Melissa Harris-Perry: Be ‘super careful’ when calling someone ‘hard worker’ because of slavery

Melissa Harris Perry MSNBC

I recently told a co-worker of mine that I never watch cable news outside of the office because the vast majority of on-air personalities care more about hearing their voices bounce around an ideological echo chamber than giving viewers honest intellectual discourse. It is much healthier to be alone with your own thoughts on a morning walk than to fill your head with partisan super-balls thrown out on cable news. Exhibit A: Melissa Harris-Perry’s bizarre lecture on race Monday night, which she somehow spun out of a guest calling Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan a “hard worker.”

The Washington Free Beacon reported Monday:

ALFONSO AGUILAR: But let’s be fair. If there’s somebody who is a hard worker when he goes to Washington, it’s Paul Ryan. Not only works with the Republicans but Democrats. You know very well that I work on [the] immigration issue, trying to get Republicans to support immigration reform. Paul Ryan is somebody who has supported immigration reform, has worked with somebody like Luis Gutierrez. Luis Gutierrez is very respectful, speaks highly of Paul Ryan. This is somebody who’s trying to govern.

MELISSA HARRIS-PERRY: Alfonso, I feel you. But I just want to pause on one thing. Because I don’t disagree with you that I actually think Mr. Ryan is a great choice for this role. But I want us to be super careful when we use the language “hard worker,” because I actually keep an image of folks working in cotton fields on my office wall, because it is a reminder about what hard work looks like.

One of the reasons why I generally don’t blog on individuals like Melissa Harris-Perry is because it is hard to shake the feeling that she is a very-troubled woman. It seems as though a mind would have to be particularly warped to take the phrase “hard worker” during a conversation on Paul Ryan’s job qualifications, and turn it into a finger-wagging lesson on U.S. slavery.

Guest panelist Mr. Aguilar looked generally confused at the host’s statements. His face said, “Is this happening? What the heck is going on right now? Why did I agree to be on this weird show?”
Alfonso Aguilar

It says something incredibly sad about our culture that a woman as ideologically rabid as Harris-Perry has a bully pulpit on a cable news network. Why would sane, “hard-working” Americans ever enter into politics when media personalities tasked with shaping public opinion are mostly clones of Harris-Perry? Answer: They wouldn’t.

The moral of the story here is this: Turn off your television. Read good books. Get outside and exercise. Spend time with family and friends. 

There are many rabbit holes of stupidity out there, but cable news shows possess large entrances. My suggestion is to glance inside from time to time, but resist the temptation to crawl inside. Once you fall headlong into an abyss of stupidity, it is hard to crawl out.

MSNBC race baits on Cheerios ads because they’re intellectual flakes

MSNBC Cheerios race bait

I’m a little late to the ball game as it pertains to MSNBC’s race-baiting Cheerios tweet. I’ve been busy at work and with some personal projects, so I wasn’t going to shoehorn a post in on my own biracial marriage because some angry person at a cable news network insinuated guys like me hate minorities.

Regardless, for those who are unfamiliar with the story, MSNBC gave a preview of a Cheerios ad featuring a biracial family. The cereal had a similar ad out last year and there were some racist comments left on YouTube. Shocker. Instead of acknowledging that billions of people have access to YouTube and that the lowest common denominator spends hours of their day trolling posts, MSNBC decided that taking another cheap shot at conservatives would be in their best interest.

One would think that the decision makers behind the scenes would learn; it was only a short time ago that one of their own hosts had to tearfully apologize on camera for cracking jokes at the expense of an adopted black child within the Romney family. Apparently not.

Perhaps MSNBC should stick to using minorities like Martin Bashir, who wished someone defecated down Sarah Palin’s throat, to attack conservatives. Oh, wait, that didn’t work out so well either.

Long story short, MSNBC backtracked. The tweet was deleted, the network apologized and the person responsible was allegedly fired — but the Internet is forever.


The response by conservatives was rather interesting. The hashtag “myrightwingracialfamily” was created, and MSNBC was bombarded by images of happy conservative biracial families. While there are plenty of pictures I’d like to share of my wife and I rocking out, I don’t need to. At least under these circumstances. The fact of the matter is that the MSNBC newsroom is filled with a bunch of people who are mean and bitter and angry.

