MSNBC silent on Joe Scarborough keynote speech

By DYLAN BYERS 

Back in February, MSNBC host Ed Schultz was forced to cancel his keynote address at a Democratic fundraising event in Florida due to a network policy prohibiting hosts from participating in political fundraisers.

But now that MSNBC host Joe Scarborough is scheduled to give a keynote address at a Republican fundraising event in New Hampshire, MSNBC has gone silent. Lauren Skowronski, the network's vice president of media relations, did not respond to four emails requesting comment on Scarborough's attendance at the event. (She did respond to an email wishing her a happy birthday.)

Scarborough is slated to speak at the Cheshire County Republican Lincoln Day Dinner in May, and a source close to MSNBC's "Morning Joe" said he plans to speak at the event. As Huffington Post's Michael Calderone reported earlier, tickets range from $35 to $50 and go directly to the the Cheshire County Republicans.

When MSNBC pulled the plug on Schultz's Florida fundraiser, Skowronski said Schultz had not realized the event was a fundraiser when he agreed to deliver the keynote. Scarborough's role at the Cheshire County event is certain; his appearance was reportedly secured by State Republican Party Chair Jennifer Horn.

In March, Scarborough appeared at New Hampshire's Northeast Republican Leadership Conference. MSNBC said he was a "discussion moderator," but one attendee - Jazz Shaw, an editor at the conservative Hot Air website - noted that he delivered a "speech" which earned "a standing ovation." Republican New Hampshire state Rep. Joseph Sweeney said Scarborough "energized the crowd" and was hailed as "a rock star." Tickets for that event ran from $50 to $199, with sponsorship options ranging from $500 to $10,000. All proceeds went to the New Hampshire Republicans.

Scarborough declined to comment on the appearance, though in a new blog post for POLITICO (where he is a contributor) he wrote about his desire to address conservatives when discussing his new book about the Republican party.

"Chances are good that on this book tour, I will get a lot more invitations to Lincoln Day dinners and Republican events than Democratic club meetings on New York’s Upper West Side," he wrote. The people I want to infleunce "don't live in Manhattan, Georgetown, or Beverly Hills. Instead, the voters who will have a big say in shaping the future of the Republican Party live in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada. So I will take any opportunity to share my thoughts with these and other influencers on how Republicans can start winning presidential elections again."

If MSNBC lets him, that is. And if they do, it will be hard to justify why they didn't let Ed Schultz speak to Florida Democrats.

Bachmann And Gohmert Lower The Bar On Stupid

By Randa Morris

Michelle Bachmann And Louie Gohmert Embarrass Themselves On An Entirely New Level During House Floor Speech On The ‘Killer Drug’ – Birth Control. – From Dummidumwit

It’s not every day that you get to watch Tea Party conservatives embarrass themselves on the House floor. Or wait, yes it is. Be that as it may, Michelle Bachmann and Louie Gohmert may actually have outdone themselves on March 26, 2014.

Bachmann and Gohmert speak on the “unprecedented killer drugs” that are killing America.

There are certain things you can count on, any time Bachmann or Gohmert open their mouths. Both are well known for over the top theatrics and absurd bits of hysteria. On the other hand, neither is known for their great intelligence or habit of making sense when they talk. You can count on half truths and sometimes, like on this occasion, no truths at all.

Gohmert starts off speaking about how ‘an agency,’ made up of unelected officials will be able to determine what medications are covered and not covered under the ACA. Dire warnings and prophecies aside, Bachmann keeps voicing her agreement, the entire time Gohmert is speaking.

It’s as if she believes she’s attending some Pentecostal church revival, and not standing on the floor of the House of Representatives. “That’s right!” She keeps interjecting, “Yes it is.” Not that anyone really wanted to hear what Gohmert was saying, but Bachmann’s repeated interruptions took annoying to an entirely new level.

Bachman finally cuts Gohmert off entirely. She goes off on this nonsensical tangent, before accusing the President of wielding the power to decide who gets medicine and who doesn’t.

