The Pardu

The Pardu
Watchful eyes and ears feed the brain, thus nourishing the brain cells.
Showing posts with label Thom Hartmann. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Thom Hartmann. Show all posts

Saturday, November 22, 2014

Abuse of Power? Executive Action? Public Polling?

Cover photo
President Obama as power wielding dictator who would be king!

I am going to spend a few minutes exploring the nation's 44th president as, according to the current mouthpieces in the GOP, the most autocratic and dictatorial president in US history. At the core of this piece is the resurgent GOP mantra: "abuse of power, "would be king", dictator. All under the umbrella of executive action.

Before taking another step, let's make certain we look at the 2009 line of scrimmage for President Obama. As Barack H. Obama and wife Michelle visited many Inauguration balls on the evening of January 20, 2009, a group of subversive GOP members of congress and GOP operatives plotted against the newly inaugurated president. The subversives plotted as rarely reported in US History. In comparison, plotters against post civil War, Abe Lincoln surpassed the 2009 republican subversives, but never has such subversion taken place so early in an administration.

Caucus Room Conspiracy

"You will remember this day. You’ll remember this as the day the seeds of 2012 were sown."-- Newt Gingrich, Jan. 20, 2009

The group of seventeen plotted obstruction against all things Obama, and by doing so plotted against the United States. And, the GOP fulfilled every plot item through four national elections and as the Obama Administration worked (alone) to bring the nation back from the GOP economic collapse.

Thom Hartmann says it best: "Dems duped by the Caucus Room Conspiracy.

Democrats eventually succumbed to the Caucus Room strategy and completely fumbled any chance of winning in 2014.
Immigration Reform and Executive Order 

There are no issues more important to the GOP than obstruction to immigration reform and the Affordable Care Act. Typical "hot items" for a party who's elected representatives, are beholding to a constituency other than the US voter. A constituency that appears to have a fire burning under their politicians that has led to a lawsuit against a sitting president. Members of the Grand Ol Party are crying like spoiled children, despite support for immigration reform from all sectors of the population outside of the cancerous GOP/ Tea Party. They cry in the face of polling data that supports reform and they cry despite an immigration bill passed in the Senate, but Cantor and Boehner never allowed a Chamber vote. They refused to schedule a vote despite polling indicating favorable responses to immigration reform.

In 2013, The Partnership for A New American Economy published polling results showing unarguable support for reform. 

The Partnership Publishes Polling to Demonstrate Broad Support for Reform
In June, two weeks ahead of the Senate vote on the “Gang of Eight” bill, the Partnership, Americans for Citizenship and Republicans for Immigration reform released a series of 27 in-state polls that showed overwhelming support for the bill’s passage and political reward for politicians who voted in favor of reform. The polls were released at coordinated news events in 22 states with key voices from each state. Additionally, a national news teleconference with representatives from each of the three sponsoring organizations garnered significant media attention.  In total, the polls generated more than 200 news hits and were recited by the news media and pundits through the Fall of 2013. 
In November, the Partnership, in conjunction with Compete America and Republicans for Immigration Reform, released a new set of polls, including a national survey and 11 individual state polls in traditional “battleground” states. The battleground surveys demonstrated the strong support for immigration reform across the country and the potential impact the issue may have on the Republican Party in future campaigns for the White House. The national survey showed that Americans support immigration reform by a 71%-25% margin with a majority more likely to vote for elected officials who vote for immigration reform, compared to only18% that would be less likely to do so. The results were profiled in Politico and other national publications.

John Boehner took to a podium early this morning to rail about the president and how he ignores the will of the American people. If the GOP chooses to ignore data from sources other than Drudge and Breitbart News, the House leader should be far more careful regarding proclamations of universal opposition to immigration reform. If 71% of a survey respondent group indicated support for immigration reform, possibly GOP leadership mis-read a couple of polls that revealed telling information about how the conservative view the issue. If you peruse the two tables that follow, you will see why the GOP feels "the American people" are opposed to any humane policies regarding US immigration (from south of the US border).  

Gallup June 2013


One year later the result of a Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI) poll, shows the GOP has a core that is so anti-immigration one can only consider an aversion to brown people entering the United States. The tea party core of the party drives policy and guides practice.

