A story from Paulding County, GA...but of course it is (VIDEO)

MSNBC: The unfortunately slow death of the Birther Movement (VIDEO)

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Capping off a busy week in GOP racism: Ron Paul. Willing AND Stupid?

Here we go...again.  First Jenny Sanford, then Rick Santorum, Chris Christie, Jan Brewer, and certainly not forgetting Newt "Food Stamps" Gingrich...

Thus, I give you...today's Washington Post:

Ron Paul, well known as a physician, congressman and libertarian , has also been a businessman who pursued a marketing strategy that included publishing provocative, racially charged newsletters to make money and spread his ideas, according to three people with direct knowledge of Paul’s businesses.

The Republican presidential candidate has denied writing inflammatory passages in the pamphlets from the 1990s and said recently that he did not read them at the time or for years afterward. Numerous colleagues said he does not hold racist views.

But people close to Paul’s operations said he was deeply involved in the company that produced the newsletters, Ron Paul & Associates, and closely monitored its operations, signing off on articles and speaking to staff members virtually every day.

“It was his newsletter, and it was under his name, so he always got to see the final product. . . . He would proof it,’’ said Renae Hathway, a former secretary in Paul’s company and a supporter of the Texas congressman.

And...

In the past, Paul has taken responsibility for the passages because they were published under his name. But last month, he told CNN that he was unaware at the time of the controversial passages. “I’ve never read that stuff. I’ve never read — I came — was probably aware of it 10 years after it was written.’’ Paul said.

A person involved in Paul’s businesses, who spoke on condition of anonymity to avoid criticizing a former employer, said Paul and his associates decided in the late 1980s to try to increase sales by making the newsletters more provocative. They discussed adding controversial material, including racial statements, to help the business, the person said.

“It was playing on a growing racial tension, economic tension, fear of government,’’ said the person, who supports Paul’s economic policies but is not backing him for president. “I’m not saying Ron believed this stuff. It was good copy. Ron Paul is a shrewd businessman.’’

The articles included racial, anti-Semitic and anti-gay content. They claimed, for example, that the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. “seduced underage girls and boys’’; they ridiculed black activists by suggesting that New York be named “Zooville” or “Lazyopolis”; and they said the 1992 Los Angeles riots ended “when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks.’’ The June 1990 edition of the Ron Paul Political Report included the statement: “Homosexuals, not to speak of the rest of society, were far better off when social pressure forced them to hide their activities.”

It is unclear precisely how much money Paul made from his newsletters, but during the years he was publishing them, he reduced his debts and substantially increased his net worth, according to his congressional and presidential disclosure reports. In 1984, he reported debt of up to $765,000, most of which was gone by 1995, when he reported a net worth of up to $3.3 million. Last year, he reported a net worth up to $5.2 million.

The newsletters bore his name in large print and featured articles on topics ranging from investment advice to political commentary. Frequently written in first person, they contained personalized notes, such as holiday greetings from Paul and his wife, Carol.

And...

Hathway, the former Ron Paul & Associates secretary, said: “We had tons of subscribers, from all over the world. . . . I never had one complaint’’ about the content.

No, I suppose you wouldn't.

Andrew Sullivan, in serious slinging bullshit mode:

I cannot and will not defend the newsletters. And Paul's apparent lies about his involvement make the matter worse. And I don't think Paul is the "best vehicle" for advancing the ideas TNC cites. He's a very flawed vehicle, like most politicians and human beings. And I corrected immediately the record on the MLK holiday.

But when Paul has said what he has said in these debates, when he has walked into the lion's den of a GOP primary and attacked the criminal justice system for racial bias, lacerated the war on drugs, and cut to the core of the delusions behind American global aggression, he deserves to be judged on his recent history as well as his increasingly distant past. His message that more liberty makes diversity more possible is a vital one.

Would TNC have excoriated Robert F Kennedy in 1968 as someone who could not possibly channel progressive ideas because he was once a hatchetman for Joe McCarthy?

I acknowledge this newsletter incident is ugly, indefensible and, above all, cynical. I don't think it is all that matters in the remarkable late career of congressman Paul. And that hunting for heretics rather than celebrating converts is a losing political strategy.

Ta-Neishi Coates (written before Sullivan):

If you believe that a character who would conspire to profit off of white supremacy, anti-gay bigotry, and anti-Semitism is the best vehicle for convincing the country to end the drug war, to end our romance with interventionism, to encourage serious scrutiny of state violence, at every level, then you should be honest enough to defend that proposition.

