Phyllis Schlafly Emerges From Crypt, Claims Obama Wants ‘Big Brother Government’ To ‘Subsidize Illegitimacy’

Phyllis Schlafly Emerges From Crypt, Claims Obama Wants ‘Big Brother Government’ To ‘Subsidize Illegitimacy’

Over the past two months, many Republican pundits and members of Congress have been calling for the end of unemployment benefit extensions for the millions of Americans who can’t find work. Meanwhile, GOP Senators held the unemployment insurance (UI) extension bill hostage for weeks as 2.5 million Americans were left without the “desperately needed lifeline” of UI benefits. Even as five workers fight for every one job opening, Republicans are still calling the unemployed “spoiled” and suggesting that blocking benefits is fine because it only affects a “small amount of people.”

Last week at a fundraiser for Michigan GOP congressional candidate Rocky Raczowski, conservative pundit Phyllis Schlafly added her voice to the chorus crying out against government assistance for the poor or unemployed:

    One of the things Obama’s been doing is deliberately trying to increase the percentage of our population that is dependent on government for your living. For example, do you know what was the second biggest demographic group that voted for Obama? Obviously the blacks were the biggest demographic, y’all know what was the second biggest? Unmarried women. 70% of unmarried women voted for Obama. And this is because when you kick your husband out, you’ve got to have Big Brother Government to be your provider. And they know that. They’ve admitted it. And they have all kinds of bills to continue to subsidize illegitimacy…

    The Obama administration wants to continue to subsidize this group because they know they are Democratic votes.


Schlafly’s argument is specious. She talks about “subsidizing illegitimacy,” but not all single women are mothers. Less than 20 percent are mothers to young children. The rest include millions of widows, millions of young never-married women, and plenty in between — some of whom have kids, but most of whom do not.

The fact that programs like UI and food stamps help unmarried women is only a byproduct of the system designed to help everyone in need – men and women alike. In fact, men are receiving more UI benefits than women – the unemployment rate for men is a full 2.2 points higher than it is for women.

That didn’t stop Schlafly from doubling down on her falsehoods in an interview with TPM yesterday. “All welfare goes to unmarried moms,” she claimed. “They are trying to line up their constituency for Obama and Democrats against Republican candidates.”

Of course, government assistance goes to both genders. But moreover, considering that 84 percent of custodial single parents are mothers and a quarter of American children are being raised by unmarried mothers, supporting single women is critical for supporting children. As the Center for American Progress’ Liz Weiss puts it, “When single mothers lose their home, suffer from hunger, or can’t find a job, their children also lose their home, go hungry, or suffer from greatly reduced household resources.”

Kind of funny Schlafly talking about welfare since she has never earned an honest dollar. She has been on the right-wing welfare circuit for years. She doesn't actually do any productive work, she just collects money from other wacky right-wingers for telling them what they want to hear. It's the conservative version of a con game where the dupes like getting fleeced.

Vote Republican 2010 So They Can Finally Destroy the Middle-Class

Myth 1:  Tax cuts “pay for themselves.”

“You cut taxes and the tax revenues increase.”  —  President Bush, February 8, 2006

“You have to pay for these tax cuts twice under these pay-go rules if you apply them, because these tax cuts pay for themselves.”  — Senator Judd Gregg, then Chair of the Senate Budget Committee, March 9, 2006
Reality:  A study by the President’s own Treasury Department confirmed the common-sense view shared by economists across the political spectrum:  cutting taxes decreases revenues.

Proponents of tax cuts often claim that “dynamic scoring” — that is, considering tax cuts’ economic effects when calculating their costs — would substantially lower the estimated cost of tax reductions, or even shrink it to zero.  The argument is that tax cuts dramatically boost economic growth, which in turn boosts revenues by enough to offset the revenue loss from the tax cuts.

But when Treasury Department staff simulated the economic effects of extending the President’s tax cuts, they found that, at best, the tax cuts would have modest positive effects on the economy; these economic gains would pay for at most 10 percent of the tax cuts’ total cost.  Under other assumptions, Treasury found that the tax cuts could slightly decrease long-run economic growth, in which case they would cost modestly more than otherwise expected. (http://www.cbpp.org/7-27-06tax.htm)

The claim that tax cuts pay for themselves also is contradicted by the historical record.  In 1981, Congress substantially lowered marginal income-tax rates on the well off, while in 1990 and 1993, Congress raised marginal rates on the well off.  The economy grew at virtually the same rate in the 1990s as in the 1980s (adjusted for inflation and population growth), but revenues grew about twice as fast in the 1990s, when tax rates were increased, as in the 1980s, when tax rates were cut.  Similarly, since the 2001 tax cuts, the economy has grown at about the same pace as during the equivalent period of the 1990s business cycle, but revenues have grown far more slowly.  (http://www.cbpp.org/3-8-06tax.htm)

Some argue that, even if most tax cuts do not pay for themselves, capital gains tax cuts do.  But, in reality, capital gains tax cuts cost money as well.  After reviewing numerous studies of how investors respond to capital gains tax cuts, the Congressional Budget Office concluded that “the best estimates of taxpayers’ response to changes in the capital gains rate do not suggest a large revenue increase from additional realizations of capital gains — and certainly not an increase large enough to offset the losses from a lower rate.”  That’s why CBO, the Joint Committee on Taxation, and the White House Office of Management and Budget all project that making the 2003 capital gains tax cut permanent would cost about $100 billion over the next ten years.  (http://www.cbpp.org/policy-points4-18-08.htm)

Myth 2:  Even if the tax cuts reduced revenues initially, they boosted revenues and lowered deficits in 2005 to 2007.

“Some in Washington say we had to choose between cutting taxes and cutting the deficit… Today’s numbers [the updated 2006 budget projections] show that that was a false choice.  The economic growth fueled by tax relief has helped send our tax revenues soaring.”  — President Bush, July 11, 2006
Reality:  Robust revenue growth in 2005-2007 has not made up for extraordinarily weak revenue growth over the previous few years.

When discussing revenue growth since the enactment of the tax cuts, Administration officials typically focus only on revenue growth since 2004.  This provides a convenient starting point for their arguments, as it sets a very low bar.  In 2001, 2002, and 2003, revenues fell in nominal terms (i.e. without adjusting for inflation) for three straight years, the first time this has occurred since before World War II.  Measured as a share of the economy, revenues in 2004 were at their lowest level since 1959.  Given this historically low starting point, it is not surprising that revenues have recovered since then.  Supporters of the tax cuts selectively cite revenue growth over just the past three years to argue that the tax cuts fueled increases in revenues.

Table 1:
Total Real Per-Capita Revenue Growth in 22 Quarters after the Last Business Cycle Peak
2001-2007    

1.7%
Average for All Previous Post-World War II Business Cycles    

12.0%
1990s Business Cycle (Following Tax Increases)    

16.2%

Even taking into account the growth in revenues in fiscal years 2005-2007, total revenues have just barely increased over the 2001-2007 business cycle, after adjusting for inflation and population growth.  (The business cycle began in March 2001, when the 1990s business cycle hit its peak and thereby came to an end.)  In contrast, six and a half years after the peak of previous post-World War II business cycles, real per-capita revenues had increased by an average of 12 percent, and in the 1990s, real per-capita revenues were up 16 percent (see Table 1).  Revenues in 2007 were still more than $250 billion short of where they would have been had they grown at the rates typical in other recoveries.

Further, while the Administration has credited the tax cuts with the drop in the fiscal year 2007 deficit to “only” $162 billion, the 2007 budget would have been in surplus were it not for the tax cuts.  Based on Joint Committee on Taxation estimates, the total 2007 cost of tax cuts enacted since January 2001 was $300 billion (taking into account the increased interest costs on the debt that have resulted from the deficit financing of the tax cuts).  This means that even with the spending for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the federal budget would have been in surplus in 2007 if the tax cuts had not been enacted, or if their costs had been offset.  While supporters of these tax cuts claim that their positive economic effects have lowered their cost, the non-partisan Congressional Research Service found in a September, 2006 report that “at the current time, as the stimulus effects have faded and the effect of added debt service has grown, the 2001-2004 tax cuts are probably costing more than their estimated revenue cost.”