Should we accept conservative America as the barometer and meter for social policy? Placating the Koch brothers and running from the party's inner core tea party, places GOP party leaders at odds with reality. During the week Boehner and McConnell have busily fought against immigration reform and, via law suit, continued an assault of President Obama's desire to advance a nation. While the law suit has the ACA as an underlying impetus, it is clear the law suit is yet another effort to stop President Obama form advancing his quasi-liberal agenda.

Boehner and McConnell attack Obama from the precarious position of "abuse of power." The Executive Order has become GOP mantra as was Benghazi and the IRS in 2012 and 2013.

Let's do what conservatives hate most: data, facts and representation of factual data.  

In comparison, Obama is issuing orders at the slowest rate since Grover Cleveland in the 19th century at a rate of just 0.09 per day.
George W. Bush's rate is slightly higher, as are those of other conservative heroes like Ronald Reagan and Calvin Coolidge. 
And according to the graphic, Republican presidents have issued more executive orders than their Democratic counterparts at a rate of 0.23 for the GOP compared to 0.18 for Democrats per day in office.

While the GOP and accommodating electronic media will ride the "abuse of power" mantra until it crumbles to its shaky foundation like most GOP positions, HIVs (High Information Voters) know Obama's handling of Immigration is best for the nation. CNN will ride the immigration order until it finds another national or international crisis. Do you recall MH-370? Fox News after fulfilling its role if "town-calling fear of Ebola needs an issue for feeding its ravenous sycophant viewers. Half of MSNBC's show hosts and the networks conservative news director will also milk the false 
abuse of power claim. Ultimately, the abuse of power campaign will work, but a misinformed public won't completely reverse itself and following the bigotry of the GOP. 

American Action Forum

Study: Immigration Reform, Economic Growth, and the Fiscal Challenge

By Douglas Holtz-Eakin April 9, 2013
Executive Summary
Immigration reform can raise population growth, labor force growth, and thus growth in Gross Domestic Product (GDP). In addition, immigrants have displayed entrepreneurial rates above that of the native born population. New entrepreneurial vigor embodied in new capital and consumer goods can raise the standard of living. 
These channels suggest that any discussion of immigration reform that omits the benefits on economic performance is incomplete. Similarly, there will be direct feedback from better economic growth to more revenues, fewer federal outlays, and “dynamic” improvement in the federal budget. Traditional “static” budget analyses of immigration reforms’ impacts will be similarly incomplete. 
A rudimentary analysis of these impacts suggests that in the absence of immigration, the population and overall economy will decline as a result of low U.S. birth rates. A benchmark immigration reform would raise the pace of economic growth by nearly a percentage point over the near term, raise GDP per capita by over $1,500 and reduce the cumulative federal deficit by over $2.5 trillion.

Public Opinion Strategies

The Guest Worker Program: A Crucial Element Of Immigration Reform

This post highlights data from two surveys:  1) Public Opinion Strategies/Ciruli Associates – Vernon K. Krieble Foundation March 2013 National Survey; and, 2) ABC News/Washington Post April 2013 National Survey. 

First, our poll clearly shows that American voters see border control and a guest worker program as being intrinsically linked in a positive way.  In fact, seventy-one percent (71%) of voters said they agreed with the following statement: “The best way to get control of our border is to have a system for handling guest workers.  Without a guest worker program, we are just inviting more illegal border crossings.”  In essence, voters are saying that they believe America cannot effectively secure its border if border control is not accompanied by a functioning guest worker program.  Republicans (67%), Independents (63%), and Democrats (78%) are all in agreement with this strong statement tying the two issues together. 

Therefore, it is not surprising that roughly seven out of ten voters (69%) nationally said they favor “a guest worker program that would give work permits to people who are already in the U.S. illegally who pass a security background check and have a job.”  Further, more than a third of the voters we interviewed (35%) said they would “strongly” favor this type of a guest worker program.  Self-identified Democratic voters were the strongest supporters (82% favor), but more than two-thirds (70%) of Independent voters and a solid majority (54%) of Republican voters also counted themselves as supporters. 

When asked a little bit differently on the recent ABC News/Washington Post Survey, 60% of the respondents said they would support “more visas for highly skilled workers from other countries,” and fifty-six percent (56%) said they would support “a guest worker program for low-skilled workers from other countries.”  It is important to note that the poll conducted by ABC News/Washington Post made no mention of security background checks or the immigrants already having a job, and the numbers were still quite strong. 