I’ve said it before, but all one needs to do is fast-forward in time to see that the United States is going to be a browner country. America is so diverse that at some point in time it will be the mindset held by those at MSNBC that become irrelevant — not conservatism. One day, the vast majority of Americans will live in biracial families and they’ll wonder why previous generations could only see as far as the Cheerios in front of their faces. The race card will largely be off the table, but the debate over the size and scope of the federal government will remain. There will still be millions of Americans who yearn for economic and political freedom, individual liberties and a fidelity to the Constitution.

In the not too distant future most people will forget about the “Infamous MSNBC Cheerios Tweet of 2014,” but the impression of the network as just a bunch of intellectual flakes will remain.

How sad is it that James Brown had a better understanding of America during the 1960s than MSNBC does in 2014?

The news is dead and Ben Franklin is crying in heaven: MSNBC considers Bieber arrest ‘breaking news’


The news is dead. It’s officially dead — and we killed it. Date of expiration: Jan. 22, 2014.

MSNBC host Andrea Mitchell probably fancies herself a pretty smart woman. Maybe she is, but she also contributes to a culture that is more concerned with the self destruction of a pop star than the erosion of individual liberties she and her fellow Americans are experiencing. On Wednesday she interrupted former Congresswoman Jane Harman, D-Calif., while she was discussing the NSA overreach in order to cover the Miami arrest of Justin Bieber.

Congresswoman Harmen, let me interrupt you. Congresswoman, let me interrupt you just for a moment. We’ve got some breaking news out of Miami. Stand by if you will. Right now in Miami, Justin Bieber has been arrested on a number of charges. The judge is reading the charges, including resisted arrest and riding under the influence. He’s appearing now before the judge for his bond hearing. Let’s watch.

The Associated Press details what was so important that a conversation on NSA spying had to be cut short for:

MIAMI BEACH, Fla. — When he debuted five years ago, Justin Bieber was a mop-haired heartthrob, clean cut and charming. But a series of troubling incidents have put his innocent image at risk, and none more so than his arrest on DUI charges Thursday.

Police say they arrested a bleary-eyed Bieber — smelling of alcohol — after officers saw him drag-racing before dawn on a palm-lined residential street, his yellow Lamborghini traveling at nearly twice the speed limit.

The 19-year-old singer later admitted smoking marijuana, drinking and taking a prescription medication, police say. Unlike previous episodes, this arrest has him facing potential jail time.

Ben Franklin, if you can hear me, I’m sorry. We let you down. Hard.

Our Constitution is neither a self-actuating nor a self-correcting document. It requires the constant attention and devotion of all citizens. There is a story, often told, that upon exiting the Constitutional Convention Benjamin Franklin was approached by a group of citizens asking what sort of government the delegates had created. His answer was: “A republic, if you can keep it.”

Chris Matthews: I call conservatives a bunch of racists — with no proof — because I can

Chris Matthews

Chris Matthews is a sick man. He is ill, and it is for that reason I do not like to talk about him. Discussing Chris Matthews and his obsession with race at this point makes me feel like a jerk. It is not nice to pick on people with mental problems, but his commentary in the wake of the Obama administration’s IRS, Associated Press and Benghazi scandals illustrates the dangerous racial game he and his ideological allies are playing.

First, Matthews:

“The problem is there are people in this country, maybe ten percent, I don’t know what the number, maybe twenty percent on a bad day, who want this president to have an asterisk next to his name in the history books, that he really wasn’t president. … They can’t stand the idea that he’s president, and a piece of it is racism.It’s the sense that the white race must rule, that’s what racism is, and they can’t stand the idea that a man who’s not white is president. That is real, that sense of racial superiority and rule is in the hearts of some people in this country. Not all conservatives, not even all right-wingers, but it always comes through with this birther crap and these other references and somehow trying to erase ObamaCare, erase his record in history, and a big part of it is bought into by people like John Boehner, who’s not a bad guy, but he knows the only way he can talk to the hard right is talk their language, (Chris Matthews, MSNBC. May 15).

Where does Matthews get this 20% number? Since when is it okay to just pull numbers out of your butt and label 20% of the population a bunch of racists? And he’s not talking about “all conservatives” — just everyone who John Boehner talks to on “the hard right”? Translation: “My producers told me I shouldn’t flat-out call conservatives racists, so this is my half-hearted attempt to placate him.”

