns (only three Republicans joined former Club for Growth president Pat Toomey in the end) will make the desire to impose it on other subjects seem much more practicable. And third, to focus on the next issue coming up in the Senate, it’s never been clear to me that the obsessive desire to find a way to detoxify the GOP among Latino voters–which is the elite factor driving the interest of Beltway Republicans in immigration reform–is shared that widely among hard-core conservative activists, who are more likely to think that insufficient ideological rigor continues to be the party’s biggest problem.

    I agree. Think about it from a liberal perspective. When the repeal of DADT passed in 2010, did we all breathe a sigh of relief and decide to give Democrats a pass on other legislation? Not a chance. On gay issues in particular, it simply convinced us that we were on the right side of history and that now was the time to push even harder than ever. On other issues, it didn’t make much difference at all.

  28. rikyrah says:

    Scary Cruz control

    By Dana Milbank,

    Published: April 19

    Is there nobody who can tell Ted Cruz to shut up?

    The young senator from Texas has been on the job for about 100 days, but he has already turned the Senate’s ancient seniority system upside down and is dominating his senior Republican colleagues. He’s speaking for them on immigration, guns and any other topic that tickles his fancy; Republican leaders are seething at being outshone yet are terrified of challenging him.

    Consider his news conference this week to promote the Republican alternative to gun control. With Cruz on the stage in the Senate TV studio: the bill’s primary author, Chuck Grassley of Iowa, a 32-year Senate veteran and longtime chairman or ranking member of the finance and judiciary committees; Lindsey Graham of South Carolina (10 years in the Senate and eight in the House); and Dan Coats of Indiana (12 years in the Senate and eight in the House).

    But Cruz took over the lectern and refused to relinquish it. He spoke 2,924 words for the cameras, more than Grassley (904), Graham (1,376) and Coats (360) — combined. Factoring in his dramatic pauses to convey sincerity and deep thought, Cruz’s dominance was even more lopsided. The others shifted uncomfortably and looked awkwardly around the room. At one point, Graham requested a chance to speak. “Can I?” he asked Cruz.

  29. rikyrah says:

    Boston bombing suspects enter into immigration debate

    By Mike Lillis –
    04/19/13 03:00 PM ET

    A powerful senator warned Friday that this week’s Boston marathon bombings should give Congress pause as it attempts to overhaul the nation’s immigration system.

    Sen. Chuck Grassley (Iowa), senior Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, emphasized that it’s too early to know whether the perpetrators of the bombings exploited gaps in immigration law to help stage their attacks. But with the chief suspects said to be ethnic Chechens raised in Kyrgyzstan who have lived in the United States for roughly a decade, he suggested their story could serve as a cautionary tale as lawmakers attempt to revamp the system.

    Read more:
    Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

  30. rikyrah says:

    Why Republicans won’t support marriage equality anytime soon

    Posted by Jamelle Bouie on April 19, 2013 at 11:37 am

    submit to reddit

    Ohio Senator Rob Portman, the first Senate Republican to endorse same-sex marriage, was arguably the one who opened the floodgates for Democratic senators to announce their support for marriage equality. In the weeks following his op-ed in the Columbus Dispatch, one Democratic senator after another announced support for same-sex marriage, solidifying the consensus for marriage equality that has emerged in the Democratic Party.

    Republicans, on the other hand, haven’t been as willing to take that step. Only one other GOP senator has come out in support of same-sex marriage — Mark Kirk of Illinois — and just last week, the Republican National Committee voted to affirm its opposition to marriage equality, satisfying the social conservatives who have threatened to bolt the party if it changes its position. And while Portman was applauded by gay rights advocates for his change of heart, his constituents aren’t so happy with his decision to embrace same-sex marriage.

    According to the latest poll from Quinnipiac University, Portman’s approval has dipped somewhat since endorsing marriage equality. Last month, 44 percent approved of his work and 24 percent disapproved. Since then, his disapproval rating has risen to 31 percent. And it’s entirely do to Republican discontent with his stance. Forty-one percent of self-identified Republicans in the state say they view Portman less favorably because of his shift. Overall, 20 percent say it reflects poorly on Portman, 25 percent say it reflects positively, and 53 percent are indifferent.