Looking in greater detail at a specific guest worker program, the Public Opinion Strategies/Ciruli Associates poll tested a six-part guest worker program.  The two most popular aspects of six-part guest worker program are the two which could be most easily associated with helping secure our borders.   First, guest workers would need to “pass a security background check and have a job” (90% favor) and, second, “workers would receive a work permit smart card that includes a photograph of the worker, employment information, and biometric data such as fingerprints” (85% favor).

The table below shows all six components of the guest worker program as tested:
chart 1
Overall, when packaged as one six-part proposal, roughly eight in ten voters (79%) support the establishment of this guest worker program.  Support is significantly high across party with (74%) of Republicans, (88%) of Democrats, and sixty-eight percent (68%) of Independents in the support column.
Read more 

President Obama is probably the most astute statesman to occupy the Oval Office in decades. His back office polling is second to none and has proven accurate on just about all issues to which he was at odds with the obstructive GOP.  If we do not recognize the extent to which the president makes decisions with consideration of public sentiment, we are truly lost in a revolving world of Fox News, CNN and MSNBC conservative news hosts. He does not make decisions in a vacuum.

Between November 19th to 20th, Hart Research completed a poll of 800 likely 2016 voters; the results do not surprise. 

Executive Action on Immigration pdf (highlight added by The Pardu)

After six years of working against the betterment of the nation, the old adage should guide the GOP.

Additional topical research information

The Bridge Project: Taking Executive Action 

MSNBC's Rachel Maddow

Maddow is point-on! I cannot count the number of times I have intimated, "Obama should not have postpone the executive push prior to the 2013 midterm elections."

Yes, President Obama is relevant and those who feel he would not lead in his final two years in office, should take note. The note-takers include the nascent Obama critique Chris Matthews. From questions about about falling into an "intellectually lazy" mode, to his hosting a panel in which he laughed about "nothing good happening in the nation" and he looked one panelist straight in the face and asked: "Will he (Obama) lead in his last two years in office." One would think the ratings seeking Matthews would know better. But, like the GOP when there is a higher order to please (ratings and conservative viewers) personal integrity and mental acuity fails.


Sunday, March 9, 2014

Thom Hartmann "The Lie of the Free Market"

A few months ago, I sought and received permission to post Thom Hartmann screeds, treatises or, if you prefer, writings on my web page. I work to avoid over use of the privilege, but the following is a must post. 

You may notice, my intent is not didactic in any way.  My intent is to continue work towards exposure of a political movement that has so obvious gone rabid. Their "free market" mantra is nothing more than a "rebel-yell" for Tip 20% (ters) and a glass ceiling for the remaining 80%; you and me.

The Lie of the Free Market by
Thom Hartmann

"Listen to the right-wing pundits--the people I call the cons--and they will tell you something completely different. They suggest (and some actually believe) that a middle class will naturally spring into being when the kingdoms of corporate power are freed from government restrictions.

"The way to create good jobs, according to the cons, is to 'free' the market. When business gets to do whatever it wants, they say, it will create wealth, and that wealth will trickle down to the rest of us, creating a middle class.

"The con's belief in 'free' markets is a bit like the old Catholic Church's insistence that the Earth was at the center of the solar system. The free-market line is widely believed by those in power, and those who challenge this belief are labeled heretics--and it's wrong.

"Here's a headline for these cons who are masquerading as economists without having studied either economics or history:

"There is no such thing as a "free" market. Markets are the creation of government."

"Governments provide markets with a stable currency for financial transactions. They provide a legal infrastructure and court systems to enforce the contracts that make the market possible. They provide educated workforces through public education, and those workers show up at their places of business after traveling on public roads, rails, and airways provided by the government. Businesses that use the 'free' market are protected by police and fire departments provided by the government, and they send their communications--from phone to e-mail--over lines that follow public rights of way maintained and protected by the government.

"And, most important, the rules of the game of business are defined by the government. Any sports fan can tell you that without rules and referees football, baseball, basketball, and hockey would be a mess. Similarly, business without rules won't work. In a corporate kingdom--a corporatocracy--those rules are made by the businesses themselves and will inevitably screw workers and citizens. In a democracy those rules are made by We the People, both through our elected representatives and through union negotiations with the business kings/lords/CEOs.

Returning to Classical Economics, Ronald Reagan's favorite punch line was: 'I've always felt the nine most terrifying words in the English language are "I'm from the government and I'm here to help."'

