Check out our slate of Daily Kos-endorsed candidates

Look out, Sen. Richard Burr. Democrat Deborah Ross is nipping at your heels. From Public Policy Polling:

We continue to find him with just a narrow lead over Deborah Ross for reelection—40/37, with Libertarian Sean Haugh at 5%. The overall state of the race remains steady—Burr is unpopular, with only 30% of voters approving of the job he's doing to 40% who disapprove. That makes voters open to a change. But Ross is currently unknown with 62% of voters having no opinion about her one way or another. They're open to the possibility of replacing Burr but don't know enough about Ross yet to decide if they think she would be an upgrade.

“Richard Burr’s the most vulnerable Republican Senator that no one’s talking about,” said Dean Debnam, President of Public Policy Polling. “His numbers aren’t any better than those of folks like Pat Toomey and Rob Portman who are widely accepted to be facing tough reelections.”

That puts Ross within the 3.2 percent margin of error in this poll. Helping Ross, PPP says, are a couple of things: Strong support for gun measures in the state, as well as opposition to the Republicans' Supreme Court blockade. According to this poll, 85 percent of voters support background checks on all gun purchases, and 81 percent support closing the terror gap. "It's very rare," the polling memo says, "to see such strong bipartisan support on any contentious issue." What's more, "North Carolinians also support an assault weapons ban, 52/34."

Fifty-six percent think there should be hearings on Merrick Garland's nomination, and 19 percent say they're less likely to vote for a candidate who's opposed to having hearings. Oh, and one other thing—73 percent of the voters want the minimum wage increased to at least $10 an hour. Richard Burr, needless to say, is on the wrong side of his constituency on these pretty darned key issues. 

Please spend $3 to help Deborah Ross get to the Senate.

By now you’ve probably heard the story first dug out last year in a terrific series by the Pulitzer prize-winning InsideClimate News. ICN learned that Exxon’s own scientists knew global warming was a byproduct of burning fossil fuels nearly 40 years ago. Not only did the company’s executives cover this up, but they also poured money into climate denial propaganda and, later, smearing climatologists. This was similar to what Big Tobacco did: Lied about tobacco’s effects, smeared scientists who said otherwise, and continued to market their lethal product with particular emphasis on getting kids hooked on cigarettes. 

At a forum Wednesday co-sponsored by the Congressional Progressive Caucus and the Sustainable Energy and Environment Coalition, participants discussed the theme of “Oil Is The New Tobacco.” 

Zoë Carpenter at The Nation covered it:

 “Just like RJ Reynolds and Philip Morris before them, Exxon Mobile said one thing in public, and something else in private,” testified Naomi Oreskes, a professor at Harvard and co-author of a history of climate skepticism called Merchants of Doubt. Oreskes traced the history of climate change denial back to the late 1980s, to a Washington-based think tank, the George C Marshall Institute, founded by a former tobacco industry consultant. The institute applied the “tobacco strategy” to block action on climate, producing reports that challenged the scientific consensus around global warming. Exxon became a major funder of the institute and other denial groups in the 1990s, and played a “leading” role in the Global Climate Coalition, an industry group created “with a specific goal of preventing the US Congress from signing the Kyoto protocol,” Oreskes recounted. While Exxon claims it’s stopped funded such groups, Oreskes pointed out that it’s still a member of three trade associations that advocate against climate action: the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), the Chamber of Commerce, and the American Petroleum Institute.

The forum adds to the pressure Exxon is already under from the 17 state Attorneys General who’ve opened investigations into whether the company deliberately misled investors about the risks of climate change. The prosecutors have issued subpoenas requesting numerous financial records and other documents, modeling their efforts on the litigation against tobacco companies, which was also led by state attorneys general and resulted in a $200 billion settlement. Meanwhile, the Department of Justice, which won its own racketeering suit against the tobacco companies, has asked the Federal Bureau of Investigation to look into Exxon’s behavior. Congressional hearings were a key part of efforts to hold Big Tobacco accountable, too; but with Republicans in control of both chambers of Congress, Wednesday’s forum may be as close to an official hearing as is possible.

The American Bar Association has given Merrick Garland a perfect score, its highest possible rating as a prospective Supreme Court Justice. The superlatives coming from the group are unbelievable.

To describe the ABA's endorsement as glowing would be an understatement.

“He may be the perfect human being,” one anonymous legal professional told the ABA in evaluating Garland's integrity.

“He will fit in so perfectly on the Supreme Court,” another evaluation raved. In keeping with the "perfect" theme, other lawyers praised his "perfect temperament" and described him as a "perfectionist in his written work." The ABA's endorsement was based on confidential interviews of private practice lawyers, law professors, and state and federal judges.

So of course the Republicans don't believe it. Or at least are pretending like they don't. They remain committed to this blockade. There is no nominee they'd accept, because it's not about the nominee. It's about thwarting this president. For that, they should pay dearly in November.

Please donate $3 today to help turn the Senate blue and demote Mitch McConnell.