“If you looked at the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, you knew with certainty when you woke up tomorrow morning that your religious liberties were intact. Now, apparently today, the gentlemen was in the chamber and heard that, according to at least one Supreme Court justice, in her opinion, they aren’t so much certain anymore.”
“It is not at only the election of the court, but at the election of the unnamed bureaucrat that decides, today we will have these killer drugs that we mandate. Tomorrow, what drugs will they take off the list? Will I not get life-saving drugs that I need to get?”

Bachmann goes on to tell us what all of this means.

“That means that the president and his administration wins their religious liberty, and the right to force their religious views down the throats of the American people… It’s unlike anything we have ever seen before in the history of the United States of America.”
“The American people better wake up quick because we are living in a country we no longer recognize.”

If you don’t think one word of it makes sense, in spite of Bachmann telling us what it means, you’re not alone.

Would anyone like some some facts with their word salad?

The entire display is beyond ridiculous. First, the government and ‘agencies made up of unelected officials’ already decide which drugs people can and cannot use in this country. That agency is called the FDA. It approves medications for use in the United States. The ACA merely mandates that insurance companies cover medications approved by the FDA.

Second, the only people trying to deny anyone medication, life saving or not, are members of the Tea Party. They want to be the ones to pick and choose which medications will be covered under your health insurance plan, rather than mandating that all drugs are covered, regardless of your employers personal (and misguided) beliefs about them.

Third, this is not ‘unlike anything we’ve ever seen before in the history of the United States of America.’ Not even close. If you get healthcare through the Veteran’s administration, for example, some unelected official dictates which medicines are covered. If you are insured through Medicare or Medicaid, it’s the same thing. Medicaid has covered birth control since Americans first figured out that it’s less expensive than covering a child’s food, housing and medical needs for 18 years or longer. That realization occurred in mainstream America decades ago, but will the Tea Party ever catch up?

Here’s the video of Bachmann and Gohmert’s embarrassing speech on the House floor.

 

Stewart Takes Apart Christie For Exonerating Himself In Bridgegate And Kissing Adelson's Ring

By Heather

The Daily Show's Jon Stewart took apart New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie for exonerating himself in the Bridgegate scandal, at the taxpayers' expense, no less. After getting in a few shots at the media for their ridiculous claims that Christie's "got his mojo back," Stewart and his cohort, Samantha Bee slammed Christie and his fellow Republicans for heading to Las Vegas to kiss billionaire casino mogul Sheldon Adelson's ring.

Adelson wasn't too happy with Christie for daring to use the words "occupied territory" during his speech at the event, which made Stewart wonder aloud how this happened.

STEWART: This is crazy. If Sheldon Adelson doesn't approve of a term as widely accepted as occupied territories, what does he think is an acceptable term for that area? [...]
When did the guy who makes Donald Trump's hair look natural get veto power over every word Republicans say about Israel?

After Stewart also wondered how all these men who ran down there kissing up to Adelson could change their behavior for money, Bee challenged him to do the same when it came to one of their advertisers. Needless to say that didn't work out so well for Stewart.

The surveillance society: a look back

By Tom Tomorrow

The thin veil of rationality

By Tom Tomorrow


 

Former George W. Bush Aide RIPS JEB BUSH For ‘KISSING THE RING’ Of Billionaires

Hey Jebster,....if you want their cash, kiss their ass!.....






Matthew Dowd, who was chief strategist for George W. Bush’s 2004 campaign, on Sunday ripped Republican presidential hopefuls for lowering themselves to “kiss the ring” of billionaires like Las Vegas casino tycoon Sheldon Adelson. During a Sunday panel segment on ABC’s This Week, host George Stephanopolous noted that many potential 2016 candidates like former Gov. Jeb Bush, Gov. Scott Walker, Gov. John Kasich and Gov. Chris Christie had already met with Adelson.

