Click HERE to read how the Supreme Court ruled against President Obama in the contraceptive case.

This is a joke. Corporations have religious rights? How about the rights of their employees? This stuff makes me sick. I guess the religious right and Fox “News” are smugly singing “Kumbaya” right about now.

Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1802: “… I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.”

I think the Supreme Court just peed all over that.

Woody Allen nailed this sentiment in his 1986 film Hannah and Her Sisters when Max Von Sydow’s character says, “If Jesus came back and saw what’s going on in his name, he’d never stop throwing up.”

This is a bummer. He’s such a great political writer. I would dare say he was one of the best in the business. It is writers like him that have made and continue to make Rolling Stone as great a political magazine as it is a music magazine.

From RollingStone.com:
Thank You, Rolling Stone by Matt Taibbi

Today is my last day at Rolling Stone. As of this week, I’m leaving to work for First Look Media, the new organization that’s already home to reporters like Glenn Greenwald, Jeremy Scahill and Laura Poitras.

I’ll have plenty of time to talk about the new job elsewhere. But in this space, I just want to talk about Rolling Stone, and express my thanks. Today is a very bittersweet day for me. As excited as I am about the new opportunity, I’m sad to be leaving this company.

More than 15 years ago, Rolling Stone sent a reporter, Brian Preston, to do a story on the eXile, the biweekly English-language newspaper I was editing in Moscow at the time with Mark Ames. We abused the polite Canadian Preston terribly – I think we thought we were being hospitable – and he promptly went home and wrote a story about us that was painful, funny and somewhat embarrassingly accurate. Looking back at that story now, in fact, I’m surprised that Rolling Stone managing editor Will Dana gave me a call years later, after I’d returned to the States.

I remember when Will called, because it was such an important moment in my life. I was on the American side of Niagara Falls, walking with friends, when my cell phone rang. Night had just fallen and when Will invited me to write a few things in advance of the 2004 presidential election, I nearly walked into the river just above the Falls.

At the time, I was having a hard time re-acclimating to life in America and was a mess personally. I was broke and having anxiety attacks. I specifically remember buying three cans of corned beef hash with the last dollars of available credit on my last credit card somewhere during that period. Anyway I botched several early assignments for the magazine, but Will was patient and eventually brought me on to write on a regular basis.

It was my first real job and it changed my life. Had Rolling Stone not given me a chance that year, God knows where I’d be – one of the ideas I was considering most seriously at the time was going to Ukraine to enroll in medical school, of all things.

In the years that followed, both Will and editor/publisher Jann S. Wenner were incredibly encouraging and taught me most of what I now know about this business. It’s been an amazing experience. I’ve had a front-row seat for some of the strangest and most interesting episodes of our recent history. At various times, thanks to this magazine, I’ve spent days hiding in a cell at the infamous Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, gone undercover in an apocalyptic church in Texas (where I learned to vomit my demons into a paper bag), and even helped run a campaign office for George W. Bush along the I-4 corridor in Florida, getting so into the assignment that I was involuntarily happy when Bush won.

I was at the Michael Jackson trial, so close to the defendant I could see the outlines of his original nose. I met past and future presidents. I shared Udon noodles with Dennis Kucinich in a van on a highway in Maine. And I paddled down the streets of Katrina-ravaged New Orleans, so deep into the disaster zone that a soldier in a rescue copter above mistook me for a victim and threw a Meal Ready to Eat off my head. I still have that MRE, it has some kind of pop tart in it – I’m going to give it to my son someday.

To be able to say you work for Rolling Stone, it’s a feeling any journalist in his right mind should want to experience. The magazine’s very name is like a magic word. I noticed it from the very first assignment. Even people who know they probably shouldn’t talk to you, do, once they hear you’re from the magazine Dr. Hook sang about. And if they actually see the business card, forget it. People will do anything to get into the magazine, to have some of that iconic cool rub off on them.

There were times when I would think about the great reporters and writers who’ve had the same job I was so lucky to have, and it would be almost overwhelming – it was like being the Dread Pirate Roberts. It was a true honor and I’ll eternally be in the debt of Will and Jann, and Sean Woods and Coco McPherson and Victor Juhasz and Alison Weinflash and so many others with whom it was my privilege to work. I wish there was something I could say that is stronger than Thank You.