Following news that President Obama's immigration actions have been effectively blocked for the remainder of his tenure, Hillary Clinton wasted no time in reminding voters of the "stark" choice facing them this November between her immigration policies and those of Donald Trump. Clinton has vowed to act on immigration reform within her first 100 days in office and expand on Obama's immigration actions if Congress fails to act. Here’s a partial excerpt of her campaign's release:

"Today’s decision by the Supreme Court is purely procedural and casts no doubt on the fact that DAPA and DACA are entirely within the President's legal authority. But in addition to throwing millions of families across our country into a state of uncertainty, this decision reminds us how much damage Senate Republicans are doing by refusing to consider President Obama’s nominee to fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court. Our families and our country need and deserve a full bench, and Senate Republicans need to stop playing political games with our democracy and give Judge Merrick Garland a fair hearing and vote.

"This decision is also a stark reminder of the harm Donald Trump would do to our families, our communities, and our country. Trump has pledged to repeal President Obama’s executive actions on his first day in office. He has called Mexican immigrants 'rapists' and 'murderers.' He has called for creating a deportation force” to tear 11 million people away from their families and their homes.

“I believe we are stronger together. When we embrace immigrants, not denigrate them. When we build bridges, not walls. That is why, as president, I will continue to defend DAPA and DACA, and do everything possible under the law to go further to protect families. It is also why I will introduce comprehensive immigration reform with a path to citizenship within my first 100 days. Because when families are strong—America is strong.”

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, clearly exhausted from lack of sleep, was unsparing Thursday in her assessment of the Republican majority's response to the Democratic sit-in for gun safety. 

"Republicans turned off the microphones, we raised our voices. They turned off the cameras, we went to Periscope," she said during her weekly press conference. “They tried to shut down the discussion and what resulted was a discussion heard round the world." In fact, #NoBillNoBreak trended on Twitter not only nationally but internationally Wednesday. 

Pelosi said the country was "stepping into a new world" on the issue of gun safety due to a "widening universe of advocates." She skewered the "radical and reckless" Zika bill Republicans finally passed before skipping town, not to mention the "highly unusual" procedural move they used to pass it: "I've never seen that happen."

Finally, Pelosi promised action on gun safety and left all options on the table, saying, "We cannot stop until we get a bill. [...] Stay tuned." 

Read extended excerpts and watch a video clip below.

This is just pathetic.

When C-SPAN's TV cameras in the U.S. House chamber went out on Wednesday, producers did what resourceful, 21st century newspeople at any other station would have done: They turned to streaming Internet video—Facebook Live and the smartphone app Periscope, to be specific—to continue covering an important story. […]

C-SPAN's decision to work around the rules and show the sit-in was—rather predictably—viewed by some as a sign of political bias. When Republicans held a sit-in in 2008 to protest high gas prices, C-SPAN cameras also went dark; carrying a Periscope feed wasn't an option back then.

Just to be clear, that Republican protest in 2008 was on behalf of Big Oil. It wasn't about high gas prices—it was about trying to open up more offshore drilling. (Kind of telling contrast there, no? Big Oil versus thousands of murdered people.) 

Had Periscope or Facebook Live existed in 2008, and had any Republican member been smart enough to know how to use it, C-SPAN probably would have shown it. Because it's their job to cover Congress. That's exactly what they were doing.

You weenies.

Seeing this picture earlier today kinda shocked me:

Now, under usual conditions, I wouldn’t compare Donnie Trump’s physique to Barack Obama’s. Why would I? Except that Trump himself couldn’t stop bragging about himself and his stellar health. Remember when his doctor, maybe named “John Smith,” wrote the following?

Mr. Trump has had a recent complete medical examination that showed only positive results. Actually his blood pressure, 110/65, and laboratory test results were astonishingly excellent … HIs physical strength and stamina are extraordinary ...His cardiovascular status is excellent …

If elected, Mr Trump, I can state unequivocally, will be the healthiest individual ever elected to the presidency. 

“Astonishingly excellent.” “Extraordinary.” “Healthiest individual ever.” Unequivocally! 

Of course, Dr. Miller (or was it Dr. Barron?) has examined every president ever elected to the presidency, so he should know! I mean, GENERAL George Washington, fresh from fighting a goddam war, was a piece of shit compared to the Donnster. But we don’t even need to go back hundreds of years. We don’t even have to go back a single year. I know Donald Trump is the bestest and the yuuugest and the amazing-est and the most extraordinary-est person ever to have lived. But making his doctor write that shit when it’s so easily disproved by simple pictures is the height of stupidity.

Of course, when Trump is involved, the “height of stupidity” is par for the course. 

p.s. More Obama fitness. And W. was more fit than Trump. 

House Speaker Paul Ryan tried to break the House Democrats' sit-in for gun safety legislation Wednesday night and in the early hours of Thursday with the worst, most partisan votes he could come up with. This included a supposed House/Senate agreement on Zika funding—which included the agreement of absolutely no Democrats. 