Now, the NAACP’s Julian Bond:

“I mean, here are a group of people who are admittedly racist, who are overtly political, who tried as best they can to harm President [Barack] Obama in every way they can … They are the Taliban wing of American politics and we all ought to be a little worried about them,” (Julian Bond, MSNBC. May 14, 2013).

Since when has the tea party “admitted” it was racist? It hasn’t. Ever. Because it’s not. Perhaps I should go on the radio tomorrow and talk about the time Julian Bond “admitted” to being a child molester — or not, because I don’t just make up things to hurt people out of thin air.

Do you remember the time Chris Matthews was called out by a Winston Churchill scholar for misquoting the famous Prime Minister, and Matthews’ response was to say: “How can you prove someone never said something?” I do. So I will now take this time to ask the following question: How can Chris Matthews call conservatives racists when it is a well known fact that he once said he only voted for President Obama’s white half? How can Chris Matthews call conservatives racists when he once told a reporter at a Center for American Progress event that 15% of all Democrats are still proud of LBJ’s segregationist past?

See how that works, Chris? See how despicable it is to make up racial lies and slime individuals or whole groups?

I am generally a patient man and I am slow to anger. I do not hate anyone because life is short and I have no desire to fill my heart with such a toxic emotion. With that said, when Chris Matthews, Julian Bond and others like them go on television and say that I oppose President Obama because of some weird desire for “racial superiority,” it tests my patience and it tests my ability to filter my untreated emotions into something pure.

By putting out such hateful ideas into the world, Chris Matthews creates the very animosity he claims to abhor. How does the man with little patience who is quick to anger respond to Chris Matthews? My guess is that when Matthews and Julian Bond liken white people to the Taliban, they actually end up creating a few racists in the process. If you beat someone over the head with accusations of racism — no matter how long and how hard they protest the lies — at some point they will unconsciously say: “You want a racist? I’ll give you a racist,” and the hate will begin flowing through their veins. And when that happens, a chain of events will occur that will only end badly for all parties involved.

I hope Chris Matthews gets the help he needs. I truly do. But at the same time, the world should know that in the mean time he is poisoning the intellectual well for his community of viewers. Ideas are not always the sole propriety of the individual. They can be shared. And so, the first question Mr. Matthews should ask himself when he finally gets better should be: “How many people did I contaminate and how can I make it right?” He has a lot of work to do and not much time to finish it in.

MSNBC’s ‘Political Playground’ belongs in a ‘Simpsons’ Treehouse of Horrors special

MSNBC's 'Political Playground' is better suited for a Simpsons 'Tree House of Horrors' Halloween special.
MSNBC’s ‘Political Playground’ is better suited for a ‘Simpsons’ ‘Treehouse of Horrors’ Halloween special. Although, the way Krystal Balll exploits her own child on television for a national audience might be too sick for devil Ned Flanders to handle.

Since I don’t own a television, you’ll have to forgive me if I seldom watch any of MSNBC’s ‘The Cycle,’ which features a segment called ‘Political Playground.’ Now that I am familiar with it, it’s actually something I’d expect to see in a Simpsons Tree House of Horrors Halloween special. And, in truth, when I do watch MSNBC at work, I usually catch Reverend Al Sharpton later in the day. I’m routinely fascinated by his ability to keep a show when almost every single guest he brings into the studio (except Meghan McCain) is intellectually out of his league.

Take a second to digest for a moment a major cable news channel that brings children in for regular segments, at which point they are asked a series of leading questions until they arrive at a place where they can parrot the public policy preferences of its target audience. MSNBC’s Krystal Ball plays the prosecuting attorney, who will do whatever she needs to do to get her star pupil — her daughter — to stand up for the liberal cause de rigueur. On MSNBC, pimping out your political pawn-child on national television is seen as ratings gold.

The following is a partial transcript of the piece. I have cut out a portion where Krystal Ball talks about not being able to marry trees and cars.

Krystal Ball: So Ella, this week a lot of people have been talking about marriage and I was wondering if you can tell us: What is marriage?

Ella: I don’t know.

Krystal Ball: You don’t know what marriage is?