Looking out over the next several decades, when deficits are projected to be far larger (because of the impact on the budget of the continued rise in health care costs and the retirement of the baby boomers), the tax cuts, if extended, will still be a major contributor to the nation’s fiscal problems.  (http://www.cbpp.org/1-29-07bud.htm)  To put the long-run cost of the tax cuts in perspective, the 75-year Social Security shortfall, about which the President and Congressional leaders have expressed grave concern, is less than one-third the cost of the tax cuts over the same period.  (http://www.cbpp.org/3-31-08socsec.htm)
Tax Cuts and the Economy

A consistent finding in the academic literature about the effects of tax cuts on the economy is that these effects are typically modest.  In the short run, well-designed tax cuts can help to boost an economy that is in a recession.  In the longer run, well-designed tax cuts can have a modest positive impact if they are fully paid for.  For example, the recent Treasury analysis found that if the President’s tax cuts were made permanent and the costs of the tax cuts were paid for by reductions in programs, economic growth would increase by a few hundredths of one percentage point annually.  Meanwhile, studies by economists at the Joint Committee on Taxation, the Congressional Budget Office, the Brookings Institution, and elsewhere have found that if tax cuts are not paid for with spending reductions, they are likely to have modest negative effects on the economy over time, because of the negative effects of the increased deficits.  Tax-cut proponents often claim that the economy will be badly damaged if the tax cuts are not extended; these claims are without foundation.
Myth 3: The economy has grown strongly over the past several years because of the tax cuts.

“The main reason for our growing economy is that we cut taxes and left more money in the hands of families and workers and small business owners.”  — President Bush, November 4, 2006
Reality:  The 2001-2007 economic expansion was sub-par overall, and job and wage growth were anemic.

Members of the Administration routinely tout statistics regarding recent economic growth, then credit the President’s tax cuts with what they portray as a stellar economic performance.  But as a general rule, it is difficult or impossible to infer the effect of a given tax cut from looking at a few years of economic data, simply because so many factors other than tax policy influence the economy.  What the data do show clearly is that, despite major tax cuts in 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2006, the economy’s performance between 2001 and 2007 was from stellar.

Growth rates of GDP, investment, and other key economic indicators during the 2001-2007 expansion were below the average for other post-World War II economic expansions (see Figure 2).  Growth in wages and salaries and non-residential investment was particularly slow relative to previous expansions, and, while the Administration boasts of its record on jobs, employment growth was weaker in the 2001-2007 period than in any previous post-World War II expansion.  (http://www.cbpp.org/8-9-05bud.htm)

Median income among working-age households, meanwhile, fell during the expansion.  Census data show that among households headed by someone under age 65, median income in 2006, adjusted for inflation, was $1,300 below its level during the 2001 recession.  Similarly, the poverty rate and the share of Americans lacking health insurance were higher in 2006 than during the recession.  (http://www.cbpp.org/8-28-07pov.htm)

Conservative Republican management of the economy either just appears anti-American or their plan is to destroy the middle-class that made America a global economic power.

Astroturf Oil Industry Group Wants Tax Payers to Pay for Gulf Clean Up

Wetlands Front Group Funded by Big Oil Wants Taxpayers to Foot the Bill for BP's Gulf Destruction

A group of oil companies including BP, Shell, ExxonMobil, Citgo, Chevron and other polluters are using a front group called "America's WETLAND Foundation" and a Louisiana women's group called Women of the Storm to spread the message that U.S. taxpayers should pay for the damage caused by BP to Gulf Coast wetlands, and that the reckless offshore oil industry should continue drilling for the "wholesale sustainability" of the region.

Using the age-old PR trick of featuring celebrity messengers to attract public attention, America's Wetland Foundation is spreading a petition accompanied by a video starring Sandra Bullock, Dave Matthews, Lenny Kravitz, Emeril Lagassi, John Goodman, Harry Shearer, Peyton and Eli Manning, Drew Brees and others.

The video urges petition signers to "Be The One" to demand the government devise and fully fund a plan to restore the Gulf. There is no mention that BP, Halliburton, Transocean, Cameron, or any other oil industry player "be the one" to pay for the damage done to the Gulf. Why call on the government to once again foot the bill for this dirty industry's reckless behavior?

Perhaps the celebrities featured in the group's videos are unaware of AWF's true intent, and signed up thinking that they were helping the Gulf Coast cause in the wake of the BP gusher. But under the surface it sure looks like they are being used as pawns to lure the public into the oil industry's corner, ensuring that taxpayers pick up the tab for much of the damage caused by BP et al to the Gulf of Mexico, Gulf Coast communities, economies, and the environment.

The celebrity video announcement leads viewers to RestoreTheGulf.com where a curious reader would learn that a group called Women of the Storm is behind the effort. But a click through to the "sponsors" page reveals that this effort is actually led by America's WETLAND Foundation, which is funded chiefly by the same oil companies who have ruined the Gulf and endangered the planet with their global warming emissions.

The America's WETLAND Foundation (AWF) was launched in 2002. It's run by the PR shop Marmillion+Company, whose founder previously served as a PR manager at ARCO and staffer to various GOPers.

According to the Washington Post: "Shell Oil, worried about its offshore drilling platforms, put up several million dollars for a PR campaign to rebrand Louisiana's marshes as 'America's Wetland.'"

A quick look at the sponsors of America's WETLAND Foundation reveals the oily underpinnings of this greenwashing campaign, with Shell serving as "World Sponsor," and a long list of oil companies, the American Petroleum Institute and other polluting interests who back the group financially as well.

Founded in January 2006 in response to the devastation wrought by Hurricane Katrina, Women of the Storm might seem like a truly grassroots organization to the casual observer. Is it possible that they never figured out that the oil companies behind America's Wetland Foundation had an ulterior motive in "partnering" with their group -- to greenwash the oil industry's efforts to stick taxpayers with the bill for damage caused by drilling activities in the Gulf? Perhaps Women of the Storm were willing to take any help they could get, given the horrible response to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita by the Bush administration.

Anne Milling, founder of Women of the Storm, said in a phone interview that the organization has never received a penny directly from BP or any other major oil company, although she did acknowledge Women of the Storm received advisory assistance from some of these entities when originally launching the project after Hurricane Katrina.

Mrs. Milling was unapologetic when asked about the prominent placement of the America's Wetland Foundation banner on the group's website and its various partnerships with the oil-backed group. She sees nothing wrong with AWF's cozy relationship with the same oil and gas giants that are partly responsible for the coastal wetlands degradation that is the focus of her group's concern.

Why? Perhaps because she is married to R. King Milling, the chairman of America's Wetland Foundation, Mrs. Milling sees nothing wrong with the oil connections.

America's Wetland Foundation and Women of the Storm are partners in another affiliated campaign called "America's Energy Coast" whose tag line is "Shore Up, Fuel The Nation."

Last fall, America's Energy Coast released a white paper called Region at Risk: Preventing the Loss of Vital National Assets [PDF], which called on Congress and the Obama administration "to resolve the maze of bureaucratic roadblocks that threaten the long-term sustainability of region."

The AWF's "America's Energy Coast" white paper lays out what the oil-funded campaign is primarily concerned with protecting:

    At risk is an engine that fuels, feeds and supports the American economy. This is the nation's energy corridor that provides 90% of the domestic offshore oil and gas supply and is tied to 50% of the nation's refining capacity.

Never mind the pelicans and dolphins -- this is all about oil production.

In language that demonstrates fully the bastardization of the word "sustainability" by polluting interests, the paper suggests:

    ...our nation does not fully appreciate the benefits derived from these working wetlands. ... The ongoing debate at the national level on the best use of the region's natural resources has failed to recognize the urgent need for comprehensive solutions to the challenge of wholesale sustainability.

"Wholesale sustainability?"

And by that the AWF apparently means:

    ...no greater threat to sustainability exists than the threat of inaction or the maze of governmental processes that prevent efficient solutions.... the long-term survival and success of this region is ultimately tied to large-scale Federal recognition and support." ... Among the most challenging obstacles to achieving sustainability along America's Energy Coast are inconsistent laws, policies and regulations at all levels of government.

And why is the oil-backed group such a big fan of restoring wetlands and achieving "A New Sustainability"? Could it possibly have anything to do with protecting oil rigs and refineries?

    These coastal landscapes provide protection to millions of people and hundreds of billions of dollars worth of property and infrastructure because they serve as buffers against hurricanes and storm surges.