What you should not do is claim that Ron Paul "legislated" for Martin Luther King Day, or claim to have intricate knowledge of Ron Paul's heart, and thus by the harsh accumulation of evidence, be made to look ridiculous.

Let me provide answer Mr. Sullivan's "question":

Would TNC have excoriated Robert F Kennedy in 1968 as someone who could not possibly channel progressive ideas because he was once a hatchetman for Joe McCarthy?

Now, Mr. Coates, can write his own response, but the answer is yes, provided Mr. Coates, me and rest of the black community were convinced RFK had not changed, that he was, deep down, hostile to African-Americans (or in the parlance of the time: Negroes). When RFK emerged from McCarthy's shadow, blacks were wary of him, but he eventually came out from under that cloud through good works, and more to the point, good deeds.  He came out of that cloud enough so that Mother to the day she died, would almost burst into tears just thinking about 1968.

Ron Paul, through his own actions, and the actions and statements of his son Rand, remains racially hostile (at the very least racially suspect) to African-Americans, with their combined statements against the Civil Rights Act, and Lunch-Counters being a matter of "defending property", and not as a matter of Human Rights, etc.

Simply put, yes, Ron Paul is saying some stuff in front of GOP Debate Audiences, and that seems to be the limit of what he's willing to do. He's said some equally onerous things about race in recent memory that make us believe that the Ron Paul from the 1990s has not changed one damn bit.

Never get into a fight with someone who buys ink by the barrell... (VIDEO)

The Daily Show
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

999: A vicious assault on the working poor, and a lavish giveaway to the rich (VIDEO)

"The most vicious assault on the middle class and the working poor, and the most lavish giveaway to the rich, that has ever been proposed by a presidential campaign frontrunner."
-Lawrence O'Donnell
October 13, 2011

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

From Ezra Klein:

Herman Cain has not proposed three entirely separate taxes -- one a 9 percent corporate income tax, another a 9 percent consumption tax, and then a final 9 percent personal income tax. Rather, he has proposed an 18-9 plan: an 18 percent consumption tax and a 9 percent personal income tax. Or maybe he has proposed a 27 plan: a straight 27 percent payroll tax on wage income. Depends on which tax professor you ask and how deep into the details you want to go.

As Daniel Shaviro, a tax professor at New York University, notes, “a key part of 9-9-9’s intuitive appeal is the idea that, not only is 9 a low number, but the plan’s three 9’s appear to be spread out.” The only problem? The business tax and the sales tax are “effectively the same tax.”

The business tax is not a corporate income tax. It’s essentially a value-added tax. And a value-added tax is simply a form of a consumption tax. To tax wonks, this is comedy gold. Here they have spent years arguing whether a sales tax or a VAT tax is the better way to tax consumption, and Cain just went ahead and put both taxes in his plan. “So two of the 9’s in the Cain plan are simply redundant versions of almost the same thing,” writes Shaviro. That’s how you get to an 18 percent consumption tax.

From Glenn Kessler (whom I'm not quite as fond of, but always worth monitoring):

Bruce Bartlett, a former Reagan administration official who now calls himself an independent, also offered a critical examination this week on the New York Times Economix blog. He (as did Kleinbard) noted that the business tax allows for no deduction for wages, which he said “is likely to raise the cost of employing workers, even with abolition of the employers’ share of the payroll tax.”

Cain, in his television appearances, glosses over such details. “The fact that we are taking out embedded taxes that are built into all of the goods and services in this country, prices will not go up,” he asserted on MSNBC. “They will not go up.” He then gave an example of a family of four earning $50,000.

“Today, under the current system, they will pay over $10,000 in taxes assuming standard deductions and standard exemptions. I've gone through the math, $10,000. Now, with 9-9-9, they're going to pay that 9 percent personal — that 9 percent tax on their income. So that's only $4,500. They still have $5,500 left over to apply to this sales tax piece. …They are still going to have money left over.” 

We’re not sure how Cain calculates that this family now pays $10,000 in taxes, but the reliable Tax Foundation calculator comes up with a much more reasonable figure: a total tax bill of $3,515 — $690 in federal income taxes and $2,825 in payroll taxes. (The family gets a big income-tax savings from the child tax credit, which Cain would eliminate.)

So, in other words, under Cain’s plan, this family would instantly pay $1,000 more in income taxes. They would also pay additional sales taxes, probably more than $3,000, on their purchases. It’s unclear how the business tax would affect the family’s tax bill but it appears this theoretical family would get no tax cut but instead a 100 percent tax increase.