No journalist has ever been luckier than me. Thank you, Rolling Stone.

From Politico Magazine:

The Cookiecott

Pro-life groups say the Girl Scouts are selling something else along with their Thin Mints: abortion.

By ROBIN MARTY

March 10, 2014

When a cheerful, green-sashed third grader steps on the porch of the house next door, or rings the bell of the neighbor across the street, she’s probably prepping her sales pitch, prepared to answer questions about the type of cookies she’s selling, how much they cost or when they will arrive. She might be ready to tell the person who answers the door about the girls in her troop, the activities they will do with the funds they raise or the volunteer work they have already accomplished during the school year.

One thing she is probably not prepared to discuss is abortion. But that’s what some girls are hearing about from the person on the other side of the door thanks to conservative news outlets, anti-abortion action groups and a continuing campaign to paint the Girl Scouts as in bed with Planned Parenthood.

Launched in 1912, the Girl Scouts of the USA started as a single pack of girls in Savannah, Georgia, meeting in the hopes of getting out of their “isolated home environments and into community service and the open air.” Founder Juliette Gordon Low, an artist and athlete, saw her personal mission in launching the troop as “to go on with my heart and soul, devoting all my energies to Girl Scouts, and heart and hand with them, we will make our lives and the lives of the future girls happy, healthy and holy.”

Since that first troop, tens of millions of girls have joined the scouts, forming friendships, earning badges for new skills and, of course, selling the Girl Scout cookies so ubiquitously linked in every person’s mind with the organization. Beginning in 1917, when the first cookies were sold by an Oklahoma troop in a local high school as a service project, troops now sell approximately 200 million boxes per year, resulting in around $700 million in sales.

It’s through these cookie sales that anti-abortion groups are making their voices heard. Dubbing their effort “cookie-cott,” abortion opponents have been urging allies to refuse to purchase cookies from any girl scout this year to show their opposition to what they perceive as the Girl Scouts’ increasing support of people and advocacy groups with ties, however tendentious, to abortion.

The most recent in a long line of perceived offenses, and the one that spurred the latest cookie boycott, was the organization’s alleged endorsement of Texas state senator Wendy Davis, who last June famously filibustered the state’s new law that will close most of the abortion providers in Texas. The Girl Scouts’ Twitter account tweeted a link to a Huffington Post Live segment discussing potential candidates for woman of the year for 2013. Texas Democratic gubernatorial candidate Wendy Davis was mentioned as a contender, as were singer Beyonce, Pakistani activist Malala Yousafzai and even “the brave women on social media.”

Just one link to one three-minute video with a 30 second mention of Davis was enough constitute an “endorsement,” according to abortion opponents, and justification enough to start the ball rolling for the boycott—or at least for this newest boycott.

In fact, Girl Scout cookie boycotts appear to be a longstanding tradition for the religious right, albeit a mostly Sisyphean one. Just a few months earlier, in October, right-wing Colorado radio pastors Kevin Swanson and Dave Buehner of Generations Radio were urging a boycott of cookies because the Girl Scouts were a “wicked organization” that “doesn’t promote godly womanhood” and in fact “is antithetical to a biblical vision for womanhood,” according to Swanson. In 2012, the Family Research Council, the Christian right advocacy group headed by Tony Perkins, urged its 455,000 followers to pray that cookie sales would lag so that the Girl Scouts would break off their alleged relationship with Planned Parenthood. “The Scouts had better confess their errors and make a clean break while they can,” read the alert, which also urged prayer for the congressional defunding of Planned Parenthood. Even as far back as a decade ago, anti-abortion organizations were boycotting their local troops to punish them for participating in events with Planned Parenthood affiliates. In the case of Waco, Texas, a boycott of cookies in 2004—launched over a partnership with Planned Parenthood for a sex-ed event—continued on even after the troop dropped its co-sponsorship. (Pro-Life Waco’s continuing boycott has now become the staging ground for the current 2014 cookie-cott.)

To read more – click HERE.

Seth Rogen publicly shames US Senators after they walk out on his testimony about Alzheimer’s.

Click HERE to read more.