The AWF paper even has the gall to blame global warming for threatening oil and gas infrastructure, oblivious to the irony of such an argument:

    Energy production and navigation activities are essential to America's economic interests, but environmental threats, such as increasingly intense storms, rising sea levels, and ongoing coastal erosion and subsidence pose a significant risk to the physical infrastructure that supports these activities.

This week, AWF ran ads in several DC and Gulf Coast media outlets touting a letter the group sent to Ray Mabus, Secretary of the Navy. The top priority item requested in the letter:

    Accelerate [Outer Continental Shelf drilling] revenue sharing to Gulf producing states for coastal restoration.

That would of course mean more risky offshore drilling, one of the primary threats to the Gulf's health, as the BP disaster has made clear.

So next time you sign a petition ostensibly about "saving" the Gulf ecosystem, make sure you know who is behind it first. America's WETLAND Foundation seems more interested in saving face for the oil and gas industry and tapping taxpayer coffers to protect oil and gas infrastructure than truly protecting the Gulf Coast.

BP and the rest of the offshore drilling industry should "Be The One" to clean up their mess, not the U.S. taxpayer.

It used to be that who ever caused an accident was at fault. Now BP and their friends are not only claiming they are not at fault, but it is everyone else's fault and everyone else should pay so they can get back to making $66 million dollars a day in profits.

Rep. Paul Ryan(R)'s crazy budget proposal

But Ryan's budget -- and the details of its CBO score -- is also an object lesson in why so few politicians are willing to answer the question "but how will you save all that money?"

As you all know by now, the long-term budget deficit is largely driven by health-care costs. To move us to surpluses, Ryan's budget proposes reforms that are nothing short of violent. Medicare is privatized. Seniors get a voucher to buy private insurance, and the voucher's growth is far slower than the expected growth of health-care costs. Medicaid is also privatized. The employer tax exclusion is fully eliminated, replaced by a tax credit that grows more slowly than medical costs. And beyond health care, Social Security gets guaranteed, private accounts that CBO says will actually cost more than the present arrangement, further underscoring how ancillary the program is to our budget problem.

An important note to understanding how Ryan's budget saves money: It's not through privatization, though everything does get privatized. It's through firm, federal cost controls. The privatization itself actually costs money. The CBO's analysis of Ryan's Medicare changes tells the story well:

    Both the level of expected federal spending on Medicare and the uncertainty surrounding that spending would decline, but enrollees’ spending for health care and the uncertainty surrounding that spending would increase.

    Under the Roadmap, the value of the voucher would be less than expected Medicare spending per enrollee in 2021, when the voucher program would begin. In addition, Medicare’s current payment rates for providers are lower than those paid by commercial insurers, and the program’s administrative costs are lower than those for individually purchased insurance. Beneficiaries would therefore face higher premiums in the private market for a package of benefits similar to that currently provided by Medicare.

    Moreover, the value of the voucher would grow significantly more slowly than CBO expects that Medicare spending per enrollee would grow under current law. Beneficiaries would therefore be likely to purchase less comprehensive health plans or plans more heavily managed than traditional Medicare, resulting in some combination of less use of health care services and less use of technologically advanced treatments than under current law. Beneficiaries would also bear the financial risk for the cost of buying insurance policies or the cost of obtaining health care services beyond what would be covered by their insurance.

Fox, Breitbart and Beck - The Year of Race-baiting Conservative Lunacy

Fox, Breitbart and Beck - The Year of Race-baiting Conservative Lunacy

Howard Dean and Joan Walsh recently called out Fox News, criticizing what they called its "racist" handling of the deceptively edited Shirley Sherrod video clip. Indeed, Fox News and its personalities have a long history of aggressive race-baiting and racially charged commentary.
Walsh, Dean describe Fox as "racist," highlight Sherrod, New Black Panthers coverage

Howard Dean: Fox acted "absolutely racist." In a July 25 appearance on Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday, former Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean told host Chris Wallace: "Let's just be blunt about this. I don't think Newt Gingrich is a racist, and you're certainly not a racist, but I think Fox News did something that was absolutely racist. They took a -- they had an obligation to find out what was really in the [Sherrod] clip. They have been pushing a theme of black racism with this phony Black Panther crap and this [Sherrod] business and [Justice Sonia] Sotomayor and all this other stuff."

Walsh: "It's true" that Sherrod is a victim of Fox racism. On the July 25 edition of CNN's Reliable Sources, Walsh, Salon.com editor in chief, stated of Sherrod: "I'm not giving her a pass, but I think the idea that she shouldn't be able to say Fox or Breitbart is racist is preposterous. She gets to say that because it's true, and because, from her vantage point, it's especially true."

Walsh describes "Fox News's 50-state Southern strategy." In a July 25 Salon.com post, Walsh noted that Fox News is hyping "one 'scary black people' and 'Obama's a racist' story after another" and wrote: "Fox News has, sadly, become the purveyor of a 50-state 'Southern strategy,' the plan perfected by Richard Nixon to use race to scare Southern Democrats into becoming Republicans by insisting the other party wasn't merely trying to fight racism, but give blacks advantages over whites (Fox News boss Roger Ailes, of course, famously worked for Nixon)."
Fox pushes phony Sherrod video, keeps pushing after full video debunks "racism" attack

Fox's reaction to Breitbart's bogus video: "Racist" Sherrod "must resign." On the July 19 edition of his show, Bill O'Reilly played the out-of-context clip of Sherrod and said: "[T]hat is simply unacceptable. And Ms. Sherrod must resign immediately." Sean Hannity asserted that Sherrod's comments were "[j]ust the latest in a series of racial incidents." Guest-hosting Fox News' On the Record, Dana Perino suggested Sherrod's remarks were racist, saying,  "The video adds fuel to a growing controversy after the NAACP approved a resolution condemning the tea party movement for not denouncing racist members." The next morning, Fox & Friends co-host Steve Doocy said that Sherrod made "a speech to the NAACP that sure sounded racist." Later, after guest-host Alisyn Camerota asserted that Sherrod's remarks are "outrageous and perhaps everybody needs a refresher course on what racism looks like," Doocy responded that Sherrod's comments are "Exhibit A."

Even after Breitbart's racism smear was debunked, some Fox News personalities stayed on the attack. After the full video of Sherrod's remarks surfaced, indicating that her story was one of racial reconciliation rather than discrimination, some Fox News figures continued to attack Sherrod. Hannity asserted: "She still admits that she was discriminating against this white farmer." On Fox & Friends, guest host Juliet Huddy said that there "are things that I think are incriminating" in the full video of Sherrod's remarks that "I do think raise a lot of questions about whether or not she should be in the position that she held in the first place." Fox News contributor Dick Morris suggested that keeping Sherrod at the USDA would represent a "huge problem" for President Obama, adding, "It's like he has Reverend Wright on his staff." On The O'Reilly Factor, Fox News contributor Monica Crowley suggested that Sherrod may be among "radicals, racists, socialists" in the Obama administration.
Fox's nonstop hyping of the phony New Black Panthers scandal

Fox relentlessly pushes phony New Black Panthers scandal and uses it as an excuse for race-baiting. Fox News has hyped the manufactured scandal surrounding the New Black Panther Party more than 100 times. On America's Newsroom, Fox's Peter Johnson Jr. responded to a question from co-host Megyn Kelly about "what ... we know about [Attorney General] Eric Holder and his history of prosecuting this kind of case," by saying that "at Columbia college, he [Holder] was active in black student association[s] there" and that "at some point, there had been a takeover of the dean's office at Columbia." Morris used the New Black Panthers scandal to declare that Obama is "stereotyping himself as a racial president."

Fox baselessly links Obama and Holder to New Black Panthers case. Fox News figures baselessly asserted that Obama and Holder were involved in the Justice Department's decision in the New Black Panthers case. Kelly teased an interview with former Bush DOJ official Hans von Spakovsky by saying: "[S]erious allegations today that the decision to drop the now-infamous voter-intimidation case against members of the New Black Panther Party may have reached all the way to the White House." Beck stated that "Obama comes in and decides suddenly in May of 2009 to drop the case." O'Reilly said Holder's "failure to prosecute is simply a dereliction of his sworn duty." Doocy asserted that "the attorney general drop[ped]" the charges against the New Black Panthers. And on Fox Business' America's Nightly Scoreboard, host David Asman claimed that Obama "is defending racists in ... letting the Black Panthers off." In fact, J. Christian Adams, the conservative activist who has pushed the phony story testified that he had no "indication" higher-ups were involved in the decision.