"Sure, it's easy to laugh along and think that government is bad--until you need government. Until you've been taken advantage of and want to use the government court system, or you get old and sick and need Medicare, or your house catches fire and you'd like your local fire department to come by and put it out.

Reagan often used to say that the government is stealing your money. The cons love that mantra: 'It's your money.'

"Nobody likes to pay taxes. And nearly three decades of deceitful PR convincing Americans that there's no need to invest in our nation--and, thus, no need to pay for it with taxes--has left us with an electorate that so hates the word tax that cons can use it to turn voters against almost anyone advocating any government program. If you're a politician and someone calls you a 'tax-and-spend liberal,' that generally means 'good-bye to your votes.'

"The cons exploit this with the 'It's your money' lie. 'It's your money, and the liberals want it!' shout cons on the radio. They're talking about taxes, of course. But are our tax dollars really 'our' money?

"If I walk into a 7-Eleven store with a dollar in my pocket and say, 'Gee, I'd really like that Hershey bar,' and if I tear it open and take a bite out of it, that Hershey bar now belongs to me. And that dollar belongs to 7-Eleven, even though it's still in my pocket. It's pretty simple. As soon as I used the candy bar, I'd entered into an agreement to pay for it. It's a form of a contract even though I've never signed anything with a convenience store in my life. It's not my money anymore, even though it's still in my pocket, once I take possession of the candy bar.

"We make an agreement by staying in this country that we will live by its rules.

"I get up in the morning and the lights come on because my government is regulating the local utility for both safety and reliability. (FDR had to force electric utilities to serve many communities--thus the Rural Electrification Administration.) I open the tap to brush my teeth, and the water is pure because my government has purified it and delivered it to me from miles away in a safe fashion. The toothpaste I use isn't poisonous because the government passed laws that make it possible for aggrieved consumers to sue if they're harmed. Its ingredients are listed because the government requires it.

"When I drive to work, the streets are paved by my government, and the streetlights work because my government planned them right and keeps them in good working order. The radio station where I broadcast from can do business because my government provides a stable currency and a framework of contract laws that allow a corporation to exist and function. The food I eat for lunch at a nearby restaurant is safe both because it was inspected at its source by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and because the local government checks our restaurants for sanitary conditions. I can eat without worrying that bandits are going to run into the restaurant and demand every body's wallet because the police are on the job. And I can go about my day without worrying that we'll be bombed by invaders from another country because the State Department and the U.S. Army both negotiate and protect our nation. With a little bit of thought, you can add dozens of other things to this list--all provided with taxpayer dollars.

"Living in this society and using these services is like picking up and biting into the Hershey bar at the 7-Eleven: I've agreed to pay for them because I live here and I use them. The form of my agreement is called taxes. Therefore the money from my paycheck that goes to pay my taxes is not my money. It's the money I owe to cover the cost associated with the things I use each and every day. To suggest that it's 'my' money is to spit in the face of our Founders--to suggest that somehow each of us is above and separate from the social contract we've all agreed to by living in this great nation.

"When the cons say, 'It's your money,' what they really mean is that they don't believe in the social contract. They don't believe in paying for the services we use every day or in taking care of the poor and the sick and the elderly who can't take care of themselves. They are anti-American, anti-democracy, anti-Christian (and anti-Jewish and anti--every other major religion) zealots. They are a danger to our democracy and our country.

"Progressive taxation has a long history. Jefferson advocated for progressive taxation in his letters to James Madison back in 1784 and 1785: 'Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property,' Jefferson wrote, 'is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise.' In short, Jefferson said, 'Taxes should be proportioned to what may be annually spared by the individual.'

"But the cons--who since the days when John Adams called working people 'the rabble' --fought back. A true middle class represented a threat to America's aristocrats and pseudo-aristocrats because a middle class will always create a democracy. The cons would have to give up some of their power, and some of the higher end of their wealth might even be 'redistributed' --horror of horrors--for schools, parks, libraries, and other things that support a healthy middle-class society (but not necessarily the rich, who live in a parallel, but separate, world).

"When today's cons make tax a dirty word, they are really saying they don't care if the middle class gets screwed. As president, Reagan cut the top tax rate for billionaires from 70 percent to 28 percent while effectively raising taxes on working people via the payroll tax; he added insult to injury by allowing inflation to increase a whole range of taxes (sales tax, property tax, vehicle license fees, and so on) on working people. Following in that tradition, the Bush Jr. administration gave, in its first four years, tax cuts totaling almost half a trillion dollars to the best-off 1 percent of Americans.