His first volley was to try to break them with a vote to override a veto of their legislation to end the fiduciary rule. Okay, so what's the fiduciary rule? That's the new Department of Labor rule that keeps big banks from ripping off senior citizens. Literally. The big vote Ryan came up with to try to stop this historic protest from Democrats was on behalf of big banks who want to continue to take seniors’ money. Insanely tone deaf.

But it got worse! He came back to pass the supposed Zika (and other stuff) funding bill and adjourn the House for its Fourth of July recess (yes, it is still only June). This is supposed to be a larger funding agreement from the House and the Senate, worked out in conference. Democrats on the conference committee abandoned it on Wednesday because Republicans refused to back down on their proposals for the Zika funding.

Those proposals include cutting funds for Obamacare, taking more than $100 million from the Ebola emergency fund, and blocking any funds "from going to Planned Parenthood for birth control services for women at risk of becoming infected with the virus." So women who fear they have been exposed to or are at risk of Zika infection can't get birth control to prevent getting pregnant with a baby who may be horribly, fatally deformed.

That's not all, of course.

It was reported by Daily Kos and others that Thomas Mair, suspected of assassinating British member of Parliament Jo Cox on June 16, was an avowed white supremacist known to have ties with a neo-Nazi group called the National Alliance. In a letter published in the group’s magazine, Mair wrote, “I still have faith that the White Race will prevail, both in Britain and in South Africa.” That’s really not surprising. Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) has noted that the National Alliance has long flown under the radar of U.S. media, which also isn’t surprising.

What should be of note is how Mair’s assassination of Cox occurred during the one-year anniversary of the massacre at the historic Emanuel AME Church in Charleston, South Carolina. Long a fixture in Charleston’s African-American community, it was one year ago that 21-year-old Dylann Roof walked into the church and, after asking for the pastor and then joining him and a small group of parishioners in Bible study, shot the pastor and eight other members of the church, killing them all. Roof’s social media profile showed him at times proudly displaying the Confederate flag, but also wearing a jacket with the flags of South Africa and Rhodesia, known today as Zimbabwe.

Both Mair and Roof expressed support for white-ruled “homelands,” and specifically the white-ruled “utopia” of South Africa. During the Apartheid era, South Africa was far from a utopia. But it was known all over the world for the ability of its white minority to keep the country’s black majority subjugated through horrific, brutal violence.

On second thought, that probably is a kind of “utopia” for white racists.

Nazi and neo-Nazi groups as well as Ku Klux Klan groups and their offshoots are primarily ridiculed when they are covered in U.S. media. And white males such as Roof and Mair who ascribe to their philosophies and ways of life are usually not labeled as the white supremacist terrorists that they are. Instead they’re usually given the descriptors of “loner,” their actions are blamed on “mental illness.” Such descriptors show a tendency toward liberalism and a refusal on the part of whites to condemn one of their own.

The Supreme Court's indecisive split on United States v. Texas, a case challenging President Obama's executive authority to grant deportation relief to more than four million undocumented immigrants, decided nothing about the legality of the programs even if it effectively stalled them for the remainder of his presidency. While some outlets are reporting that the court’s action essentially kills the programs, it’s more accurate to say that it blocks them presently while their future remains uncertain. (It also has no effect on Obama’s original deferred action program for DREAMers announced in 2012.)

Since the split left in place a nationwide injunction that was unilaterally issued by a federal judge in the Fifth Circuit on Obama's immigration programs—Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA) and Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA)—that injunction will almost certainly invite legal challenges in other circuits, said immigration attorney and advocate David Leopold.

"There's a serious question today as to whether this national injunction holds,” he told me, “because all that happened today was the Supreme Court couldn't reach a decision, so by law it defaulted to the Fifth Circuit decision. That's all that happened. We have no national precedent, so there's no national precedent from the Supreme Court of the United States upholding what Judge [Andrew] Hanen did."

“What we have now is a situation where any number of challenges could be made to the national injunction,” he added.

The House Democrats' sit-in for gun safety legislation ended Thursday, after 26 hours. It ended as it began, with Georgia Rep. John Lewis being introduced by his colleague, South Carolina Rep. Jim Clyburn, who said, "We started together fighting for the right to vote. Here we are today, asking for the right to vote."

Then Democratic leaders Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer, joined by Connecticut Sen. Chris Murphy, surrounded Lewis along with all those colleagues who spent the night with him on the floor. Lewis motivated them one more time, vowing to come back in July and keep it up.

"It's not a struggle that lasts for one day or one week or one year. It is a struggle. We are going to win," he said. "We’re going to organize, we're going to mobilize. The people are with us, not just in our districts but all over America, around the world. Social media told the story." He said that they would come back in July "more determined than ever before," because "by sitting in, we're really standing up." 

He quoted Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. saying "we have a right to protest for what is right … the American people are with us and people around the world are with us."

This round of the sit-in might have come to an end, but the issue has by no means gone away. The people are with them, as you can see in the video below.