“I think it’s ridiculous that these candidates for president are trumping out to Las Vegas to go kiss the ring of a billionaire casino owner,” Dowd said. “And they think that’s somehow going to help them get elected president.”

“I think money matters so much less than your own capacity as a candidate,” he continued. “What is your message? What’s your vision for the country.”

“They would be much better off spending time back where they live — instead of flying to Las Vegas — and figuring out what’s their message, what’s their vision, and how are they going to covey that to the American public.”

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/03/30/former-george-w-bush-aide-rips-jeb-bush-for-kissing-the-ring-of-billionaires/

 

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024754678

Chris Christie clears Chris Christie

Chris Christie proclaims his innocence as his allies released an investigation that echoed the New Jersey governor's declarations of innocence.

Stubborn speaker continues to hurt Americans

Another day goes by as unemployed Americans suffer at the hand of Speaker John Boehner. Ed Schultz and Sen. Sherrod Brown discuss the out of touch GOP.

Chris Hayes spars with Jennifer Stefano over Obamacare

Chris Hayes faces off with Americans for Prosperity’s Jennifer Stefano over the right’s relentless focus on destroying the health care law.

Hey, Mitt - about that victory lap...

Mitt Romney and his fellow failed candidates can't resist patting themselves on the back over Putin's move in Ukraine.

 

Nate Silver Has Bad News For Democrats

By Egberto Willies

Perennial prognosticator Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight.com has released his Senate predictions. He appeared on ABC’s ThisWeek where he provided news that Democrats are likely to dislike. He says there is a 60% chance that the Republicans will take the Senate.

Visit the Nate Silver FiveThirtyEight’s complete analysis here. As usual Nate Silver encourages everyone to read his analysis with caution. He writes.

As always, we encourage you to read this analysis with some caution. Republicans have great opportunities in a number of states, but only in West Virginia, South Dakota, Montana and Arkansas do we rate the races as clearly leaning their way. Republicans will also have to win at least two toss-up races, perhaps in Alaska, North Carolina or Michigan, or to convert states such as New Hampshire into that category. And they’ll have to avoid taking losses of their own in Georgia and Kentucky, where the fundamentals favor them but recent polls show extremely competitive races.

Nate Silver says the most reliable metric to gage an election is the generic congressional ballot. Right now they are even. Because of midterm turnout history, this likely means electorally there is a 6 point Republican advantage. Additionally there are more Democratic senators defending in Republicans states than the converse.

Democrats should not feel deflated by the report.  Republicans should not feel emboldened by the report. Nate Silver has an important message everyone must heed.

In plain language: sometimes one party wins most or all of the competitive races. If we had conducted this exercise at this point in the 2006, 2008 or 2012 campaigns, that party would have been the Democrats. In 2010, it would have been the Republicans. There are still more than seven months for news events to intervene and affect the national climate.

There are 10 races that each party has at least a 25 percent chance of winning, according to our ratings. If Republicans were to win all of them, they would gain a net of 11 seats from Democrats, which would give them a 56-44 majority in the new Senate. If Democrats were to sweep, they would lose a net of just one seat and hold a 54-46 majority.

So our forecast might be thought of as a Republican gain of six seats — plus or minus five. The balance has shifted slightly toward the GOP. But it wouldn’t take much for it to revert to the Democrats, nor for this year to develop into a Republican rout along the lines of 2010.

Nate Silver Goes Over His Current Analysis on ThisWeek.

These polls are a snapshot in time. Instead of getting apprehensive about them, one needs to act. The electorate is always in flux and whichever party is able to break through with a middle class centric message will win. Obamacare will be a factor in the election. Currently it is a slight net negative. The tide will turn when one begins using effective truthful language, wordsmith, and examples average Americans can relate to.

See Nate Silver’s analysis here.

Many theories, few answers in jetliner search

Karen Finney tries to sort out the serious from the plain silly of missing Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 theories with security expert and former pilot Anthony Roman.