"Even as taxes on the rich go down, they've gone up on the middle class (in part because they've gone down for the rich and somebody has to pay the cost of all the commons we use). If you made $75,000 in 2001, you saw only $350 in tax cuts from the federal government. In 2005, 80 percent of Americans got only 32 percent of the total tax-cut pie. That means the wealthiest 20 percent of Americans got 68 percent of the money the government was 'giving back to the people.' Unless you were making more than $218,000 a year in 2005, you got screwed by Bush's tax cuts.

"It's all part of the cons' undeclared war on the middle class."

Don't let the Sheeplets' mantra of "free markets" trump you anymore. Save or remember this post for future confrontations with the Sheeplets -- who knows, maybe they'll actually learn something.

Tuesday, November 5, 2013

Cancellation Letters Via Thom Hartmann's Webpage

Re-Blog from

So, about those cancellation letters...

Submitted by THP Danielle on 4. November 2013 - 9:29
Surprise, surprise... Insurance companies are trying to cheat customers out of more money. Since the start of Obamacare, we've heard various reports of companies canceling insurance policies, and charging customers hundreds of dollars more each month to continue coverage. Well, it turns out that many of those cancellation letters were misleading, and failed to mention that customers could find better policies at lower prices on a healthcare exchange. 

A special report by Talking Points Memo found specific examples of insurance companies contacting people before the October 1st start date, and trying to lock them in to higher priced plans than they could find on an exchange. The companies warned customers that their plans were being canceled and offered them new, higher-priced plans, but made no mention of healthcare exchanges, or subsidies that people could qualify for under Obamacare. One of the women interviewed by TPM would have had to pay more than $1,000 a month for the new plan offered by her insurance company, and it offered bare minimum coverage with a $6,300 deductible. After logging on to her state's insurance exchange, the Seattle resident found a plan for $80 dollars a month with a $250 dollar deductible. 

When TPM asked her insurance company why they were using such deceptive methods, a spokesman just said that customers know they have other options. Although it's not clear how many of the cancellation letters being received throughout our country are a result of the same dishonest tactics, it's likely that many other companies are pulling the same scam. These cancellations aren't because of Obamacare, they are simply insurance companies trying to rip off more people while they still have a chance. 

This is the exact reason why we needed the healthcare law to begin with. Insurance companies will always put corporate greed over people's health and wallets. And, that's the reason why we should continue to push for single payer, Medicare for all, and get the profit out of our healthcare.
- See more and comments 

Sunday, October 13, 2013

Fox News And The Network's Non-news Business Model (VIDEO)

And We Dress it up!
Fox News is Fox News. Despite Fox News leading the nation's cable channels high information voters (people) know the network's business model. We also know the network is a major factor in low information Obama Derangement Syndrome (ODS). Fox promotes lies, incites Right-wing derangement, and serves the prurience of some viewers.

The network actively promoted tea party rallies even as it became obvious the tea party had become infested with very public racist. We have come to expect the network to employ people who attract LIVs (low information voters) for daily feedings of virulent 'red meat.' Red meat often based in lies, deceit and Right-wing propaganda. How many times have you read, heard or watched Fox News busts for manipulated video tape, or using bloggers and satirist as news sources?

Watch a few very short clips.

Anna Kooiman delivers the Muslim Museum lie with Tucker (The Daily Caller) Carlson sitting one foot away.

When a network employs on-air leggy..... I mean employs on-air personalities for the serious business of delivering news, shouldn't we expect competence and the prospect of credible reporting?

When a network employs with a focus on the following images, well......

Female hosts who are well equipped for the Fox News "couch model" is one thing, an inclination to fulfill the role should not be accompanied with an expectation of professional and competence. Fox appears to also understand and leverage the closet truth of men with foot fetishes.  "The network will spare no views."  Fox News producers and stage managers seem to focus more on attracting the 35 to 55 year old morning male vs. research and validating news stories . Whatever maintains the ratings, right?

The images above is a good indication why Fox News often follows with this.

Just met w producers- I made a mistake yday after receiving flawed research abt a museum possibly closing. My apologies. Won't happen again.