 Conservatives seem to either be pushing for a race war, pushing to take race relations in America back in time 70 years or just like lying because they cannot win the debate any other way. Conservatism is the treasonous poisonous 5th column within America. That's not an accusation, but simply an honest observation of conservative behavior.

American Spectator's Jeremy Lord is a Lying Sack

American Spectator's Jeremy Lord is a Lying Sack

Jeremy Lord has received a lot of attention for his post at the American Spectator in which he attempts to set the record straight about Shirley Sherrod and her family’s history with the horror of race-based murder.  (I learned of it first at TPM, via Yglesias, then at Balloon Juice, and then started writing this; I’m sure that the story is all over the blogoverse by now.)

Here, I want to add just one thought about what a little historical resonance may tell us about the character and more importantly the aims of elements of the American right.

But first, the context:

Lord titles his piece “Sherrod Story False.”

Why does he say that of Shirley Sherrod’s telling of the death of her relative Bobby Hall?

Not because Hall wasn’t murdered.  Not because the murder did not take place while he was under arrest.  Not that he wasn’t killed by the three law enforcement officers in whose power he lay.

The facts are not in dispute — not even by Lord, who yet calls Sherrod’s account of them false.  The Supreme Court decision in the case summarized the acknowledge sequence of events:

Robert Hall, then about 30 years old, was in his home late on the night of January 29-30, 1943.  Three local law enforcement officers — Sherriff Claude Screws of Baker County, Georgia, one of his special deputies and a police officer came to his house to arrest him for the alleged theft of a tire.

The officers handcuffed Hall, and put him in a car.  They drove to the local courthouse, and then…well here is Justice Douglas’s account of what happened next:

    As Hall alighted from the car at the courthouse square, the three petitioners began beating him with their fists and with a solid-bar blackjack about eight inches long and weighing two pounds. They claimed Hall had reached for a gun and had used insulting language as he alighted from the car. But after Hall, still handcuffed, had been knocked to the ground, they continued to beat him from fifteen to thirty minutes until he was unconscious. Hall was then dragged feet first through the courthouse yard into the jail and thrown upon the floor, dying. An ambulance was called, and Hall was removed to a hospital, where he died within the hour and without regaining consciousness. There was evidence that Screws held a grudge against Hall, and had threatened to “get” him.

No one disputes this telling of the events.  Lord doesn’t.  He details them in his post.  (No linky because I don’t give traffic to such wretched stuff.  If you want to read it in all it’s gory detail, it’s easy enough to find.)

So why does he write this:

    Plain as day, Ms. Sherrod says that Bobby Hall, a Sherrod relative, was lynched. As she puts it, describing the actions of the 1940s-era Sheriff Claude Screws: “Claude Screws lynched a black man.”

    This is not true. It did not happen.”

Again:  Lord acknowledges the murder, but still says that Sherrod lied when she said this:

    Claude Screws lynched a black man. And this was at the beginning of the 40s. And the strange thing back then was an all-white federal jury convicted him not of murder but of depriving Bobby Hall — and I should say that Bobby Hall was a relative — depriving him of his civil rights..

And where is this lie?

Well, Lord writes, it’s here:

    …the Supreme Court of the United States, with the basic facts of the case agreed to by all nine Justices in Screws vs. the U.S. Government, says not one word about Bobby Hall being lynched. Why? Because it never happened.

Ahh.

To Lord, being beaten to death by law enforcement while in custody and restrained is not a lynching.

And with that, Lord contemns Sherrod:

    It’s also possible that she knew the truth and chose to embellish it, changing a brutal and fatal beating to a lynching. Anyone who has lived in the American South (as my family once did) and is familiar with American history knows well the dread behind stories of lynch mobs and the Klan. What difference is there between a savage murder by fist and blackjack — and by dangling rope? Obviously, in the practical sense, none. But in the heyday — a very long time — of the Klan, there were frequent (and failed) attempts to pass federal anti-lynching laws. None to pass federal “anti-black jack” or “anti-fisticuffs” laws. Lynching had a peculiar, one is tempted to say grotesque, solitary status as part of the romantic image of the Klan, of the crazed racist. The image stirred by the image of the noosed rope in the hands of a racist lynch mob was, to say the least, frighteningly chilling. Did Ms. Sherrod deliberately concoct this story in search of a piece of that ugly romance to add “glamour” to a family story that is gut-wrenchingly horrendous already?

I wanted to quote that at length so that I could not be accused of selective editing. There are no ellipses there.  It’s what Lord wrote, the full statement of his thesis.  Read it, and, I think, weep for an America so clearly unable yet to get its own history.

This is what Lord says: Hall wasn’t taken to the nearest tree, bound by a noose around his neck, and hauled up to dangle from the nearest convenient branch.  And so he wasn’t lynched, and Sherrod lied.  To claim that any other race-terror murder, any other gathering in the night, ignored, abetted, or perpetrated by white law enforcement is a lynching is to play the race card, to claim extraordinary suffering where only ordinary misery exists.

There are only two problems with this…I don’t really know what to call it actually?  Argument?–no.  Analysis?–not hardly. Rhetorical vomit? Bile? Execrescence?…take your pick. They are are complete moral bankruptcy…and the fact that as a matter of law, Lord is simply wrong.

The moral void is I think too obvious to belabor.

So let Lord wallow in his own emptiness; the fact is that he is wrong in his attempt to draw a distinction in law.

Here is how the South Carolina Criminal Code defines the crime in a representative example of state anti-lynching provisions:

    The Elements of the Crime:

    1.  That a person’s death resulted from the violence inflicted upon him by a mob and

    2. That the accused was a member of that mob

    (A mob is defined as “an assemblage of two or more persons, without color of law, gathered togethre for the premediatid purpose of commiting violence upon another.”

Strangely, I see no mention of hanging, of trees, of strange fruit in here (nor in Title 18, sec. 241 of the US code, which addresses lynching from a civil rights law angle), just as they somehow fail to specify tire irons or chains, or fire or whatever.  Extrajudicial killings by a mob are lynchings.  That’s it.

Reprinted here for public education purposes. More at the link. Jeremy Lord and the American Spectacle of Bullsh*t took their journalism lessons from Rush Limbaugh. never let the facts get in the way of a salicious lie to smear geniune patriots like Sherrod and Hall. Former Reagan aide attacks Shirley Sherrod

Every now and then, it can be an educational experience to take a trip inside the mind of a conservative "intellectual." Take, for example, former Reagan political director Jeffrey Lord who has written an anti-Shirley Sherrod screed in The American Spectator.

Lord initially applauded Sherrod's firing, but he now apologizes for doing so. Nonetheless, he still condemns Sherrod. Why? Because, he says, Sherrod was incorrect when she said that a relative of hers had been lynched. In his words:

    Plain as day, Ms. Sherrod says that Bobby Hall, a Sherrod relative, was lynched. As she puts it, describing the actions of the 1940s-era Sheriff Claude Screws: "Claude Screws lynched a black man."

    This is not true. It did not happen.

The strange thing is that Lord acknowledges that Hall was beaten to death by Sheriff Screws, who dragged Hall's prone body through the country courthouse as he died. The murder was apparently a result of a conflict that began when Screws confiscated a firearm from Hall. Screws didn't think blacks should be allowed to own guns. After Hall sued Screws to regain possession of his weapon, Screws went berserk and beat Hall to death.

When the Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division charged Screws with violating Hall's civil rights, an all-white jury found Screws guilty, but the Supreme Court reversed that conviction on a 5-4 basis. It is on that narrow decision -- in which all nine members of the court agreed that Screws had beaten Hall to death -- that Lord's entire attack on Sherrod rests.

The State of Georgia could have charged Screws with homicide, but did not. The U.S. government, however, could only prosecute Screws for depriving Hall of his constitutional rights. And although even in the majority opinion Hall's murder was described as "shocking and revolting," the case turned on the court's interpretation of the Federal law making it illegal for law enforcement to willfully deprive someone of their constitutional rights. The majority chose a "narrow construction" of the law, determining that on a technical level, Screws did not violate Federal law.

Based on this technical determination, and this determination alone, Lord accuses Shirley Sherrod of lying when she said Bobby Hall was lynched.