The Secret Lives of Inner City Black Males

By Ta-Nehisi Coates

On Sunday, I took my son to see two movies at a French film festival that was in town. The local train was out. We walked over to Amsterdam to flag down a cab. The cab rolled right past us and picked up two young-ish white women. It's sort of amazing how often that happens. It's sort of amazing how often you think you are going to be permitted to act as Americans do and instead receive the reminder—"Oh that's right, we are just some niggers. I almost forgot." 

Getting angry at the individual cabbie is like getting angry at the wind or raging against the rain. In America, the notion that black people are lacking in virtue is ambient. We see this in our vocabulary of politics and racism, which has no room for the decline in the out-of-wedlock birthrate and invokes Chicago with no regard for Chicago at all, but to deflect all eyes from the body of Trayvon Martin. 

But I was angry, and very much wanted to approach the cabbie, idling there at a red light, in ill disposition. I was also with my son. And more, I am a 6-foot-4 black dude who tries to avoid the police. I think, 15 years ago, with nothing to lose, I would have made a different decision, if only because the culture of my young years made a virtue of meeting disrespect with aggression. This culture was not wrong—the price of ignoring disrespect, in the old town, was more disrespect. The culture was a collection of the best practices for making our socially engineered inner cities habitable. I now live in a different environment. I now have different practices. 

Last week, Paul Ryan went on the radio to address the lack of virtue prevalent among men who grew up like me, my father, my brothers, my best friends, and a large number of my people:

We have got this tailspin of culture, in our inner cities in particular, of men not working and just generations of men not even thinking about working or learning the value and the culture of work, and so there is a real culture problem here that has to be dealt with.

A number of liberals reacted harshly to Ryan. I'm not sure why. What Ryan said here is not very far from what Bill Cosby, Michael Nutter, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama said before him. The idea that poor people living in the inner city, and particularly black men, are "not holding up their end of the deal" as Cosby put it, is not terribly original or even, these days, right-wing. From the president on down there is an accepted belief in America—black and white—that African-American people, and African-American men, in particular, are lacking in the virtues in family, hard work, and citizenship:

If Cousin Pookie would vote, if Uncle Jethro would get off the couch and stop watching SportsCenter and go register some folks and go to the polls, we might have a different kind of politics.

Cousin Pookie and Uncle Jethro voted at higher rates than any other ethnic group in the country. They voted for Barack Obama. Our politics have not changed. Neither has Barack Obama's rhetoric. Facts can only get in the way of a good story. It was sort of stunning to see the president give a speech on the fate of young black boys and not mention the word racism once. It was sort of stunning to see the president salute the father of Trayvon Martin and the father of Jordan Davis and then claim, "Nothing keeps a young man out of trouble like a father who takes an active role in his son’s life."

From what I can tell, the major substantive difference between Ryan and Obama is that Obama's actual policy agenda regarding black America is serious, and Ryan's isn't. But Ryan's point—that the a pathological culture has taken root among an alarming portion of black people—is basically accepted by many progressives today. And it's been accepted for a long time. 

Peddlers of black pathology tend to date the decline of African-American virtue to the 1960's. But pathology arguments are much older. Between 1900 and 1930, blacks were three times as likely as whites to be killed. Their killers tended to be black—black were 80 percent of Mississippi's murderers and 60 percent of its victims. According to historian David Oshinsky, the actual murder rate among African-Americans was likely higher. "We had the usual number of [Negro] killings during the week just closed," the Jackson Clarion-Ledger reported in 1904. "Aside from the dozen or so reported in the press, several homicides occurred which the county correspondents did not deem sufficient for the dispatches."

Oshinsky reports that "many of the murders involved liquor, gambling and personal disputes." Did the ghastly amount of violence afflicting black Mississippians spring from poor blacks "not holding up their end of the bargain?" Or was it the the fact that black Mississippians were living in a kleptocracy that had no regard for their lives? As Khalil Muhammad shows in his book The Condemnation of Blackness, progressives and conservatives alike often argued for the former.