From CNN.com:

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer vetoes controversial anti-gay bill, SB 1062
By Catherine E. Shoichet and Halimah Abdullah, CNN
updated 11:13 PM EST, Wed February 26, 2014

(CNN) — Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer vetoed a bill Wednesday that would have allowed businesses that asserted their religious beliefs the right to deny service to gay and lesbian customers.

The controversial measure faced a surge of opposition in recent days from large corporations and athletic organizations, including Delta Air Lines, the Super Bowl host committee and Major League Baseball.

Fiercely divided supporters and opponents of the bill ramped up pressure on Brewer after the state’s Republican-led Legislature approved it last week.

On Wednesday, the governor said she made the decision she knew was right for Arizona.

“I call them as I see them, despite the cheers or the boos from the crowd,” Brewer said, criticizing what she described as a “broadly worded” bill that “could result in unintended and negative consequences.”

Brewer said she’d weighed the arguments on both sides before vetoing the measure, which is known as SB 1062.

Read Gov. Brewer’s full statement

“To the supporters of the legislation, I want you to know that I understand that long-held norms about marriage and family are being challenged as never before. Our society is undergoing many dramatic changes,” she said. “However, I sincerely believe that Senate Bill 1062 has the potential to create more problems than it purports to solve. It could divide Arizona in ways we cannot even imagine and no one would ever want.

“Religious liberty is a core American and Arizona value. So is non-discrimination.”

Her announcement spurred cheering and hugs by protesters of the bill outside the state Capitol in Phoenix.

Banners urging Brewer to veto the bill were quickly swapped for signs praising her decision.

“Thank you Governor Brewer,” they said. “Arizona is open for business to everyone!”

Brewer’s veto drew swift praise from gay rights advocates.

“Discrimination has no place in Arizona, or anywhere else,” said Alessandra Soler, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona. “We’re grateful that the governor has stopped this disgraceful law from taking effect, and that Arizona will remain open for business to everyone.”

Doug Napier, an attorney representing the Alliance Defending Freedom, which helped craft the bill, criticized the governor’s decision.

“Freedom loses when fear overwhelms facts and a good bill is vetoed,” he said in a statement. “Today’s veto enables the foes of faith to more easily suppress the freedom of the people of Arizona.”

Cathi Herrod, president of the Center for Arizona Policy, accused opponents of the measure of distorting facts.

“The religious beliefs of all Arizonans must be respected and this bill did nothing more than affirm that,” said Herrod, whose conservative organization lent a hand in creating the bill. “It is truly a disappointing day in our state and nation when lies and personal attacks can overshadow the truth.”

Rep. Demion Clinco, the only openly gay member of Arizona’s House of Representatives, said he hoped the governor’s decision would start a new chapter after what he called a setback for the state’s lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community.

“In her vetoing the bill, I really feel like there’s a possible hope for reconciliation within our state, and we can move forward,” he told CNN’s AC360.

Brewer returned home on Tuesday from a weekend in Washington with her state roiling over a values clash between arch conservatives and gay rights advocates. The state battle has national implications, as the issues it deals with play out in different ways in courts, state legislatures and on Main Street across the country.

The Arizona measure was particularly pointed and had vocal supporters behind it. They contended it was their legal right to oppose what they see as a gay-rights agenda nationally, and argued the bill allowed for religious freedom.

In addition to gay rights organizations, many businesses sharply criticized the measure, saying it would be bad for Arizona’s economy and could lead to discrimination lawsuits, boycotts and other disruptions.

Large businesses including Apple, American Airlines, AT&T and Intel voiced opposition to the measure, and the Arizona Super Bowl Host Committee expressed concerns.

The bill also drew fire from some Republican lawmakers with generally social conservative beliefs.

Arizona Sens. John McCain and Jeff Flake publicly urged Brewer to veto the measure, citing worries about the economic impact on the state’s businesses.

McCain praised Brewer’s decision.

“I hope that we can now move on from this controversy and assure the American people that everyone is welcome to live, work and enjoy our beautiful state of Arizona,” he said in a written statement.

Former Massachusetts governor and Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney recently tweeted that a veto of the bill was the right course.

Supporters of the bill were just as vocal. They say federal courts have increasingly pushed a pro-gay rights agenda.