The amazing thing about Lord's assault on Sherrod is that once he finishes arguing that Sherrod lied about Bobby Hall's lynching, Lord then proceeds to blame FDR and the progressive movement for allowing Claude Screws to get away with the lynching that Lord just said never happened.

Conservative Show Their Racism With Holds on Minority Judges

Elaine Marshall: Following His ‘Mentor’ Jesse Helms, Burr Continuing Secret Holds On Minority Judges

Speaking with ThinkProgress at the Netroots Nation convention yesterday, U.S. Senate candidate Elaine Marshall (D-NC) harshly rebuked Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC) for his use of secret holds on Judges James Wynn and Albert Diaz, who have both been nominated for the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals. Wynn, Marshall explained, was denied even a committee hearing when nominated for the same position in 1999 by Bill Clinton, due to Republican obstruction and a secret hold from then-Sen. Jesse Helms (R-NC).

When President Obama renominated Wynn, Sen. Kay Hagan (D-NC) and Burr supported the decision. Although Wynn cleared the Judiciary Committee, a vote on his confirmation has not been scheduled because, despite his public support for Wynn, Burr placed a hold on Wynn’s nomination. When asked for comment by the press, Burr duplicitously said he that he “applauds Sen. Hagan for her ongoing efforts to encourage Majority Leader Reid to schedule their nominations for votes on the Senate floor.”

Marshall noted that Burr’s two-faced approach to Judge Wynn appeared to echo the tactics of Helms, who made a career of race-baiting, fighting Civil Rights laws, and intentionally blocking African American judges like Wynn:

    MARSHALL: One of our judges who has passed the Judiciary Committee who cannot get a vote was also held up by Jesse Helms. A talented judge, this is now the second time he’s been nominated by the Fourth Circuit. He’s an African American judge, highly, highly qualified. And Richard Burr has the same hold on him that Jesse Helms had on him. North Carolina has got to put these vestiges behind them. Richard Burr, while he’s said wonderful things about Judge Wynn, presenting him and all that kind of stuff, he’s behind the curtain holding him up. [...]

    One of them is Hispanic, one of them is African American. They both have military background. They both have strong judicial careers. They really don’t have valid enemies for reasons that anyone would talk about in the hearing. There are these subtle enemies, these subtle forces, the legacy of Jesse Helms, that are holding them back. So, I’m very unhappy about that.

    TP: In terms of the legacy of Jesse Helms, do you think Jesse Helms in other ways is replicating the same type of politics Helms used to hold power for so long?

    MARSHALL: Jesse Helms is his mentor and he learned his lessons well, yes.

Conservatives keep denying their are racists elements within the conservative movement. Some have even put on their usual false outrage show. The truth remains they do not support equal opportunities for highly qualified minorities.

Breitbart lied about Shirley Sherrod - Than lied about the NAACP

Breitbart lied about Shirley Sherrod - Than lied about the NAACP

Andrew Breitbart made a mistake. Based on a two-minute video excerpt of Shirley Sherrod's speech at an NAACP dinner last year, he accused her of practicing racism as a federal employee. He neglected to mention that in the excerpt, she was clearly talking about events in a different job 20 years ago. And when the rest of the video turned up, it proved that her story was about transcending her old racial resentment.
[    ]...As Sherrod renounces her old attitude, the audience comes alive:

    Well, working with him made me see [Audience: Mm-hm] that it's really about those who have versus those who don't [Audience: That's right, that's right], you know. And they could be black, and they could be white; they could be Hispanic. And it made me realize then that I needed to work to help poor people—those who don't have access [Audience: Mm-hm] the way others have [Audience: Mm-hm].

So, let's review the Breitbart gang's allegations:

When … she expresses a discriminatory attitude towards white people, the audience responds with applause. False.
The NAACP … is cheering on a person describing a white person as the other. False.
The NAACP audience seemed to have approved of her actions when she talked about not helping the white farmer. False.
They weren't cheering redemption; they were cheering discrimination. False.
As Ms. Sherrod recounted the first part of her parable, how she declined to do everything she could for the farmer because of his race, the audience responded in approval. False.

First Breitbart and his acolytes falsely accused Sherrod of discriminating against whites as a federal employee, despite having no evidence for this charge in the original video excerpt. Strike one.

Then they misrepresented Sherrod's story as an embrace of racism, when in fact she was repudiating racism. They later pleaded ignorance of this fact because they didn't have the full video. Strike two.

Now, with the full video in hand and posted on their Web site, they're lying about the reaction of the NAACP audience.

The excuses are all used up, Mr. Breitbart.

Breitbart is the voice of the poor oppressed conservative movement. A supposed counter balance to the tired myth the media is liberal. In other words his idea of the truth is to lie about ACORN, Sherrod and the Department of Justice.

Car Dealership Closing Myths

Schlafly Perpetuates Republican Car Dealership Closing Myth

In a June 2, 2009 Townhall blogpost, Phyllis Schlafly perpetuated a myth that is gaining traction in the conservative noise machine: that the Obama administration took a direct hand in GM and Chrysler car dealership closings and deliberately targeted dealerships that contributed to Republican candidates. This accusation is baseless. The Obama administration had no hand in deciding what dealerships would close, as GM and Chrysler CEOs have made clear. In addition, statistical analysis shows that car dealerships are overwhelmingly owned by Republicans, and more car dealerships that remained open are owned by Republicans than Democrats.
Schlafly Insists That The Closing Of Car Dealerships Was A Partisan Move By The Obama Administration...

    Phyllis Schlafly: "Now we can see the icing on the cake for the politicians who use economic dictatorship to punish those who resist socialist planners. Nearly every one of the closed local dealerships had donated to Republican candidates, almost none was an Obama contributor, and some dealerships owned by Democrats are not getting the ax." [Townhall.com, 6/2/09]

...Despite GM, Chrysler, And The Administration's Claims That The Government Played No Part In The Dealership Closings...

GM And Chrysler CEOs Confirmed The Obama Administration Played "No Role In Picking The Auto Dealerships That Are Being Closed." According to The Detroit News: "Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said Thursday the Obama administration had no role in picking the auto dealerships that are being closed by General Motors Corp. or Chrysler LLC. During a 40-minute meeting Tuesday at the White House with the CEOs of major automakers, LaHood said he asked the top executives at GM and Chrysler if they were forced to close dealerships. Chrysler wants to close 789 of its nearly 3,200 dealers by June 9, while GM has sent termination notices to 1,100 of its 6,200 dealerships in an effort to close them by October 2010. 'I asked (GM CEO Fritz Henderson) and (Chrysler CEO Bob Nardelli) if any of these folks were pressured to close X number of dealerships or do it at a certain time,' LaHood said during an appearance at the National Press Club. Both CEOs said no pressure was put on them, LaHood said." [The Detroit News, 5/21/09; emphasis added]

GM Said It Targeted "Underperforming" Dealers. According to MSNBC.com: "A day after Chrysler LLC said it was cutting 800 dealerships, General Motors Corp. on Friday told about 1,100 of its U.S. dealers their franchises will be terminated late next year. GM said the move targets 'underperforming' dealers with small sales volumes and markets in which they are not competitive." [MSNBC.com, 5/15/09]

Chrysler: "More Than Half Of The Dealerships Being Eliminated Sell Less Than 100 Vehicles Per Year." MSNBC reported: "Chrysler executives said Thursday the company is trying to preserve its best-performing dealers and eliminate ones with the weakest sales. More than half of the dealerships being eliminated sell less than 100 vehicles per year, they said, and account for 14 percent of U.S. sales." [MSNBC.com, 5/15/09]

Chrysler And GM Closed Dealerships In An Attempt To Increase Competition And Drive Up Prices. According to MSNBC: "Both Chrysler and GM say they are cutting the number of dealers because they have too many outlets that are too close to each other, and the competition drives down prices." [MSNBC.com, 5/15/09]

 WSJ: "Years Of Declining Sales Have Left Both GM And Chrysler With Many More Dealerships Than They Need." According to the Wall Street Journal: "Years of declining sales have left both GM and Chrysler with many more dealerships than they need. As a result, their dealers often compete with each other for customers, hurting their profits. Most of the GM dealers selected are 'hurting, losing money and in danger of going out of business anyway,' Mr. LaNeve told reporters. 'It's a move that people could argue should have been taken years ago.'" [Wall Street Journal, 5/16/09]
...And Statistical Analysis That Shows The Argument Is Fundamentally Flawed