Ella: (awkward pause)

Krystal Ball: What does it mean if you get married?

Ella: Uh, it means that you live together.

Krystal Ball: It means that you live together. And who can you marry? Can you marry like, a car? No? Who can you get married to?

Ella: Um, a person.

Krystal Ball: A person. What kind of person?

Ella: Like a person who doesn’t have a wife or a husband.

Krystal Ball: Uh-huh. And what makes a person decide if they want to get married?

Ella: Like they get in love with each other.

Krystal Ball: They get in love with each other? How does someone get in love with each other?

Ella: Well they talk and stuff and they say: “Hmm. I’m in love with you.” …

Krystal Ball: (Awkward pause) What if you were in love … with a girl? Could you marry a girl?

Ella: Only here could I marry a girl.

Krystal Ball: Here in New York you can marry a girl?

Ella: Mmm-hmm. Because girls can marry girls and boys can marry boys in New York. And a girl can marry a boy in New York, too.

Krystal Ball: And that’s good because you want people to be able to marry people they’re in love with, right?

Ella: Yeah.

Krystal Ball: Well, how come other places a girl can’t marry a girl?

Ella: I don’t know.

Krystal Ball: That seems strange, right?

Ella: I don’t know.

Krystal Ball: That’s strange right?

Ella: Tell me.

Krystal Ball: some other places haven’t decided yet that you should be able to, if you’re a girl, marry another girl. They should change that, shouldn’t they?

Ella: Yeah.

Krystal: Yeah.

Ella: That’s crazy!

Krystal: It’s crazy because people should be able to marry who they love, right?

Ella: Yeah.

Krystal: Yeah, I think so, too.

What kind of warped person would exploit their own child in such a manner for political purposes? Should Fox News start segments where Steve Doocey brings children to gun ranges? (Please God, no!) Should Sean Hannity “Hannitize” a pre-schooler into saying the U.S. should preemptively strike North Korea?

I’ll tell you who would do such a thing: people who believe that kids belong not to their parents, but to “the community.” A woman like MSNBC’s Melissa Harris-Perry (aka: Melissa — Did I tell  you I was sorta-kinda a Communist? — Harris-Perry):

“We have never invested in public education as much as we should have, because we’ve always had kind of a private notion of children. Your kid is yours, and totally your responsibility. We haven’t had a very collective notion of “These are our children”; so part of it is that we have to break through our kind of private idea that kids belong to their parents, or kids belong to their families, and recognize that kids belong to whole communities. Once it’s everybody’s responsibility and not just the household’s, then we start making better investments,” (Melissa Harris-Perry, MSNBC promotional video).

And yes, this is the same Melissa Harris-Perry who refers to unborn babies as “things.”

At MSNBC, it seems only logical that an organization that employs people who see children as “things” would also hire someone who would exploit her own “thing” for hundreds of thousands of television viewers.

Remember the Chili Peppers’ “Throw Away Your Television”? I do. They were right on that one. Do it. You’ll thank me later.

Touré thanks God for abortion; viewers thank God they’re not Touré


If you ever wondered why Touré is perpetually angry, the answer is now rather apparent: Pro-life individuals remind him about the the time he allowed his unborn son to be murdered.

Think that’s a bit harsh? Not really. I’m simply extrapolating the obvious based on commentary provided by … Touré, who “thanks God” for abortion. Cute, in a monstrously-cute kind of way.

This week brought us the 40th anniversary of Roe v Wade. It made me reflect on a moment from about 15 years ago, when I was in a committed relationship with a woman who I knew was just not the one. She also knew it probably wasn’t going to work out. And then she got pregnant. And I was terrified. … I knew that pregnant woman and I were not going to be able to form a lasting family. She decided it was best to have an abortion and days later she did. We did. And in some ways that choice saved my life. I only would have contributed to making a mess of three lives.