Certainly there are cultural differences as you scale the income ladder. Living in abundance, not fearing for your children's safety, and having decent food around will have its effect. But is the culture of West Baltimore actually less virtuous than the culture of Wall Street? I've seen no such evidence. Yet that is the implicit message accepted by Paul Ryan, and the message is bipartisan. 

That is because it is a message that makes all our uncomfortable truths tolerable. Only if black people are somehow undeserving can a just society tolerate a yawning wealth gap, a two-tiered job market, and persistent housing discrimination. 

I think of that cab driver passing me by on Amsterdam. We are not on the block anymore. We are in America, where our absence of virtue is presumed, and we must eat disrespect in sight of our sons. 

And who can be mad in America? Racism is just the wind, here. Racism is but the rain.

NBC Is Considering Dumping David Gregory As Host of Meet The Press

By Jason Easley


With Meet The Press pulling historically low ratings, reports are surfacing that NBC News is considering dumping host David Gregory and changing the format of the Sunday staple.

The New York Post (Murdoch owned) reported,

NBC News boss Deborah Turness is spending the last few days of the year eyeing cuts — moves that could include axing some senior on-air talent, The Post has learned.

Turness, brought on in August to shake up the moribund news division — where “Meet the Press” and “Today” had stumbled — is in the midst of a host of end-of -year buyouts and cost reductions, sources said.

Particularly distressed by the changes is the DC bureau team, whose duties include providing political coverage to “Nightly News with Brian Williams” and Sunday talk show “Meet The Press.”

Turness has been trying to figure out the future for David Gregory’s “Meet the Press,” with options including bringing in MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” team of Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski for a Sunday show, or blowing up the entire franchise and trying something completely different, sources familiar with the situation said.

If NBC News wants to fix both Meet The Press and Today, they can do so with two moves. Fire David Gregory from Meet The Press. Get Matt Lauer off of Today. The ratings problems for both shows can be tied back to the fact that viewers don’t like the high paid on screen talent that each show is built around.

Gregory has pushed viewers away from Meet The Press with a disinterested approach to the show, and an endless habit of regurgitating Republican talking points as fact. Meet The Press has been transformed from the show where newsmakers expected to be challenged to a dull, lazy, and enraging hourlong informercial for Republican talking points and Beltway conventional thinking. David Gregory has been the exact opposite of the late Tim Russert, and the result is that millions of viewers have tuned out.

The worst thing that NBC News could do would be to replace the intolerable Gregory with the nausea inducing Joe Scarborough, and his band of Beltway lackeys. If Joe and Mika were to take over Meet The Press, the program that was once most important public affairs show on television would cease to exist.

The answer for Meet The Press is simple. Hire a dogged journalist who isn’t afraid to ask tough questions to the nation’s political leaders. In my opinion, Rachel Maddow was born to moderate Meet The Press. Maddow is smart, tough, and fair. She would restore the integrity that David Gregory has sucked from the show.

However, NBC and MSNBC have become the textbook example of consistently repetitive bad decisionmaking. If they dump Gregory, you can bet that Joe and Mika will be occupying Sunday mornings.

The good news is that David Gregory might be gone. The bad news is that he could be replaced by Joe Scarborough.

Pilots perspective about missing flight

Flight expert Ed Schultz shares his insight about the missing Malaysian Air Flight. Former Boeing Captain Tom Bunn and Aviation Consultant Scott Hamilton discuss.

Abby Huntsman Needs A Reality Check On Social Security

By karoli

Abby Huntsman is leading her generation astray with bad facts and a clueless perspective about Social Security. 

Abby Huntsman, shame on you! You have a platform to use responsibly, not to spout talking points that have been debunked over and over again.

Yes, the granddaughter of a billionaire, daughter of millionaire and 2012 presidential candidate Jon Huntsman went on a rant last week about how millennials aren't going to get Social Security. That's an old saw. We baby boomers heard it, too and quite nearly were sold the same bill of BS goods back in the early 80's.