Car Dealers Contributed Overwhelmingly To Republican Candidates - Among The Dealerships That Chrysler And GM Closed, AND Among The Dealerships That Remained Open. According to statistician Nate Silver at FiveThirtyEight.com: "Overall, 88 percent of the contributions from car dealers went to Republican candidates and just 12 percent to Democratic candidates. By comparison, the list of dealers on Doug Ross's list (which I haven't vetted, but I assume is fine) gave 92 percent of their money to Republicans -- not really a significant difference. There's no conspiracy here, folks -- just some bad math. It shouldn't be any surprise, by the way, that car dealers tend to vote -- and donate -- Republican. They are usually male, they are usually older (you don't own an auto dealership in your 20s), and they have obvious reasons to be pro-business, pro-tax cut, anti-green energy and anti-labor. Car dealerships need quite a bit of space and will tend to be located in suburban or rural areas. I can't think of too many other occupations that are more natural fits for the Republican Party. Unfortunately, while we are still a nation of drivers, we are not a nation of dealers." [FiveThirtyEight.com, 5/27/09, emphasis added]

News Flash: The Myth That The Obama Administration Picked Republican Car Dealers to Close (It's Called a Control Group, People)

I agree that it would be outrageous if the government decided what car dealerships to close based on politics.  So I decided to look into it.  Thankfully, it seems like this was just a rumor that got blown out of proportion.

Big Government Falsehoods: An updated guide to Andrew Breitbart's lies, smears, and distortions

Big Government Falsehoods: An updated guide to Andrew Breitbart's lies, smears, and distortions

Following the dissolution of Andrew Breitbart's smear of former Obama administration official Shirley Sherrod, Media Matters provides an updated look at how his sensationalist stories have been based on speculation, gross distortions, and outright falsehoods.

The "video evidence" of Shirley Sherrod's "racism" (NEW)

"Nationwide ACORN child prostitution investigation" (UPDATED)

Platform for anti-gay Jennings smears

Breitbart-promoted O'Keefe Census tape features selective editing (NEW)

Breitbart-promoted video falsely accuses Democrats of reconciliation hypocrisy (NEW)

Wild accusations over Gladney case

Breitbart's websites make baseless claim that NEA engaged in lawbreaking

Bertha Lewis' nonexistent White House visit

The Maoist Christmas tree ornaments

The ACORN "document dump"

False claims of community organizers "praying" to Obama
The "video evidence" of Shirley Sherrod's "racism"

Breitbart released heavily edited video purporting to provide "proof" of Obama admin official's "racism." In a July 19 BigGovernment.com post -- headlined "Video Proof: The NAACP Awards Racism -- 2010" -- Breitbart purported to provide "video evidence of racism coming from a federal appointee and NAACP award recipient." The heavily edited video clip Breitbart posted shows Shirley Sherrod, then the USDA Georgia Director of Rural Development, speaking at an NAACP Freedom Fund dinner in Georgia, and stating that she didn't give a "white farmer" the "full force of what I could do" because "I was struggling with the fact that so many black people have lost their farmland, and here I was faced with having to help a white person save their land." Breitbart characterized Sherrod's comments as her "describ[ing] how she racially discriminates against a white farmer."

Full video vindicates Sherrod, destroys Breitbart's accusations of racism. On July 20, the NAACP posted the full video of Sherrod's remarks, exposing how the clip Breitbart posted had taken Sherrod out of context.

This is your conservative Republican lamestream media at work. Edited tapes, lies, baseless accusations, racism and fanaticism.

Media fails to report conservative's statement that New Black Panthers story is a a right-wing effort to "topple" administration

Media fails to report conservative's statement that New Black Panthers story is a a right-wing effort to "topple" administration

After reporting on the right-wing accusation that racial bias motivated the Justice Department to drop charges against members of the New Black Panther Party, major print outlets have not reported that the Republican vice chair of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights has stated that conservatives on the panel are using the issue to try to "topple the [Obama] administration."
GOP vice chair: Conservatives on commission "had this wild notion they could bring Eric Holder down and really damage the president"

Politico: Thernstrom said commissioners had "fantasies about how they could use this issue to topple the [Obama] administration." In a July 16 Politico article, Ben Smith reported:

    A scholar whom President George W. Bush appointed as vice chairwoman of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Abigail Thernstrom has a reputation as a tough conservative critic of affirmative action and politically correct positions on race.

    But when it comes to the investigation that the Republican-dominated commission is now conducting into the Justice Department's handling of an alleged incident of voter intimidation involving the New Black Panther Party -- a controversy that has consumed conservative media in recent months -- Thernstrom has made a dramatic break from her usual allies.

    "This doesn't have to do with the Black Panthers; this has to do with their fantasies about how they could use this issue to topple the [Obama] administration," said Thernstrom, who said members of the commission voiced their political aims "in the initial discussions" of the Panther case last year.

    "My fellow conservatives on the commission had this wild notion they could bring Eric Holder down and really damage the president," Thernstrom said in an interview with POLITICO.

AP, NY Times, and Wash. Post reported on phony New Black Panthers scandal ...

 But not the conservative who said the Bush packed Commission was going to use phony scandal to topple Attorney General and the President.

Banksters Revealed Again!

Doc Holliday said, "My hypocrisy knows no bounds" in the movie Tombstone. The same apparently is true for our current crop of Bankster Politicians, many of whom today voted against extending unemployment benefits even after they voted in 2008 for a bank bailout.

Yes, these Corporate Communists not only voted for billion dollar bailouts for companies that were about to fail due to their own terrible decisions, but then subsequently have done nothing to prevent the ongoing and future theft. By destroying this very tenet of capitalism -- that the losers actually lose so that new ideas, people, companies can become winners -- they have now crippled our economy and kept millions out of work.

Now when faced with giving a pittance of support to many of the same people tossed from employment by their cronyism, they have all of a sudden found ideology. Of course, considering that many of these Bankster Politicians are going to lose their jobs for this, they will try to make excuses like the following:

Unemployment needs to be paid for out of current spending!
And for some reason the bank bailouts did not? But even letting bygones be bygones, I have a suggestion -- let's use clawbacks to pay for unemployment, considering this financial crisis (a) was caused by these people and (b) is why there are no jobs.

But unemployment pays people not to work!
Well, bailing out these banks is even worse -- it's the government literally paying people ungodly sums to destroy our country. Like I've said before, there's a reason why banking is an unpaid job in Monopoly -- it is basically a utility rendered unprofitable by modern technology. These bailed-out banks are dangerous casinos gambling with the well-being of America, and America is losing.

Mind you, I don't even agree with the current unemployment program in this country. I believe people should have to volunteer for a non-profit for 10-20 hours a week to qualify for unemployment. However, our vote-loving politicians like to keep their jobs by giving future generation's money away for nothing in return.

TARP was to keep people working!
Really? Well then it's done a terrible job of keeping people working, because unemployment is actually getting worse. The only place it's actually saved "us" is in the imaginary crony-ist utopia of those who benefited. Their jobs plan is a lucky few of you cleaning the pools built with their $145 billion in 2010 bonuses.

TARP was just a loan and has been paid back, with interest!
I suggest you all familiarize yourselves with THE BIG TARP LIE... and make sure the politicians and media that continue to spout it become familiar as well.


But I was lied to about TARP!
Then do your job. Those people who lied to you were often under oath. They should be investigated and put in jail if found guilty.

So without further ado, I present to you the list of today's Banksters -- those who voted "Yes" for Bankster billions and "No" for their victims. Please check to see if your Senator is on the list:


BANKSTER PARTY

Lamar Alexander [B-TN]
Robert Bennett [B-UT]
Christopher Bond [B-MO]
Richard Burr [B-NC]
Saxby Chambliss [B-GA]
Thomas Coburn [B-OK]
Bob Corker [B-TN]
John Cornyn [B-TX]
John Ensign [B-NV]
Lindsey Graham [B-SC]
Charles Grassley [B-IA]
Judd Gregg [B-NH]
Orrin Hatch [B-UT]
Kay Hutchison [B-TX]
John Isakson [B-GA]
Jon Kyl [B-AZ]
Richard Lugar [B-IN]
John McCain [B-AZ]
Mitch McConnell [B-KY]
Lisa Murkowski [B-AK]
Ben Nelson [B-NE]
John Thune [B-SD]
George Voinovich [B-OH]No

 No surprise all of the two faced double talking Banksters are conservatives except Ben Nelson.