Freedom or oppression? That’s the question for Arizona’s SB 1062

Conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh said on his show that Brewer was “being bullied by the homosexual lobby in Arizona and elsewhere.”

Supporters said they saw, in the opposition, a double standard in how the rights of gays and lesbians are supported versus those who have conservative religious views.

“I think what we need to do is respect both sides. We need to respect both opinions,” Minnesota Republican Rep. Michele Bachmann said Wednesday. “Just like we need to observe tolerance for the gay and lesbian community, we need to have tolerance for the community of people who hold sincerely held religious beliefs.”

Texas! Of all places! Wow! To all the people who want to prevent homosexuals from being married because of fear or because their god told them it was wrong: You are going to lose. If not today, then tomorrow, because in this country, equality is something worth fighting for – it’s freedom. The Civil Right Act, the 19th Amendment, which guaranteed women the right to vote. And now this…

From CNN.com:

(CNN) — Texas on Wednesday became the latest state in which a federal judge struck down a ban on same-sex marriage, setting the stage for gay and lesbian couples to wed in one of the nation’s most conservative states.

The ruling, by San Antonio-based Judge Orlando Garcia, will not take affect immediately: It stays enforcement of his decision pending appeal, meaning same-sex couples in Texas for the time being cannot get married.

Still, the judgment — because of what it says, where it happened and how it follows similar rulings in other states — carries special significance.

“We look forward to the day in Texas when everyone can marry who they love,” said state Democratic Party chairman Gilberto Hinojosa. “This is a historic day for the LGBT community and the state of Texas.”

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott — a member of the Republican Party, which has been more likely to back gay marriage bans — said his office would appeal the ruling.

“The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled over and over again that sates have the authority to define and regulate marriage,” said Abbott, who is running for governor. “The Texas Constitution defines marriage as between one man and one woman.”

Garcia, in his decision issued Wednesday, said the ban had no “rational relation to a legitimate government purpose.”

“One of the court’s main responsibilities is to ensure that individuals are treated equally under the law,” said Garcia. “Equal treatment of all individuals under the law is not merely an aspiration it is a constitutional mandate.”

“Supreme Court precedent prohibits states from passing legislation born out of animosity against homosexuals, has extended constitutional protection to the moral and sexual choices of homosexuals, and prohibits the federal government from treating state-sanctioned opposite-sex marriages and same-sex marriages differently,” he said.

Two same-sex couples filed the original lawsuit: Cleopatra De Leon and Nicole Dimetman of Austin; and Mark Phariss and Victor Holmes of Plano.

State officials are expected to now take their case to a federal appeals court in New Orleans.

Garcia’s decision follows similar conclusions in recent weeks by federal courts in Utah, Oklahoma, Kentucky and Virginia.

The renewed legal, political, and social momentum on the issue comes eight months after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down part of a federal Defense of Marriage Act that did not recognize for federal purposes legally married same-sex couples. Seventeen states now allow such legal unions.

The Texas case is De Leon v. Perry (5:13-cv-982).

From CNN.com:

Freedom or oppression? That’s the question for Arizona’s SB1062
By Eliott C. McLaughlin, CNN

Gov. Jan Brewer to decide by Saturday whether to sign SB1062 into law.
While debate has raged over the bill, Arizona Republicans say veto is likely.
Bill’s proponents says SB1062 has been hijacked, misrepresented.

(CNN) — Arizona’s SB1062 has pulled off a sort of political magic trick, in that warring sides can read the bill’s text and have not only different reactions, but completely opposite ones.

While proponents of gay rights dub the bill oppressive, those in favor of the bill becoming law say it represents freedom.

Freedom vs. oppression: That’s the polar contrast Gov. Jan Brewer must consider as she sits down to “listen to both sides” this week ahead of her decision whether to sign or veto the bill that has divided her state and drawn national and commercial interests into the fray.

Brewer has until Saturday to make her call, and her fellow Republicans in the state Legislature have suggested that a veto is likely.

In short, SB1062 would amend the existing Religious Freedom Restoration Act, allowing business owners to deny service to gay and lesbian customers so long as proprietors were acting solely on their religious beliefs.

The bill’s advocates insist that those claiming SB1062 amounts to bigotry and discrimination have hijacked and misrepresented its aims.