(The picture changes somewhat if you assume that all the employer-paid payroll taxes automatically would revert to the employee. We’re not sure that’s a good bet given the design of Cain’s business tax, but pro-Cain advocates make that assumption with their own tax calculator. But even under this scenario, the family appears stuck with at least a $2,000 tax increase.)

We take no position on whether it is good or bad to make the tax code less progressive. Perhaps in response to questions, Cain appears to still be tinkering with the plan. In Concord, N.H., he said on Wednesday that, among other changes, he would preserve the deduction for charitable donations and would exempt any used goods, including previously owned homes and cars, from the new 9 percent sales tax.

The Pinocchio Test 

We can excuse Cain inflating his adviser’s resume, but his campaign needs to do more to address the fuzzy math behind his tax plan. (We asked the campaign for a copy of Lowrie’s analysis but did not receive a response. UPDATE: The documents are posted below.)

Give Cain credit for thinking boldly, but he’s not talking clearly. As far as we can tell from the limited information Cain has provided, the plan he touts as a big tax cut would actually increase taxes on most Americans. Just like it would be wrong to claim pizza is a low-calorie meal, Cain’s description of the plan’s impact on working Americans is highly misleading.

Three Pinocchios

Oh, and in case you missed it, Glenn's definition of what Three Pinocchios means?

Significant factual error[s] and/or obvious contradictions.

Bruce Bartlett took a moment to note its effect on business...well, certain businesses:

Little detail has been released by the Cain campaign, so it’s impossible to do a thorough analysis. But using what is available on Mr. Cain’s Web site, I’m taking a stab at estimating its effects.

First, the 9-9-9 plan is actually an intermediate step in Mr. Cain’s plan to overhaul the tax system and jump-start growth. Phase 1 would reduce individual and business taxes to a maximum of 25 percent, which I assume means reducing the top statutory tax rate to 25 percent from 35 percent.

No mention is made on the site of a tax cut for those now in the 10 percent, 15 percent or 25 percent brackets. This means that the only people who would get a tax rate cut are those now in the 28 percent, 33 percent or 35 percent brackets. According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, only 4 percent of taxpayers pay any taxes at those rates.

As for corporations, Mr. Cain’s proposal is primarily going to benefit those with revenues of more than $1 million a year, because they account for 98.7 percent of all receipts by C corporations. (A C corporation is a legal entity separate and distinct from its owners that is taxed as a corporation; its shareholders pay taxes individually on their gains.) Those companies with receipts over $50 million account for 88.8 percent of total receipts.

Other business entities — sole proprietorships, S corporations (which have between 1 and 100 shareholders and pass through net income or losses to shareholders) and partnerships — would not benefit because they are not taxed on the corporate schedule. But they represent 92 percent of all businesses.

Well, now the White House is saying they didn't try to save Troy Davis...

From Politico, in the same spot where I found the previous story:

A White House official and a reporter who was in the room today denied a report from an African-American radio host who says Obama told a group of black journalists that he tried to save Troy Davis.

The report from Rob Redding Jr. at The Redding News Review, which we were unable to confirm, says the president said he'd looked into saving the death row inmate for "three days" and inquired with the local authorities.

But White House communications director Dan Pfeiffer flatly denied the report to me just now, as did American Urban Radio Networks' April Ryan, who was among the reporters at the off-the-record meeting from which the story purported to draw.

"That article was completely, 100 percent wrong," said Ryan, who said she'd pressed Obama on Davis at the gathering with African-American media figures including radio hosts Joe Madison, Tom Joyner, and Michel Martin, though not Redding. Obama, she said, was "unequivocal" that there was "nothing he could do" in the Davis case, though he did tell the group that in general, he had concerns about innocent death row inmates, and that he'd worked in Illinois to improve the criminal justice system.

UPDATE: Redding emails, "In your report, even April D. Ryan says that the death penalty was mentioned at the meeting. She is clearly not the source of our story. We stand by the story, as posted on our websites."

I'm not sure what to make of this since its possible both sides are speaking the truth. All the Redding News said was that the President looked into it, and determined there was nothing he could do, which is not far from the: "Obama, she said, was "unequivocal" that there was "nothing he could do" in the Davis case."

So we're really arguing over whether or not he looked into it before realizing there was nothing he could do.

The President tried to stop the Troy Davis execution...