Years after that I met another woman, married her, and after we decided to get pregnant I went to her doctor’s appointments — our doctors’ appointments — with joy. It was a thrill to watch that boy grow inside her, but I must admit that during that second trimester as we watched him move around on 3D sonograms I saw how human they are at that stage and my lifelong belief in abortion rights was, let’s say, jostled. It was life colliding with belief system. I had to rethink my position, but in the end I remain committed to being pro-choice because I cannot imagine arguing against a woman’s right to control her body and thus her life. …

Yes, there is a reasonable and unsolvable medical debate about when exactly life begins, but I find something undeniably misogynist about the impulse to deny a woman’s dominion over her own body and limit her ability to shape her life and impose another sense of morality on her. …

I want abortion to be legal, safe and rare. … I thank God and country that when I fell into a bad situation, abortion was there to save me and keep me on a path to building the strong family I have now, and I pray that safety net remains in place.

Let us deconstruct Touré’s Herculean effort at self-delusion.

  • Touré’s girlfriend has an abortion.
  • The abortion “saved” him.
  • He “knows” it would not have worked out. False: He does not know that. He can not know that. Nobody, except God, knows how having that child would have changed him. He makes the assertion because doing so serves as a psychological salve for the grim reality he and his girlfriend created.
  • Years later he had a child and “saw how human” it was months into his wife’s pregnancy.
  • Touré’s belief in abortion was “jostled” — again, because he saw “how human” his unborn son was.
  • Touré concludes he is still pro-choice because a woman should have dominion over “her body.” False premise: If there is a human being alive in her body, it is not just her body. If the unborn child is human — and Touré seems to acknowledge that it is — then whether the dependent child exists inside or outside the womb is irrelevant as it pertains to the mother’s responsibility to defend that child’s right to life.
  • Touré believes it is misogynistic to “impose … a sense of morality” on a woman. False: Laws impose morality on us every day. Is Touré in favor of legalizing all drugs? If not, then perhaps I find it misogynistic that he would tell a woman what she can do with her body.

I originally wasn’t going to even write this post, but someone needs to point out how sad it is that Touré’s only claim to fame is saying something he hopes is “outrageous” enough to get conservatives to call for a weird boycott of his network, or to get him fired, or to respond in a way that feeds into his preconceived notions about the right.

This is how it works in MSNBC world: Conservatives who want lower taxes and limited government are “extreme,” but the guy who thanks God for abortion considers himself to be a “reasonable” guy. Stay tuned to MSNBC, because next week Touré plans to thank God for murder since it reduces the carbon footprint humans have on the environment.

With that said, let me make something clear: my problem in this instance is not that Touré helped his girlfriend have an abortion years ago. My problem is that instead of praying for God’s forgiveness, he’s such a narcissistic clown that he rhetorically makes abortion a gift from God.

I’ve made a lot of mistakes in my life. A lot. But I don’t go around advertising them for all the world to see, and I definitely don’t go around warping them into soapbox speeches for my conservatism. Instead, I humble myself before God, ask for forgiveness, and pray for the time to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that my words are contrite. And tonight, I’ll pray for Touré.

Using Chris Matthews’ own logic, he is now a racist

Chris Matthews

I feel sorry for Chris Matthews. Years from now conservatives will cite the most infamous of all Chris Matthews quotes to drag what is left of his reputation through the mud. It will be ugly. And to think that he allowed himself to be overheard in Dupont Circle saying:

“Yes, I admit it: I, Chris Matthews, hate black people — but most Americans don’t know it because those feelings are surpassed by my burning contempt for Republicans.”

Want proof that he said it? Conservatives don’t need to give proof because Chris Matthews’ own logic dictates that misquotes are not misquotes. Don’t believe me? I do have proof of that:

Winston Churchill had so many sayings misattributed to him that one academic gave the phenomenon a name: “Churchillian drift.” Richard Langworth, editor of “Finest Hour,” a journal published by the Churchill Centre, an international organization dedicated to promoting scholarship and appreciation of the late British prime minister, says he constantly fields questions about Churchill quotes from speechwriters, students and Churchill fans — but “not so much professors, who think they know everything.” …

Mr. Langworth says Chris Matthews, a fellow Churchill Centre board member and host of MSNBC’s “Hardball,” has misquoted Churchill. Last year Mr. Matthews made a promotional ad for MSNBC in which he recounted Churchill being told during World War II that he should cut government funding for the arts.

“Then what are we fighting for?” Churchill replied, according to Mr. Matthews.

Mr. Langworth says Churchill never said it, though many over the years have used what Mr. Langworth calls “this famous ‘red herring’ nonquote.”