“The attacks on SB1062 show politics at its absolute worse. They represent precisely why so many people are sick of the modern political debate. Instead of having an honest discussion about the true meaning of religious liberty, opponents of the bill have hijacked this discussion through lies, personal attacks, and irresponsible reporting,” said Cathi Herrod, president of the Center for Arizona Policy, which lent a hand in scribing the bill.

Kellie Fiedorek, an attorney for the Alliance Defending Freedom, which also helped craft the bill, called SB1062 a “balancing test” that would protect all religions and sexual orientations while prohibiting Arizonans from “coercing someone to violate their sincerely held beliefs.”

“This bill has nothing to do with discrimination. It’s protecting basic freedoms that belong to everyone,” she said, explaining that it would protect a gay photographer’s decision not to work for Westboro Baptist Church, or Muslims who don’t want to sell “pork sandwiches on a Saturday.”

Brewer has a history

A dreadnought of the conservative cause, Brewer rarely shies from controversy and, often in the face of staunch political and economic backlash, has boldly defended her stances on the economy, gun rights, regulation, taxation, immigration and even wagging her finger in the face of President Barack Obama.

“I don’t rely a whole lot on my gut because I have to look at what (the bill) says and what the law says and take that information and do the right thing,” she said from the National Governors Association’s winter meeting in Washington. “I will do the right thing for the state of Arizona.”

But since Thursday, when the state House of Representatives OK’d the bill by a 33-27 margin and sent it to Brewer’s desk, what’s right for Arizona has become somewhat amorphous.

Already, three GOP senators who voted in favor of SB1062, including a co-sponsor, Sen. Bob Worsley, have changed their minds. The bill passed the state Senate 17-13 with the “yea” votes of the three senators.

“While our sincere intent in voting for the bill was to create a shield for all citizens’ religious liberties, the bill has instead been mischaracterized by its opponents as a sword for religious intolerance. These allegations are causing our state immeasurable harm,” Worsley and Sens. Adam Driggs and Steve Pierce said in a letter sent to Brewer on Monday.

“As Arizona leaders we feel it is important to loudly proclaim that we strongly condemn discrimination in any form,” the letter said.

Backlash bubbles up

The National Football League, which has scheduled Super Bowl XLIX for the Phoenix suburb of Glendale next year, has a like stance, and league spokesman Brian McCarthy issued a Monday statement to that effect, saying, “We are following the issue in Arizona and will continue to do so should the bill be signed into law, but will decline further comment at this time.”

The state’s own Super Bowl Host Committee was more blunt in its statement, which said it strives to promote “economic vitality” and “adoption of this legislation would not only run contrary to that goal but deal a significant blow to the state’s economic growth potential. We do not support this legislation.”

A few Fortune 500 companies concur, as Marriott warned Brewer in a letter that the legislation “would have profound negative impacts on the hospitality industry,” and American Airlines CEO Doug Parker told the governor that signing the bill “would jeopardize all that has been accomplished so far.”

Apple, which is building a glass plant in Mesa that’s slated to create hundreds of jobs, said Monday that it, too, was urging Brewer to veto SB1062.

The state Chamber of Commerce and Greater Phoenix Economic Council have come out against the bill as well, and local businesses in Tucson and Phoenix have also taken strong stances.

Scott Koehler of Phoenix FASTSIGNS has printed off dozens of signs saying “Open for business to everyone,” which he’s giving away to businesses. In Tucson, Rocco’s Little Chicago Pizzeria took to its Facebook page to post a photo of a sign reading, “We reserve the right to refuse service to Arizona legislators.”

But while opposition to the bill has been loud — and has included the condemnations of John McCain and Jeff Flake, the state’s Republican U.S. senators — there are those who say the bill is vital in a nation that has increasingly turned hostile toward religion.

Whom does it protect?

Said the Center for Arizona Policy’s Herrod, “Simply put, the fear-mongering from opponents is unrelated to the language of the bill, and proves that hostility towards people of faith is very real. It’s a shame we even need a bill like this in America. But growing hostility against freedom in our nation, and the increasing use of government to threaten and punish its own citizens, has made it necessary.”

State Sen. Al Melvin, a hopeful to succeed Brewer, told CNN’s Anderson Cooper that Arizona was a “people friendly” state and that SB1062 was merely a “pre-emptive” measure that would prevent attacks on religion in the future.