Republicans Do Not Attract Nazis and Racists

Racist New Hampshire State House Candidate Advises Tea Party To Be More Open With Its Racism

While the tea party movement is desperately trying to fight off charges of “racist elements” from the NAACP, Ryan J. Murdough, a Republican candidate for New Hampshire State House, has no qualms about expressing his views on race. “It is time for white people in New Hampshire and across the country to take a stand,” Murdough wrote in a letter to the Concord Monitor titled “We must preserve our racial identity”:

    For far too long white Americans have been told that diversity is something beneficial to their existence. Statistics prove that the opposite is true. New Hampshire residents must seek to preserve their racial identity if we want future generations to have to possibility to live in such a great state. Affirmative action, illegal and legal non-white immigration, anti-white public school systems, and an anti-white media have done much damage to the United States of America and especially New Hampshire. It is time for white people in New Hampshire and across the country to take a stand. We are only 8 percent of the world’s population and we need our own homeland, just like any other non-white group of people deserve their own homeland.

Murdough is running as a Republican because it’s easier to get on the ballot, but the party immediately “disowned him as a candidate on their ticket,” calling him a “despicable racist” and a “fraud.” But Murdough has no love lost for the GOP, complaining, “they’ve sold white people out.”

It’s unclear whether Murdough is a tea partier, but in the comments section of the Monitor’s website, where Murdough is very active, he wrote, “I think the Tea Party movement is doing great things.” His rhetoric in the comments often reflects that of the movement, and he repeatedly advises the the tea party to “embrace the fact [that] there is a racial aspect to the movement.” “White people need to stop wasting time arguing about how they are not racist,” he said in one comment, adding in another:

While most Republicans are not racist, racism continues to be part of what attarcts people to conservatism. Maybe it is time for conservatism to reevaluate the messages it is sending to the public.

Neo-Nazi Leading Patrols in Arizona

Jason "J.T." Ready, a man with neo-Nazi ties, is taking border control into his own hands. Ready is leading a militia in the Arizona desert to protect the borders from illegal immigrants. He has declared war on "narco-terrorists" and illegal immigrants. To date, he and his crew have found only a few border crossers, whom they have "given water and handed over to border patrol." Ready's group is heavily armed and identifies with the National Socialist Movement, an organization that believes only non-Jewish white heterosexuals should be American citizens and that everyone else should leave the country "peacefully or by force."

President Obama has been a much stricter enforcer of immigration law than Bush and crime has remained about the same in Arizona for the last twenty years. So what is in the kool-aid these extremist conservative militia types are drinking.

Vote Republican 2010. They have just what America needs - no ideas and no solutions

Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) and Pete Sessions (R-TX) Refuse To Detail GOP Agenda, Offer Zero ‘Painful Choices’ To Cut Spending

The heads of the Republican congressional campaign committees — Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) and Pete Sessions (R-TX) — appeared on NBC’s Meet the Press today to discuss their party’s strategy for the November elections. Sessions began by saying that everyone knows exactly “what Republicans stand for,” but he quickly proved that even he doesn’t really know. Host David Gregory, visibly frustrated, repeatedly pressed the two campaign chiefs for substance, saying, “these are not specifics, voters get tired of that.” But all he got in return was vapid talking points, like how Republican candidates are “standing with the American people back home.”

Gregory correctly dismissed what he was hearing from Sessions as “gauzy,” and turned to Cornyn, saying, “I’m not hearing an answer here, what are the painful choices” that Republicans are prepared to make to cut the deficit? Instead of offering any ideas of own, and in direct contrast to the sense of urgency with which conservatives paint the deficit, Cornyn responded that he would wait for President Obama’s debt commission’s report, which will conveniently come after the election. Gregory replied, “wait a minute, conservatives need a Democratic president’s debt commission to figure out what it is they need to cut?”:

Vote conservative in 2010 and maybe they'll think of something when they get around to being serious and stop acting like petulant brats.

The Top 5 Republicans Who Think The Tea Partiers Are Bad News 

Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.)  Explains Why America Can Afford Tax Cuts For The Rich But Not Jobless Aid

Exploring the Crazy Conspiracy Theories Bubbling Up Around the BP Disaster

Fox News has hyped phony New Black Panthers scandal at least 95 times

Fox News has hyped phony New Black Panthers scandal at least 95 times

Six Fox News shows have discussed the phony New Black Panthers scandal during a total of 95 segments since Megyn Kelly's June 30 interview hyping the unsubstantiated allegations of right-wing activist J. Christian Adams. In all, these Fox shows have devoted more than eight hours of airtime to discussing the New Black Panthers.
Adams' accusations don't stand up to the facts

    * Adams is a longtime right-wing activist who is known for filing an ethics complaint against Hugh Rodham that was subsequently dismissed. Adams served as a poll watcher for George W. Bush in Florida in 2004, and he reportedly volunteered for a Republican group that trains lawyers to fight "racially tinged battles over voting rights."

    * Adams was hired at the Justice Department in 2005 by Bradley Schlozman, who was found by the Justice Department's inspector general and Office of Professional Responsibility to have improperly considered political affiliation when hiring career attorneys -- the former head of the DOJ voting rights section reportedly said that Adams was "exhibit A of the type of people hired by Schlozman."

    * Adams has admitted that he does not have firsthand knowledge of the events, conversations, and decisions that he is citing to advance his accusations.

    * The Bush administration's Justice Department -- not the Obama administration -- made the decision not to pursue criminal charges against members of the New Black Panther Party for alleged voter intimidation at a polling center in Philadelphia in 2008.

    * The Obama administration successfully obtained default judgment against King Samir Shabazz, a member of the New Black Panther Party who was carrying a nightstick outside the Philadelphia polling center.

    * The Bush administration DOJ chose not to pursue similar charges against members of the Minutemen, one of whom allegedly carried a weapon while harassing Hispanic voters in Arizona in 2006.

    * No voters have come forward to claim that they were intimidated and did not vote because of the New Black Panthers' presence outside the polling center.

    * The Republican vice chairwoman of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, which is currently investigating the Justice Department's decision, has said that the case is "very small potatoes" and that it has been surrounded by "overheated rhetoric filled with insinuations and unsubstantiated charges." She has further stated that the investigation has not "served the interests of the Commission" and that the DOJ has given a "plausible argument" for not pursuing additional charges in the case.

Fox News has discussed phony scandal during at least 95 segments

Fox and the right-wing conservative Obama haters are trying to turn the non-scandal about voter intimadation into the new Willie Horton. 
 The Republican strategy to put the country in reverse back to the George Dubya Bush years is still murky, but one or two things have become clear they do not care about preventing another financial crisis or looking out for the average American - Sympathy for the Banker.

House Minority Leader John Boehner did a nice job today of reminding us that his party has an inviolate commitment to enriching the privileged:

    They're not campaigning on it in earnest -- at least not yet -- but Republican leaders say that, given the power, they would like to do away with Wall Street reform much like they have already discussed repealing health care reform.

    "I think it ought to be repealed," said House Minority Leader John Boehner, in response to a question from TPMDC, at his weekly press conference this morning.

    One of his top lieutenants, Republican Conference Chair Mike Pence agrees. "We hope [the Senate vote] falters so we can start over," Pence told TPMDC yesterday. "I think the reason you're not hearing talk about efforts to repeal the permanent bailout authority is because the bill hasn't passed yet."

This isn't too remarkable -- this is the same guy who compared stronger financial accountability standards to using a nuclear weapon to kill an "ant" and who issued a call for a one-year moratorium on all new federal regulation. Simply put, Boehner and his colleagues don't believe the federal government should have the ability to regulate the bankers, hedge-fund managers, and Wall Street lobbyists who nearly destroyed the economy. Indeed, even with long-term unemployment hitting unprecedented highs, Boehner and co. reserve their sympathy for nation's most privileged people.

Republicans Are the Party of Ideas

GOP Rep. Bob Inglis Chastises Vitter’s Birtherism, Criticizes ‘Bad’ Leadership From Boehner And Cantor

Rep. Bob Inglis (R-SC) recently lost a GOP primary run-off to keep his seat in the House of Representatives, and since then, the South Carolina Republican has felt liberated to speak the truth about the state of his Party and the conservative movement. Last week, Inglis criticized Sarah Palin’s “death panel” claims, Glenn Beck’s “demagoguery,” and disparaged the right’s divisive rhetoric.