Michael Hiltzik slammed her today in his LA Times column:

Huntsman wants to tell it like it is, but she fails due to lack of information. And if her generation believes what she said, it's going to be in deep trouble.

A lot of her spiel resembles the rants issuing from the mouth of former GOP Sen. Alan Simpson, 82, a veteran font of Social Social Security misinformation--which shows, one supposes, that error and ignorance is no respecter of age. Most of it has been debunked so thoroughly and repeatedly that one is tempted to believe that the misrepresentations are deliberate.

But as a favor to Huntsman and her generation, we'll set her straight. Again.

Gawd, I love Michael Hiltzik. Read the whole thing.

RJ Eskow followed that up with an open letter:

Even more importantly, it was disappointing to see you repeat the phony claim that there is a "generational war" between the young and the old. The real "war" in this country is between the haves and the have-nots, and it's no secret who's winning that one. In fact, this notion of a "generational war" was dreamed up in the think tanks and PR firms of billionaires, so that credulous journalists, politicians, and yes, news anchors, would pick it up and repeat it endlessly.

Mission accomplished: many of them have.

Let's be real here. We know that Social Security cuts aren't likely to affect baby boomers nearly as much as they will the generations that follow -- particularly millennials. So why push the idea that old people are greedy, when all that does is provide ammunition for an argument that will be used to shaft your fellow young people?

Again, we know who's getting all the national wealth, and it's not old people. Let's look at the facts: in 2012, the average Social Security benefit was $13,648, or $1137 a month.

And that's the average -- for workers with low earning, or those (primarily women) who take time out of the workforce to perform caregiving work, benefits are often much lower. For two-thirds of beneficiaries, Social Security makes up half their income or more.

We've heard all of Abby's points for decades. Actually, they've been around since Social Security passed and are nothing more than the product of resistance by the 'haves' who don't think they live in a society where the elderly should have a solid safety net under them. She does a disservice to all of us by repeating them, especially under the guise of a doomsday message for her fellow millennials.

Social Security is - bar none - the most successful and solvent social program in this country. It will be there for millennials and generations following if they choose not to listen to Abby Huntsman's tired arguments against it.

Now is the time to expand Social Security, not cut it. We should make that expansion for Abby's generation and those who currently benefit, because it's the right and moral thing to do.

Paul Ryan gets it wrong again

After Rep. Paul Ryan’s comments about a “culture problem,” Karen Finney says that Ryan is no Jack Kemp. XM Radio host Joe Madison and author Ian Haney Lopez join to discuss.

Nate Silver Is Back

By Stuart Shapiro

Pundits beware.  Nate Silver’s new website launches on Monday.  In his own words:

The fox logo comes from a quote which was originally attributable to an obscure Greek poet: “The hedgehog knows one big thing and the fox knows many little things.”

The idea being that we’re a lot of scrappy little nerds and we have different data-driven — I hate data-driven as a term — but data journalism takes on a lot of different forms for us. Often, yeah, it does mean numbers and statistics as applied to the news, but it also means data visualization, reporting on data that is both numerate and literate; down the road, it came mean investigative journalism. It can mean building models and forecasts and programs. At the same time, it’s still data journalism. It’s not enough just to be smart. There’s a particular series of methods and a way of looking at the world.

Plenty of pundits have really high IQ's, but they don’t have any discipline in how they look at the world, and so it leads to a lot of bullshit, basically. We think about our philosophy for when we choose to run with a story or when we don’t. We talk about avoiding “smart takes,” quote-unquote. This is data journalism, capital-D. Within that, we take a foxlike approach to what data means. It’s not just numbers, but numbers are a big part of this. We think that’s a weakness of conventional journalism, that you have beautiful English language skills and fewer math skills, and we hope to rectify that balance a little bit.

I know I’m a big nerd, but I’m pretty excited.