From Politico, via the Redding News Review:

Obama's White House spent "three days" looking at how it could legally get involved in the case on a federal level, one source said. The Obama administration even called the state of Georgia about getting involved and were told "No".

"'We looked at every possible avenue legally,'" the source reported Obama said. "'There was not one there.'"

"'It was a state case and I could not intervene because it wasn't federal,'" another source reported Obama said.

Where I wish the execution of an innocent man was more important that an argument about Presidential Powers...

This is an national tragedy but idiots like Michael Moore (who apparently said sometime today that this was all on Obama) are making it worse by not understanding something called the Constitution.  It doesn't exist by convenience. It says:

"...he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment."

Ummm, Mike?

But it turns out that not even the Governor of Georgia has the power to stop the execution (this is where David Roberts and Zerlina Maxwell come in, because they put this piece from the Atlanta Journal Constitution out on the twitter.)

NOTE: David from what I can tell sent it out first, but Zerlina helped by tracking down a proper link, so, thanks to one and all!

Q. Can the president grant clemency or stop the execution in any way.

A. No. While President Obama has said he thinks the death penalty does little to deter crime, he has no legal authority to get involved, officially, with a state execution. When the death penalty is imposed for a state crime like murder, it is a state issue.

Q. Can the governor stop the execution?

A. No. Georgia's Constitution gives that authority only to the state Board of Pardons and Paroles.

Q. Can the Chatham County district attorney ask the judge who signed the death warrant to withdraw it?

A. Mike Mears, a professor at John Marshall Law School and who has challenged the death penalty for decades, said probably not. "I don't think there is a legal mechanism to ask a judge for a do over," he said.

Q. Can the courts stop it?

A. Though his attorneys he can fill appeals, the only viable option is the Georgia Supreme Court and that is a questionable one. His lawyers would have to file in the Superior Court in Butts County, where the prison is located, and then, if necessary, the Georgia Supreme Court and then directly to the US Supreme Court. Federal law limits appeals in that court system and Davis has exhausted those.

Q. Can the Pardons and Paroles Board change its mind?

A. If additional evidence is provided the board could step in but the board has already twice rejected Davis' requests for clemency. This morning they said they would not reconsider additional requests.

Ethics Investigations! They're not just for Democrats anymore!

Welcome John Campbell (R-CA) and Tom Price (R-GA) to the circle of the morally circumspect!

Tom Price was an Anti-Stimulus liar of the first order.  And John Campbell looks like Louie Golmert, only with a full head of hair.  Maybe it's worth losing Charlie Rangel and Maxine Waters to get these two.

"Why can't we have a better Press Corps..." II

Andrew takes time out of his day to vaporize Jackson Diehl of the Washington Post, and deservedly so.

Unimpressed...Part 3

First Gays, then Blacks, now Latinos:

[Rep. Ciro] Rodriguez's (D-TX, believe it or not) spokesperson, Rebeca Chapa, gets in touch to say that he was slammed as a “wetback” by an anti-reform protestor at a town meeting this week.

And another opponent called Rodriguez’ home and told the family member who answered to “go back to Mexico.”

Unimpressed...Part 2

Now this is more like the modern Republican Party I know. Two GOP Reps reacting to yesterday's slur-fest:

Rep. Steve King (R-IA)

"I just don't think it's anything. ... There are a lot of places in this country that I couldn't walk through. I wouldn't live to get to the other end of it."

Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA)

"When you use totalitarian tactics, people begin to act crazy. And I think, y'know there's people that have every right to say what they want. If they want to smear someone they can do it. It's not appropriate. and I think I would stop short of characterizing the 20,000 people who were protesting that all of them were doing that."

And in case there's doubt, here's the video:

Unimpressed..

I said I'd post it if they did it, so...

Following reports yesterday that black and openly gay Democratic lawmakers were subjected to spitting and epithets from anti-health care reform protesters outside the Capitol, Republican leaders said Sunday that such incidents were "isolated" and "reprehensible."

On CNN's "State of the Union," Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.) denounced the use of such slurs "in the strongest terms possible."

House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio), said on NBC's "Meet the Press" that the "isolated incidents" were "reprehensible."

Later on the same program, Michael Steele, the Republican National Committee's first black chairman, agreed that the incidents were "reprehensible," and added, "we do not support that."

"What you had out there yesterday were a handful of people who just got stupid and said some ignorant things," Steele said.

Took 'em long enough.