Mr. Matthews, a self-described “Churchill nut,” insists he hasn’t misquoted his hero, but adds, “How can you prove someone never said something?”

Telling, isn’t it? If you ever wondered why Chris Matthews is such a fan of making accusations of racism, look no further. A man who believes he should be able to misquote historical figures in the pursuit of his vision for the world is the kind of man who would have no problem making up malevolent motivations for his political opponents. If the world all thought like Matthews, over time we could turn Reagan into a liberal; we could make Ghandi a warmonger; and we could turn Judas into loyal guy. For Matthews, it isn’t about the accuracy of the information — it’s about having the correct people (i.e., those who agree with Chris Matthews) controlling the information.

Imagine if you woke up tomorrow, you were on trial for your life, and clones of Chris Matthews happened to fill the roles of the prosecuting attorney, the judge and the jury?

Chris Matthews (Prosecutor): “Tell us about the circumstances on the night you killed your wife and admitted it to Officer Matthews during an interrogation?”
YOU: I never said that.
Chris Matthews (Prosecutor): “Can you PROVE you never said that?”
YOU: I never said that.
Chris Matthews (Officer): He did, your honor.
YOU: I NEVER said that! Am I in the Twilight Zone?
Chris Matthews (Jury): Guilty! Crucify him! Crucify him!
Chris Matthews (Judge): Guilty. The sentence is death — by Chris Matthews firing squad, to be held at sundown. If you do not have any last words, some will be made up for you in time.

Charges of racism are the ultimate trump card, even if they are the hallmark of the intellectually bankrupt. There is no way to prove someone isn’t a racist because there is no way to look into the heart and soul. To Chris Matthews, truth and accuracy don’t matter because in his mind accomplishing a “goal” (e.g., discrediting opponents) is bigger than the lie. What’s wrong with fudging the facts, lying or outright inventing “evidence” if it forwards the vision of the anointed?

Conservatives are in a tough position. For instance, such a mindset allows Chris Matthews, Al Sharpton and others to say with a straight face that John McCain’s concerns about Ambassador Susan Rice have racist roots, despite the fact that McCain’s adopted daughter is from Bangladesh. How do you debate an opponent who is willing to say and do anything to destroy your character? Perception is often reality, which isn’t necessarily a bad thing if you have intellectually-honest brokers trying to describe reality. It all falls apart when you have one guy who says: “How can you prove someone never said something?”

To quote Chris Matthews: “Liberals are a rotten bunch, but sometimes you can still make a mean cider out of sour apples.”

Now go make some cider, conservatives.

Big Government hooks human gerbils on shiny pellets

Barry Goldwater warned us that Welfarism would turn “dignified, industrious, self-reliant spiritual beings” into animals. We didn’t listen, and now we have a nation filled with human gerbils looking for a government pellet every four years.

I went out to dinner with a Hispanic friend of mine two weeks ago and we were discussing the upcoming election. He’s well on his way to starting his first small business, and has had a conversion-of-sorts since voting for President Obama four years ago. As I dug into my steak, he spoke about the Republican Party’s inability to make significant inroads with certain minority groups. My response: “On some level it doesn’t matter, because if we fast forward 300 years it’s obvious that the future of the United States is not white. At some point in time these groups will be forced to embrace or shun the principles that maximize individual freedom.”

My children will not be white. My sister’s children will not be white. The U.S. demographics as they stand indicate that at some point there will simply be, for all intents and purposes, Americans. We are a nation of mutts, and in time terms like “white” and “black” will generally be rendered silly. And so, intelligent conservatives only care about a few basic questions: What will the Americans of the future believe? What will they stand for? Will Americans hold fast to the principles of our founders, or will they be citizens of a United States in name only?

‘Obama Phone’ lady is the latest example of a human gerbil, who is promised a shiny government pellet every four years in exchange for a trick (i.e., voting for the hand that feeds her). She is the end result of a failed ideology. Liberal blogs have of course tried to slime anyone who shows the video as racist, when the truth is that conservatives do not care about race. In fact, political correctness has reached a point where not caring about someone’s race is considered racist.

I care about a federal government that saps the will of its people. I care about a federal government that robs people of ambition and desire and the belief that they can do great things with their life. I care about the consequences of instilling in individuals a learned dependence that changes them from beings with limitless potential into hollowed-out husks that bump into each other for a few decades until death comes calling.