Arizona Republican: Slavery Was Good For Black People Because ‘Slave Owners Took Care Of Their Livestock’

By Stephen D. Foster Jr.

Republican Congressional candidate Jim Brown thinks black people lived the good life under slavery because ‘Slave Owners Took Care Of Their Livestock.’

Once again, Republicans have failed to even pretend that they want people of color to vote for them. In yet another instance of being stupid on Facebook, a GOP candidate in Arizona wrote that black people had the good life as slaves because “slave owners took care of their livestock.”

Arizona GOP candidate Jim Brown thinks black people lived the good life under slavery.

Jim Brown is running for a House seat in the 2nd Congressional District of Arizona. The seat is currently held by Democratic Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick and had been considered one of the easier races for the GOP to win in 2014. That is, until Brown posted a diatribe about slavery on his Facebook page. In what is sure to become part of a devastating campaign ad, Brown attempted to compare federal programs that help the poor to the institution of slavery.

“I want folks to think about something,” Brown began. “I want folks to think about how slavery really works. Back in the day of slavery, slaves were kept in slavery by denying them education and opportunity while providing them with their basic needs .. Not by beating them and starving them. (Although there were isolated cases if course) Basically slave owners took pretty good care of their slaves and livestock and this kept business rolling along.”

Apparently realizing that his stupidity would be used against him, Brown removed the post. Fortunately, we have the ability to capture screen shots.
Here’s an image of Brown’s post via The Root.

Welfare is NOT the same as slavery.

Brown believes that the government is treating people who need aid like slaves. And just as African-Americans made up the slave population, Brown seems to think they make up the entirety of those who get federal aid. You know, the old “all black people suck on the government tit” line that Republicans can’t stop using? Brown says slavery was awesome for black people, seems to think only black people are on welfare, and thinks getting aid is akin to being a slave. Instead of condemning slavery as vile, Brown also seems to think it was a good business model. After all, “slave owners took pretty good care of their slaves and livestock and this kept business rolling along.” Such a statement is not only an insult to black people, it contradicts the GOP claim that the Civil War was unnecessary because slavery was allegedly dying out.

As it turns out, most welfare recipients are actually white and happen to live in red states. Therefore, if anyone is turning into government “slaves,” it’s the GOP base. But comparing welfare to slavery is total nonsense. Receiving federal aid to keep from starving to death or becoming homeless is not the same as slavery. Slaves were often brutally beaten, starved, banned from owning firearms, and couldn’t exactly leave the plantation at will. Welfare recipients don’t give up any of their freedoms or rights by getting aid. Slaves had NO freedom and NO rights. Slaves also could not get an education, whereas the government often helps to pay education costs for people, even if they are on welfare. Furthermore, the government doesn’t sell welfare recipients to other people like slave owners sold their slaves. Also, unlike slave owners, federal aid isn’t breaking up families nor is it killing or raping people they find inferior. Welfare is colorblind because the only thing that really matters is income. Clearly, getting federal aid is nothing like slavery. In fact, federal aid actually lifts people out of poverty. It’s also temporary assistance that ends once your income level rises above the threshold. Slave owners kept slaves in chains for life.

Praising slavery seems to be a requirement to be in the Republican Party.

Jim Brown is only the most recent Republican to sing the praises of slavery. In 2012, an Arkansas Republican called slavery “a blessing in disguise.” At the same time, another Republican went even further than that. Even CPAC got into the act of defending slavery in 2013. Not long after that, a Nevada Republican told a crowd that he would vote to bring back slavery if they wanted him to do so. Of course, Brown isn’t exactly helping to improve the bigoted reputation of Arizona. The state once refused to honor Martin Luther King Day and has been in hot water for trying to discriminate against gay people.

The party that ended slavery is now controlled by those who want to reinstate it.