Oh, but it will happen again. How could Fox Producers spend time appealing to the prurient fantasies of the mid-life crisis male via allowing on-air bimbos to run roughshod in delivering false news reports?

We are confident it will happen again because such flawed reporting is a by-product of "the on the couch" model. Do you recall E.D Hill's on air derangement about Michelle Obama and Barack Obama's fist-pump (and thumbs-up) after candidate Obama won the Democratic Nomination? 

The after math, but only half the story.

Oh, the phoniness of Fox News
Hill did not include previous comment about seeing the Al Qaeda fist bump on the internet. It seems ED Hill's internet adventure would be repeated by Michelle Bachmann years later as she out-right lied about the scope and expense of President Obama's trip to India. Bachmann's lies were rooted in an India blogger's web page and well reported on Fox News.

I ask, how many of the libido driven men (and women)  sat for the initial Anna Kooiman lie will actually see the Tweeted apology? Actually,  how many of those viewers would view an on-air retraction if one was issued? The low information was delivered and readily soaked up  by LIV/LIPs (low information voters/low information people) like a sponge in the Death Valley Nevada. 

Alas, Fox News does not stand alone in the leggy news model, CNN will not be outdone.

CNN's News Days morning leggy.... I mean new morning co-host provides early charm for their morning viewers. During the course of the following six minute interview I counted 16 shots with full front legginess.

End Fox News and CNN legginess comment. Let's visit with Thom Hartmann for another perspective in Fox News: the court case that granted the network the right to lie. Hartman on Fox
Snopes Messages
"In February 2003, a Florida Court of Appeals unanimously agreed with an assertion by FOX News that there is no rule against distorting or falsifying the news in the United States. 
"Fox" argued that, under the First Amendment, broadcasters have the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on public airwaves. Fox attorneys did not dispute Akre's claim that they pressured her to broadcast a false story, they simply maintained that it was their right to do so." More about Fox and the 2003 Jane Akre and Steve Wilson case: The Origin Of Fox News’ Blatant Lies

Friday, July 26, 2013

Thom Hartmann: O'Reilly's Racist Commentary

We have posted a few pieces about Bill O'Reilly's hardcore racial rant of early week. 

Right-wing Affinity For And Antagonism Regarding Race (VIDEO)
The Progressive Influence: O'Reilly Hoodies For Sell? Really? 
The Progressive Influence: The "Invisible Negro" And "The Mirrors Of ...

We offer the O'Reilly re-run, if you need a re-run. If you decide to his view comments notice O'Reilly's demeanor. On-air performance that I liken to Third Reich propaganda against a specific minority group for which leaders of a party enacted terminal and genocidal policies. He took his rant to a finger pointing and threatening crescendo that reminds of demagogues past. 

We are re-visiting O'Reilly strategically enacted rant for a few reasons. First, as the most watched figure on cable news networks, he has an audience that must love his so obvious loose handle on his emotions. (emotions? emotions?) His viewers must relish his pointing fingers in the face of his guest and associated levels of screaming for effect. If his audience did not care for his antics, they would not return for more and more almost on a daily basis.  If his audience did not return day to day, he would modify his act in a more retentive manner. Let's face facts his acts garner revenues which subsidizes his opulent contract. Second, O'Reilly is a primer example of what some on the Right have labelled counter-productive as to social and political rhetoric.  O'Reilly and Limbaugh may have large audiences in relation to all who view cable news or people who listen to AM talk radio, but those audiences are not truly representative as a form of national barometer. Many millions more do not watch cable news nor do they listen to AM (predominantly conservative) radio. A tertiary reason for re-visiting O'Reilly's rant is embedded below.  Thom Hartmann deals with O'Reilly's demagoguery with facts and rational/logical comments.

Thom Hartmann


Monday, March 25, 2013

Segregation Now, Segregation Tomorrow, Segregation Forever!!!

Montgomery, AL
Inaugural address 

George Wallace's inauguration proclamation appears to serve as an anthem for a growing number of Republicans. Despite Wallace's membership in the Democratic Party, his social views seem to permeate a growing number of today's young conservative whites (and a couple of GOP ideology leaders who use electronic media to spread their highly compensated message).  The most vocal long for times well past simple alleged fear of being pushed into a social state (a lower strata of deprivation and persecution) apparently reserved for others.  And, they do so without one obvious reflecting on how the nation's past impacted African-Americans, Native Americans, Asians and Latinos. Alas, because they do not care. The Circa  2012 segregationist are also quite vocal of their wish to return to their desired state: white supremacy. 
"Diversity is not a strength," (Matthew) Heimbach told the Baltimore Sun, adding, "We're being displaced from our own country," in reference to immigration. He also told The Blaze that the issue of "forced segregation" should be left to the states.