Today on C-Span, Inglis continued to rail against his Party, again calling out the right’s “misinformation about death panels” and chastising Sen. David Vitter’s (R-LA) recent claim that he supports challenging President Obama’s citizenship status in court:

    INGLIS: As to the Birther matter, let me be clear. The president is obviously a citizen of the United States. … So, really we do lose credibility when we spend time talking about such things. Why do we do that? We do it because we want to vilify the other side. We want to make them into the big bad guys.

Inglis also didn’t have very supportive words for House GOP Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) and Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA). “I think that to some extent we’re getting what we deserve,” with Boehner and Cantor leading the Party, Inglis said, adding, “We have basically decided to stir up a base, and that’s a bad decision for the country.”

Later in the segment, Inglis criticized those on the right who blamed the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) for causing the 2008 financial crisis:

    INGLIS: What I’m supposed to do as a Republican is just echo back to you Anne that yes, CRA was the cause of the financial meltdown in October of 2008. And if I said that to you I’d be clearly wrong because if you think about it, CRA had been around for decades. So how could it be that it caused the problem suddenly in October of 2008? … So therefore we can just establish it as a scapegoat. Democrats like it and we can of course put the racial hue on that and that makes it even more powerful. But if we do that, we go further away from the solution, the solution is to deal with those fundamental things, not pick up on scapegoats and run with it.

Conservatism continues to be the gathering of freaks and weirdos who think the answer to their unpopularity is get even weirder.

Meet the New Republican Alchemists

So it comes down to this. Republicans believe they can turn bullshit into gold. Despite the inescapable conclusion of history, theory and empirical evidence to the contrary, Mitch McConnell, Jon Kyl, John Boehner, Tom Coburn, John McCain, Kay Bailey Hutchison and other Republican alchemists continue to insist that cutting taxes increases government revenue and thereby reduces the deficit. Of course, even though the tax cut claim is laughably false, conservative ideology requires that it must true. Otherwise, the Republicans have just been giving money to rich people.

Tax cuts did nothing to reduce the deficit during the Reagan years - his own economic adviser called that voodoo economics. Conservatives could have passed a reasonable payroll tax cut in 2001, but instead cut tax for mostly the wealthy. That did not produce revenue for seven years and is partly responsible for the current deficit. 58% of Real Income Growth Since 1976 Went to Top 1% (and Why That Matters)

Carlie Fiorina AND Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) Are Really Good at Looking Out for the Wealthy

Coburn: New Tax Cuts Cost Money But Extending The Bush Tax Cuts ‘Isn’t A Cost’

Last Sunday, Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) caused quite a stir when he claimed that the government should “never” offset tax cuts, yet unemployment insurance extensions must be paid for. “You should never have to offset cost of a deliberate decision to reduce tax rates on Americans,” he said.

Today on C-Span, Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) circled the wagons around his Senate colleague. When host Greta Brawner asked Coburn about a Washington Post editorial mocking Kyl’s statement, Coburn conceded that tax cuts cost money, but he claimed that extending the Bush tax cuts won’t cost anything, because, according to Coburn’s logic, they’ve already been enacted at one point in the past:

    COBURN: Continuing the [Bush] tax cuts isn’t a cost, if you added new taxes, new tax cuts, I would agree that’s a cost. It’s not a cost. That’s where we are today. That’s the baseline. It doesn’t score anything to continue them. It costs money if we increase, which I would be willing to do. I think we ought to cut corporate taxes.


Other Republicans such as California Senate candidate Carlie Fiorina have jumped on the “tax cuts don’t cost anything” bandwagon. Even Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) came to Kyl’s defense yesterday, laughably arguing that there is “no evidence whatsoever that the Bush tax cuts actually diminished revenue.” “They increased revenue because of the vibrancy of these tax cuts in the economy,” he said. Except, there is evidence that tax cuts diminish revenue, as the Washington Post’s Ezra Klein noted:

    [H]ow about the Congressional Budget Office’s estimations? “The new CBO data show that changes in law enacted since January 2001 increased the deficit by $539 billion in 2005. In the absence of such legislation, the nation would have a surplus this year. Tax cuts account for almost half — 48 percent — of this $539 billion in increased costs.” How about the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget? Their budget calculator shows that the tax cuts will cost $3.28 trillion between 2011 and 2018.

Indeed, various independent analyses have found that extending the Bush tax cuts would cost the federal government anywhere between $678 billion and $3 trillion over the next ten years. And the simple fact is tax cuts don’t “increase revenue” as McConnell claimed, even many of the Minority Leader’s conservative colleagues agree — such as former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, economist Douglas Holtz-Eakin, and Bush Council on Economic Advisers chairs Edward Lazear and Greg Mankiw. Tax cuts only “partially offset the losses in revenues,” Fed chairman Ben Bernanke has said.

VIDEO: Yes, there is racism in the Tea Party movement.

Thanks to Republicans We're having a Jobless Recovery

Jobless 'Recovery' Requires Us to Rebuild America

The good news is that America's economy continues to grow. The bad news is that most people's personal economies continue to shrivel.

The June report on jobs glows with the happy news that America's unemployment rate has fallen to 9.5 percent - the best we've had in a year! "We are headed in the right direction," trumpeted President Obama.

Great ... if true. However, the ballyhooed jobs statistic is a mirage. It looks good only because 650,000 more Americans became so frustrated with their fruitless search for work last month that they quit looking. In StatWorld, such "discouraged" seekers are - abracadabra! - no longer considered unemployed, even though they are. There are now 1.2 million Americans in this statistical purgatory.

That's not the only shadow on June's economic glow. Those lucky enough to have jobs, for example, saw America's average workweek shrink. It's now down to only 34 hours - which means less income for "full time" working families.

There also was another drop in the average hourly wage. Fewer hours, lower wages. That's not what most people would call an economy "headed in the right direction." Indeed, the strongest job growth in June came from the low-paying service sector, and nearly half of the 46,000 jobs added there are temporary positions.

Meanwhile, another implosion bomb is set to hit American workers. The public sector, which has been one bright spot for decent wages and benefits, is about to shed tens of thousands of teachers, firefighters, park employees, utility workers and others from state and local governments, sending our country in exactly the wrong direction.

Yet, economists are cheerfully bandying around the most moronic oxymoron I've ever heard. They are exulting that we're presently experiencing a "jobless recovery."

I don't see how their minds can put those two words together without having their heads explode! Excuse me, Einsteins, but there's no such thing.
You can spin your data till the cows come home, but an economy that has nearly 20 percent of the workforce either unemployed or underemployed, that has no plan for replacing the 8 million jobs we lost in the last two years, that is now proceeding with mass layoffs of such essential workers as teachers and firefighters and that is willing to accept poverty pay as the new American norm is not by any stretch of the imagination a recovery.

The reality we face is what economist Paul Krugman is frankly calling a "Long Depression." As happened in a similar decline in the 1870s, those at the top will prosper and take an even larger share of the wealth we all produce, while the majority sees declining income and rising poverty. To hasten this unhappiness, Republican senators have repeatedly blocked an extension of jobless benefits for America's hardest-hit families, thus intentionally increasing economic pain across our land.

While these Americans are suffering, Republican governors are reaching out - not to help those suffering, but to comfort the comfortable. Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota, for example, recently dealt with his state's deficit by slashing spending for public health, higher education, the elderly and the disabled. He then vetoed an income tax on Minnesota's richest people, declaring that this effort to balance the budget was "nonsensical." Likewise, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie is terminating state workers while vetoing a tax hike on millionaires, calling the wealth tax "irresponsible."

There is, of course, a way to avert this economic disaster. It's called leadership. The way out is to enlist our grassroots people in an all-out "Rebuild America" campaign. Stop talking about a green economy, and put Americans to work building it. Also, let's lead the world in putting high-speed Internet in every home and school. And our crucial national infrastructure, from bridges to parks, is in a sorry state - let's go to work to repair and improve these public resources.

Destiny calls, but our "leaders" are either self-absorbed, clueless or cowardly. So, we must lead. One place to start this rebuilding is through the Blue-Green Alliance: www.bluegreenalliance.org.

Obama is Just Like Hitler and Stalin?