“All of the pillars of society are under attack in the United States: the family, the traditional family, traditional marriage, mainline churches, the Boy Scouts, you name it,” he said.

Asked if he could cite specific examples of attacks on Arizonans’ freedom of religion, Melvin replied, “Not now, no, but what about tomorrow?”

Pressed further about whether the bill could be used to deny service to divorcees or unwed mothers on religious grounds, he scoffed.

“I think you’re being farfetched,” he told Cooper. “Who would discriminate against them? I’ve never heard of discrimination against people like that. … I don’t know of anybody in Arizona that would discriminate against a fellow human being.”

Arizona constitutionally outlawed same-sex marriages in 2008, and legal experts say nothing in present Arizona law would prevent a business owner from discriminating against gays and lesbians, making SB1062 unnecessary.

Brewer alluded to these provisions in an interview after SB1062 was passed last week.

“I think anybody that owns a business can choose who they work with or who they don’t work with,” she said.

While Arizonans on both sides of the issue, as well as the nation at large, keep keen eyes on Phoenix as Brewer ponders her decision, the governor has hinted that the issue, for her, may come down to whether the ban or protection of freedom — depending on how you view it — needs to be enshrined in state law.

“I don’t know that it needs to be statutory. In my life and in my businesses, if I don’t want to do business or if I don’t want to deal with a particular company or person or whatever, I’m not interested. That’s America. That’s freedom.”

CNN’s Ray Sanchez, Miguel Marquez, Leigh Ann Caldwell, Quand Thomas, Dana Bash, Anderson Cooper, Chris Cuomo and Brooke Baldwin contributed to this report.

From the Rachel Maddow Show:

Several years ago, Missouri decided to repeal its law on background checks before firearm purchases. How’d that work out for the state?

We got a look at the alarming results today.

After background checks were scrapped in Missouri

By Steve Benen (02/18/14)

In recent years, advocates of gun reforms have pushed for expanded background checks, arguing that such measures, including closing the gun-show loophole, would improve public safety and reduce gun violence.

On the other end of the policy spectrum is Missouri, which had a background-check system before it was repealed in 2007. The Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health took a closer look at the impact on public safety in the state after the policy change, and the Washington Post’s Niraj Chokshi helped summarize the results.

The law’s repeal was correlated with a 23 percent spike in firearm homicide rates, or an additional 55 to 63 murders annually from 2008 to 2012, according to the study conducted by researchers with the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research and to be published in the Journal of Urban Health.

“This study provides compelling confirmation that weaknesses in firearm laws lead to deaths from gun violence,” Daniel Webster, director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research and the study’s lead author, said in a news release. “There is strong evidence to support the idea that the repeal of Missouri’s handgun purchaser licensing law contributed to dozens of additional murders in Missouri each year since the law was changed.”

For context, note that there was no comparable increase at the national level – in other words, it’s not like Missouri saw a spike because everyone nationwide was seeing a spike – and more to the point, the eight states that border Missouri also did not experience a similar increase.

That said, the states surrounding Missouri were affected.

From Chokshi’s report:
Police in border states that kept such laws reported a big spike in guns bought in Missouri that had been diverted to criminals. In 2009, Missouri exported 136 guns to neighboring Illinois and 78 to neighboring Kansas, according to data collected by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and compiled by Mayors Against Illegal Guns.

When Senate Republicans killed a bipartisan background-check proposal last year, considered in the wake of the Sandy Hook massacre, one of the more common refrains from opponents of reform was that background checks just don’t make a lot of difference. Even if proponents are well-intentioned, the process itself is a feel-good measure with little real-world implications.

The data out of Missouri appears to point in a very different direction.

From the Huffington Post…

(Click HERE to watch the video.)

Anti-Gay Restaurant Hilariously Pranked By Gay Rights Supporters
The Huffington Post

We’re willing to bet he didn’t see this one coming.

After Oklahoma restaurant owner Gary James gave an interview to a local news station explaining why he didn’t want to serve gay people, the story went viral.

“I really don’t want gays around,” James told local news station KFOR-TV in a video published Feb. 6. “Any man that would compromise his body would compromise anything.”