CPAC Tea Party event.  Avowed racist Matthew Heimbach and slavery rationalist Scott Terry attend with clear plans to disrupt the black conservative speaker.

This years CPAC event topped last years event, which topped the previous years event related to outright affection for and exhibitions of racism. A tea party organization hosted a CPAC break-out session focused of helping people deflect charges of racism: "Trump the Race Card." The session organizer hired well know "money-grabber" K. Carl Smith, Frederick Douglass Republican  to host the session. The rest is history and well known by anyone who watches MSNBC.  I know that Fox News did not carry the interchange between he racist Scott and the 'money-grabber" Smith. I also suspect CNN gave the interchange limited broadcast if at all. 

Huffington Post published a good recap of the racist resistance to African-Americans at CPAC and resistance to African-Americans in the GOP.  

While Reince Priebus and others are traveling across the country claiming to throw (bad) money at outreach to minorities, the future of the GOP and a specific wing of the party, is seething with racial animus, hatred, and paranoia.  

Yet another example from the mind of young Matthew Heimbach.

Priebus as RNC Chair can speak false mantra as  much as required to advance the GOP fallacy based and superstitious efforts to allegedly attract minorities, the realty speaks differently and the reality speaks to the core of the party. 

Mediaite also published a piece to accompany the longer version video posted above.  The Mediaite piece shows yet another perspective of the interchange between Scott and Katy Jordan a documentary filmmaker.  Despite the more widely broadcast version of  the K. Carl Smith video (with some in the audience showing obvious signs of dismay at Scott's racist tirade) Jordan published a different perspective of the interaction. Kim Brown, who was seated near Heimbach and Terry she was shouted down by members of the CPAC audience.

The Blaze published an expose` on Townson University White Student Union (WSU)  founder, Heimbach.  The Blaze piece includes a link to the WSU Blog.  Of course, my inquisitive mind facilitated a click of the link.  Two articles standout as noteworthy.  One article title refers to Heimbach as "Commander."  The other noteworthy piece was a march 4th, post related to WSU's plans to attend a Ron Paul speech at George Washington University.

Both Rand and Ron Paul have documented expositions and archived information related to their anti-Civil Rights beliefs and positions, their angst about EEOC Title VII Fair Employment legislation and their Libertarian lust for states rights. "States Rights" is a euphemistic idyllic state of libertarian and racist Land of OZ.

The Atlantic Wire's March 15, piece revealed yet more about the "Trump the Race Card" session. 

Before we move to a short video Thom Hartmann interview with Matthew Heimbach, let's finish on the very vocal Scott Terry.  

On March, 16, CBS News writer Jake Miller published a piece related to the segregationist in the CPAC session. 
After the panel, the blog reported that Terry asked, "Why can't we just have segregation?"
Terry, who was sporting a Rick Santorum sticker and claimed to be a direct descendant of Confederate President Jefferson Davis, told Think Progress he'd "be fine with" a society in which African-Americans were permanently subservient to white people. He also said African-Americans "should be allowed to vote in Africa." 
At one point, when challenged on the heritage of the GOP by a female onlooker, Terry responded, "I didn't know the legacy of the Republican Party included women correcting men in public."
Also note these mean espouse segregation even within their political party.  "Segregation Now, Segregation Tomorrow, Segregation Forever!!!"

Thom Hartmann and Matthew Heimbach.

The Atlantic Wire link above has telling remarks about the extent to which Heimbach longs for a time when black people were overshadowed and oppressive under Jim Crow Laws.

Even more revealing than the words of the two white supremacists is their affinity for all things "PAUL."  I offer the GOP's CPAC "straw dumpling" winner is an apple that fell not far from the trunk of his fathers tree.

And there-in lies the very reasons minorities and informed women will shun the GOP. We hope they party continues to shoot itself in the foot as we approach the 2014 Congressional Elections.  We fully expect the party to stumbled farther into the abyss of regressivism and shame as we look forward tot eh 2016 presidential election.