As Barry Goldwater so eloquently put it in The Conscious of a Conservative:

Consider the consequences to the recipient of welfarism. For one thing, he mortgages himself to the federal government. In return for benefits — which, in the majority of cases, he pays for — he concedes to the government the ultimate in political power — the power to grant or withhold from him the necessities of life as the government sees fit. Even more important, however, is the effect on him — the elimination of any feeling of responsibility for his own welfare and that of his family and neighbors. A man may not immediately, or ever, comprehend the harm thus done to his character. Indeed, this is one of the great evils of Welfarism — that it transforms the individual from a dignified, industrious, self-reliant spiritual being into a dependent animal creature without his knowing it. …

[We] can shatter the collectivists’ designs on individual freedom if we will impress upon the men who conduct our affairs this one truth: that the material and spiritual sides of man are intertwined; that it is impossible for the State to assume responsibility for one without intruding on the essential nature of the other; that if we take from a man the personal responsibility for caring for his material needs, we take from him also the will and the opportunity to be free.

Conservatives should work hard to articulate the principles of free markets, limited government, and individual freedom, but they should never comprise those principles by offering ethnic groups “goodies” for a vote. MSNBC hosts who feed on racial swill like to say that Republicans live in an “alternate reality,” when nothing could be further from the truth. Tyranny is colorblind, whether it’s in Stalin’s Soviet Union or Mao’s China. Only myopic little nitwits with names like Toure or Chris Matthews see serious public policy differences as a battle between “black” and “white”. The issue is Liberty vs. Tyranny, and conservatives are not the ones who are shilling for the tyrants.

My good friend, who has come to reject Obama’s ideology since 2008, is not alone. There are many like him. As election day nears, it’s up to you to find those friends and family members who fall into that category, and make a strong case for conservatism. If you’re pressed for time, I highly suggest reading Goldwater’s The Conscious of a Conservative. It’s a quick read, and essential knowledge for anyone who wants to better articulate their love for freedom and liberty.

Now get out there and change some minds.

Sharpton’s Politics Nation: Where you’re a racist, but Tawana Brawley isn’t mentioned

I’m Al Sharpton, and this is Politics Nation, where no one will ever mention the time I ruined a man’s career by accusing him of raping a black woman and smearing feces on her face when, in reality, it was all just a hoax.

If you ever wondered where the lost and confused Obama voters from Howard Stern’s instant-classic election interview go on the rare occasions they need news, look no further than Al Sharpton’s Politics Nation. If you haven’t seen it, check it out. Then, the next time you’re upset at your mom or dad, son or daughter and think, “How could they be so stupid?” think back to Sharpton’s show and you’ll remember just how much you have to be thankful for.

Take, for instance, the Rev’s interview with Joe Madison, of Mornings with Madison. Sharpton asks why Newt Gingrich would call President Obama a “false president,” as if those bastions of conservatism,  CNN and NBC, weren’t mocking Mr. Obama for sitting down on quaint couches with the ladies of The View while Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was at the big boys’ table. Instead of attributing Newt’s criticism of Obama to the Las Vegas fundraisers the day after an American diplomat was murdered overseas and al Qaeda flags were going up at embassies across the Mideast, Mr. Madison sees — wait for it — racism! But not just any racism — we’re talking about “coded-outright racism.”

For the younger generation, when you hear ‘lazy,’ you know that’s the kind of code word they would say about African Americans in the 60’s and 50’s and the decades before. This is more than outright racism. … This generation isn’t falling for it. … [Republicans are] the neanderthals. They’re the ones whose children are sitting there looking at them and wondering, “What cave did you come from?””

Republicans speak in “code,” but it’s also “outright.” No one can hear it, except that everyone hears it. So, in essence, they’re not speaking in code, but they’re really cavemen. And it’s so bad that their kids silently loath them. Bravo, Joe. Bravo. Or should I call you Dr. Watson?

Here’s some more code for you, Joe: You’re an idiot. Oh, wait … that wasn’t code. I really just mean that you’re an idiot.