  31. rikyrah says:

    Why Dems will keep pushing on guns

    Posted by Greg Sargent on April 19, 2013 at 4:23 pm

    submit to reddit

    Now that the smoke has cleared from the wreckage of this week’s Manchin-Toomey debacle, I believe you’re going to see some debate in the days ahead about a related question: Is offering no real answer to the problem of gun violence a sustainable position for the Republican Party over the long haul?

    In a great piece, National Journal’s Ron Brownstein provides us with an interesting way to think about this question. Brownstein notes that the structural imbalances in the Senate — the excessive power of rural states; the need for a supermajority to break the filibuster — obscure the true significance of Manchin-Toomey’s defeat. While there’s no denying that the realities of the Senate make passage of gun legislation extraordinarily difficult, Brownstein notes that the potency of gun control as an issue is going to be increasingly beneficial to Democrats when it comes to the national electoral map, with real implications for how Republicans will have to approach it with an eye towards 2016:

    On the one hand, the defeat showed how difficult it is for gun-control advocates to reach the 60-vote threshold required to break a filibuster in an institution whose two-senator-per-state apportionment magnifies the impact of small, heavily rural states where guns are interwoven into the culture.

    On the other, the vote suggested that, after years in which gun-control has been sublimated as a political issue, support for expanding background checks and possibly further steps has again become a political norm in almost all of the blue-leaning states that underpin the recent Democratic advantage in the race for the White House.

    One way to understand these divergent trends is to examine the Senate vote on the critical amendment to offer background checks through the prism of the Electoral College. The amendment drew unified support from both senators in 21 states representing 261 Electoral College votes. By contrast, both senators opposed the amendment in 17 states representing just 146 Electoral College votes. Senators from the remaining 12 states, with a combined 128 Electoral College votes, split their vote on the amendment…The vote suggested that senators viewed it as safe (or necessary) to support the expanded checks in a swathe of states sufficient to put a presidential nominee on the brink of an Electoral College majority.

  32. rikyrah says:

    My Sistafriend and I were talking about the terrorists yesterday.

    we were like – what did you have to be mad about?

    You wanted asylum in the USA…you got it, while people from other parts of the world died before the US got back to them.

    When you get here, your behinds get into one of the best schools in the country – I’m sure there were plenty of kids from around the Boston area that got rejected that would have loved your place in that school.

    After going to that excellent school, your behinds get

    SCHOLARSHIPS to college…like there wasn’t some
    Black kid from Roxbury that couldn’t have used that scholarship.

    you’re White and male in America…

    seriously, why you mad?

    • Ametia says:

      Speak on this! Why you mad? Their immersion in America’s VIOLENT culture and the fear-stoking of their white bretheran.

    • Liza says:

      I’ve been thinking about that too for the last several days. With the older brother dead, we’re probably never going to know exactly what happened to him. He had a wife who apparently didn’t know much about him, but I find that hard to believe.

      The older brother dropped out of college to pursue his boxing career, but it didn’t work out. He was not going to be a famous boxer. What is not clear is which came first, his interest in terrorism or his failure to become a boxer. There is so little known about him right now, but it seems that something furthered his alienation in America and he decided to seek out his roots or perhaps look for a place (or an ideology) where he would be accepted.

      I really hope that they are looking at the older brother’s brain. He was boxing for a long time. There could be brain damage.

      Other than that, I just can’t imagine why these young men squandered all of their many opportunities in this country and then decided to make bombs so they could kill and maim people at the Boston Marathon. Now one is dead and the other will either spend his life in a federal prison or he’ll be executed. What was this supposed to accomplish?

  33. rikyrah says:

    The Fugees!!

    Aw yeah!!

  34. Ametia says:

    Twin Cities radio host gets called out for his “go to hell” comment

    The other day we read that Twin Cities radio host Bob Davis went live on the air, said he would like to tell the families of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting victims to “go to hell” for infringing on his gun rights.

    Turns out that a resident of Sandy Hook has contacted Davis. He offered to pay Davis’s travel expenses to come out to Connecticut and do just that.

    “My question is whether he has the courage to crawl out from behind the safety of his studio and microphone and repeat his words in front of victims of gun violence. Would he have the courage to look people in the eye, tell them to deal with their tragedy, tell them that his liberty is more important than their loss, and tell them to go to hell?”

    Guess what? No response.

    that chickenshit mutha don’t want none of those Newtown folks.

  35. Ametia says:

    Good Morning, Everyone. Happy MUNdane! :-)

Leave a Reply