That being said, this will happen again.

Why? Because no one wants it to stop.

If the GOP were serious about stopping this, they would threaten to cut off the Tea Party if this continues. But they can't afford to do that, because right now the Tea-Party IS the Republican mainstream, so it's the "a few bad apples" strategy.

Meanwhile, the Democrats love the optics on this because it makes the Tea-Party look reactionary and racist, which, let's be honest, they are.

I want this to stop because the next level of anger past the slurs is going to be violence.

As an African-American I know all too well where this leads. First they demand you do something, because you always have to do what "they" say. When you refuse, they assert their superiority by calling you a name, to remind you (and them) how much better they really are. When that fails, they will force you do what they want, because they feel it is their right. And that's where the violence comes.

You can tell from their signs (scroll to the bottom of this article if you want to see what I mean).

I want the Tea-Party stopped before someone gets hurt, or worse.

"The objection to the health care bill has become a proxy for other sentiments..."

Wherein the Teabaggers go there. The complete TPM Report.

What this is really about...

TPM Reporter Brian Beutler witnessed a bunch of Tea-Party protesters calling Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) a "faggot".

And if that wasn't enough, I'm sure you can guess what they called Rep. John Lewis (D-GA)...not that he hasn't heard it before.

When logic and persuasion fails...

TPM is promising more on this as it comes.

TPM: Man Arrested For Counter-Protesting A Tea Party Without A Permit (VIDEO)

So Tea Partiers can bring assault weapons to the President's events...but when a guy (a black guy, might I add) protests the Tea Partiers...he gets arrested, and threatened with taser.

They accused him of not having a permit to demonstrate.

I'm sorry, but he can't speak out as an individual and call out these bastards? An individual, without plan or scheme, cannot get into the face of someone and shout them down? It may be ugly, but it's within his rights.

But of course, this is Georgia we're talking about, which is returning to its exhalted status as the racist backwater we've always known it to be. Mississippi, only spelled differently.

All Men equal under Law. Keep telling yourself that tale .

Bipartisanship at last...

Senator Jim Inhofe (D-OK) and Rep. Jim Marshall (D-GA) both haven't read the Health Care Bill, and both aren't voting for it.

CNN: "N---a David Scott" (VIDEO)

Again, where are the Conservatives (all of whom may have real, and honest problems with the Health Care Reform Bill) pushing back against this crap??? I hear drips and drabs, but nothing with any force. Too many seem content with letting this play out for political effect, where you can now this, this is becoming deadly serious.

Think Progress: Black Congressman has office vandalized (VIDEO)

Stories like this are coming in buckets:

At a contentious town hall meeting last week, Rep. David Scott (D-GA) shot back at the protesters who were disrupting his event by accusing them of “hijack[ing]” the gathering. Now, Scott’s district office in Smyrna, GA, has been vandalized with a four-foot swastika painted onto his door. Fox News reported that Capitol Hill police will likely be launching an investigation immediately.

One more reason to hate Hockey...

At some point, punishment ends. So, before we get all outraged about Michael Vick getting out of jail, please take a moment to remember the story of Altanta Thrashers Dany Heatley:

On September 29, 2003, Heatley was seriously injured after he lost control of the Ferrari 360 Modena he was driving. The car struck a wall, splitting the car in half and ejecting him and his passenger, teammate Dan Snyder. Heatley suffered a broken jaw, a minor concussion, a bruised lung, bruised kidney, and tore three ligaments in his right knee; Snyder was critically injured with a skull fracture and died six days later on October 5 of sepsis. Heatley was charged with vehicular homicide; he pleaded guilty to second-degree vehicular homicide, driving too fast for conditions, failure to maintain a lane, and speeding. He admitted to drinking some prior to the incident, but his blood-alcohol content was below the legal limit. He was sentenced to three years probation, and the judge required the court to approve Heatley's vehicle, which could not have more than six cylinders and would not surpass 70mph (112km/h). Heatley avoided having to go to trial as part of a plea deal that dropped the first-degree charge of vehicular homicide.

Because of injuries he suffered from the car accident, Heatley's next season started in January 2004 and he appeared in only 31 games. A disappointing season ended with an early elimination in the race for a playoff spot and 25 points. During the last part of the season, the Thrashers and the Atlanta community, including Snyder's family, were largely supportive of him.

Same town. Different crimes.

Dany Heatley...the white man who actually got another human being killed...is forgiven.

Michael Vick...the black man who killed dogs...is not.