Perhaps unsurprisingly, James’ comments rubbed the Internet the wrong way. The restaurant’s Facebook and Yelp pages, which had fewer than 10 reviews each last week, are now packed with hundreds of comments, many of which label Gary’s Chicaros Club as one of the best gay bars in northern Oklahoma.

“Ask for Gayry! He’s faaaaaaabuuuuulouths,” wrote one Yelp reviewer. “Like, I mean, O-M-G-Awethsome!”

“[This is] the best gay bar in Oklahoma!” remarked Faye Galbraith on Facebook. “Although I must say Gary is far from subtle…the way he struts around in his sparkly pink mankini made me a tad uncomfortable.”

Some of the reviews weren’t quite so enthusiastic, however. Alex H. from Kentucky observed that he “thought this place was going to be cheap,” but noted that the “all male review night” forced him “to whip out all [his] singles.”

Yet perhaps the most powerful reviewer opted to be sincere rather than sarcastic.

“As a combat vet who fought for all Americans [sic] freedom, I hope you and your bigoted views change,” Scott from Washington said. “I will never eat a bite of food in this pit you call a restaurant. You are an embarrassment to this land. You are anti American.”

James doesn’t limit his bigotry to homosexuals. He’s been accused of refusing to serve disabled people and has said hateful things about welfare recipients, too. The restaurant’s motto is “Where The Great Whites Gather,” and its signature T-shirts disparage Muslims, blacks and Democrats.

Although Oklahoma protects people from being turned away from businesses for their race, gender or religion, it does not offer that protection for sexual orientation.

The Huffington Post did not immediately hear back from James on Monday.

From The Rachel Maddow Show:

CBO delivers welcome news to Obamacare backers

By Steve Benen

02/04/14 05:06 PM—UPDATED 02/05/14 01:53 AM

If Republican press releases and reports from conservative and major media outlets are any indication, the Congressional Budget Office’s findings on the Affordable Care Act are simply brutal. National Review, which probably published its report before actually looking at the CBO’s findings, ran this headline: “The CBO Just Nuked Obamacare.”

As we discussed earlier, the coverage has been profoundly misleading. Despite what Americans are being told, the CBO did not find that the health care reform law would cost the nation over 2 million jobs. What it actually said is that the law will empower more than 2 million Americans to leave the workforce if they want to, no longer feeling forced to stay at a job in order to have benefits for them and their family.

Why “Obamacare” critics consider this a bad thing remains unclear.

But Michael Hiltzik, to his credit, took the reporting one step further:
The Congressional Budget Office is out with its latest report on the Affordable Care Act, and here are a few bottom lines:

— The ACA is cheaper than it expected.

— It will “markedly increase” the number of Americans with health insurance.

— The risk-adjustment provisions, which Congressional Republicans want to overturn as a “bailout” of the insurance industry, will actually turn a profit to the U.S. Treasury.

Given all this, why are the first news headlines on the CBO report depicting it as calling Obamacare a job killer?
Because a whole lot of congressional offices issued press statements before getting their facts straight? Because a few too many reporters don’t understand CBO reports as well as they should?

This is one of those strange days in which most of the political world seems to have gotten an important story backwards. The Affordable Care Act’s critics have spent the day eagerly touting a CBO report that offers a whole lot of good news for the Affordable Care Act’s supporters – and much of the media has played along in a depressing display.

Indeed, the CBO’s findings – which, again, are readily available online for all to see – actually add fresh evidence that discredits talking points pushed by the law’s detractors.

For Obamacare critics, the law has increased part-time employment over full-time employment. The CBO found “there is no compelling evidence” to support the argument.

For Obamacare critics, the law will worsen the nation’s finances. The CBO found that the Affordable Care Act will actually reduce the deficit by more than $1 trillion over the next 20 years.

For Obamacare critics, the law will force consumers to pay more for health care. The CBO found that the Affordable Care Act’s premiums are even better than originally projected.

For Obamacare critics, the law will cause the ranks of the uninsured to swell. The CBO found that the Affordable Care Act will bring coverage to 13 million Americans this year and 25 million Americans over the next two decades.

Conservatives who’ve spent the day urging Americans to look at the CBO report have inadvertently encouraged the public to review a document that supports the White House’s arguments.