Republicans hate welfare programs even as their own states are the real welfare states. They hate these programs so much that they love falsely comparing them to slavery. But over the years, the GOP has made it clear that they actually love slavery and long to bring it back. The GOP hates welfare and wrongly compares it to slavery, but doesn’t think slavery was so bad for black people and wishes it was still around. This is NOT the same Republican Party that worked to abolish slavery and fought a war to end it. This is NOT the same party that fought for the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to the Constitution. This new Republican Party has fallen far from its roots and is now controlled by the very bigots it once battled against. And that is truly sad.

You’re Invited To The Dumbest March Ever – Thousands May Attend

By Randa Morris

White supremacists claim that thousands of people from around the world will participate in a ‘White Man March’ scheduled for March 15, 2014. – Banner for the White Man March

On March 15, 2014 groups of white supremacists from all around the world will be holding a ‘White Man March.’ At least that’s what is being claimed on the internet and social media sites like facebook and twitter. After doing a little research, however, I see this ‘huge event’ being about as popular as ‘Ex-gay Lobby Day On Capital Hill,’ and about as successful as one of the Tea Party’s many rallies to ‘Take Over Congress And Impeach President Obama.‘

What is the White Man March?

According to the event page the White Man March isn’t really a planned march. It’s more of an attempt by a few racist idiots to spread their propaganda across the US and apparently around the world. The website and facebook page basically exist to encourage other people to distribute the group’s flyers and posters, and to plan ‘pro-white’ events in their own communities.

An overview of the White Man March propaganda includes:

• Anti-racism is a code word for anti-white.
• White supremacist is an anti-white slur.
• Diversity is a code word for white genocide.
• White people are suffering from racial discrimination.
• There’s no such thing as white privilege.
• Hitler was a hero who was simply defending his race.

Here’s an example of a flyer they’re asking people to distribute.

White Man March flier – Piping up about white genocide!

White Man March flier – White slavery.

What can you expect to see happen on March 15?

While there is a website and facebook group designed to promote the White Man March, the actual number of interested participants isn’t quite thousands. The facebook group can boast 193 active members, but many of them appear to be fake accounts and duplicate accounts.

There seems to be very little planned ‘pro-white’ activity. One person calling himself ‘John Mnsota’ appears to be trying to gather support for a White Man March against Lutheran Social Services and World Relief Services. His group, however, currently has one member, which is himself.

The largest group I could find was one claiming to be from Centralia Illinois. That group has 119 members, but with names like ‘Hushits Asecret,’ it’s pretty clear that many of these are not real people. Take Dave Englisc, for example, who created a facebook account in November, and lists his hometown as Liverpool, UK. Will Dave really be travelling from Liverpool to march in a White Man March in the state of Illinois? I suppose it is remotely possible, but it is also highly unlikely. Then there’s Barry Horowitz, also a member of the Illinois group. This person created his facebook page on February 15, 2014. He appears to be using his page for promoting the White Man March, as well as for reminding his small number of fake facebook followers that America has a (wait for it) black president.

Will there be thousands marching around the world?

There’s a group in Colorado with one member, that might be participating in a White Man March.

Another group calling itself the American Freedom Party, has 6 members, and appears to be trying to find a couple of people in Texas and maybe Louisianna. Then there is the group that calls itself the Northern New England Group, which has 2 members. That group covers the states of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont and ‘Massajewsetts.’ So that’s one member for every two states. Also, there’s a place for people to share their ‘Ideas for Activism.’ That group has 9 members and 6 poster designs, but no mention of a plan to march.

According to a person calling himself Ralph, a white supremacist group in Arizona tried to have a white man’s BBQ last year, but only 11 people showed up. If you can’t even get support for your hateful, ignorant views with a BBQ, that should tell you something.

On top of that, if the white supremacist movement can’t even gain traction in the state of Arizona, I have a feeling it’s not going to do well in other states either.

There will always be stupid people who spend their time creating fake facebook profiles and designing posters full of hate messages, in hopes that they’ll find their way to other idiots who look and think like them. What they don’t seem to understand is that to the majority of people, they look and sound like exactly what they are, idiots.