Remember when Al Sharpton accused cops and a prosecutor of raping Tawana Brawley before smearing feces on her, but it turned out to be a hoax? Remember when Al was successfully sued for slander? I do. Remember when it could be argued that Al Sharpton really did speak in “code,” when he referred to “diamond merchants” after a 1991 tragedy — and then things got out of hand (and by out of hand I mean a man was murdered)? I remember that.

A Hasidic Jewish driver in Brooklyn’s Crown Heights section accidentally kills Gavin Cato, a 7-year-old black child, and antisemitic riots erupt. Sharpton races to pour gasoline on the fire. At Gavin’s funeral he rails against the “diamond merchants” — code for Jews — with “the blood of innocent babies” on their hands. He mobilizes hundreds of demonstrators to march through the Jewish neighborhood, chanting, “No justice, no peace.” A rabbinical student, Yankel Rosenbaum, is surrounded by a mob shouting “Kill the Jews!” and stabbed to death.

As Ned Flanders would say: “Whoopsie-Doodle.”

Is it “coded-outright racism” when I ask why President Obama has time to schedule in a meeting with “The Pimp with the Limp,” but not the Prime Minister of Israel? Is it racist if I wonder why President Obama  can make time for David “I cheat on my wife in adultery dens above the CBS studios” Letterman, but not the guys who want to give him a morning intelligence briefing — in person? Is it racist to wonder why President Obama was able to make a fundraiser with Jay-Z and Beyonce happen, but he couldn’t hammer out a Status of Forces Agreement with Iraq? (Meanwhile, Syria spins out of control, and Iraq turns to Iran to fill their security needs in the absence of U.S. troops.)

Is the New York Times racist because, for all intents and purposes, they’ve exposed the guy who won a Nobel Peace Prize for, umm, not being George W. Bush, as the one who sat back and “led from behind” as the Mideast melted down?

The civil war in Syria is testing Iraq’s fragile society and fledgling democracy, worsening sectarian tensions, pushing Iraq closer to Iran and highlighting security shortcomings just nine months after American forces ended their long and costly occupation here.

There are so many substantive issues that critics of the President are talking about, but MSNBC hosts and their guests do the equivalent of sticking their fingers in their ears while screaming racism because in any honest debate President Obama comes out battered and bloodied. (Is that “code” too, Joe?) Every question on MSNBC is some variation of the question, “How dumb is Mitt Romney?” and the answer is always, “Really dumb.” And then everyone chortles like Martin Bashir and the cycle starts all over again.

Newsflash: I can give you 16 trillion reasons not to vote for the president, and not one of them pertains to the color of his skin.

Good luck with the “coded-outright racism” pitch, Joe. It sounds like a real winner. I’m sure the Rev will give you a lot more chances to trot it out between now and election day. Just don’t get on his bad side; he might accuse you of wiping feces on a teenager.

“Did I just say that Republicans speak in “code” while being “outright” racists? Perhaps I meant to say that they are “subconsciously-consciously” racist? I’m so confused … and yet now I’m wondering: If a Republican calls me “confused,” what is THAT code for? I need to get race off my mind. I really do.”

Leading from behind: Obama in back seat as drunken jihad-clowns drive Middle East

Has anyone heard President Obama answer the question: “Why didn’t Ambassador Chris Stevens have security in an unstable, Islamic country on, umm, you know, 9/11 of all days?” No? Neither have I. That’s because no one asked. Note: The Commander in Chief is sending in Marines now.

September 11th, 2012 was another rough one for the United States. The U.S. Embassy in Egypt was stormed, culminating in a shredded American flag that was replaced with an al Qaeda substitute. Four Americans are dead, including U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens after Islamists attacked an American consulate in Libya. Oddly enough, no one is asking the Obama administration how all this might connect to the “lead from behind” strategy it has employed since 2008, or how U.S. diplomats in Libya could go unprotected until after one of them dies. Regardless, I’d like to focus on a bizarre statement from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton:

“How can this happen in a country we helped liberate, in a city [Benghazi] we helped save from destruction?”

On September 11th — of all the days — a bunch of Islamic whack jobs attack American interests abroad and Clinton’s response is to talk about how how “confounding the world can be.” It’s not confounding at all. The problem is, liberals have refused to accurately define who we’re up against. They’ve been in a state of denial for over a decade, and no amount a decapitated heads, blown up bodies, IEDs, kidnappings, hijackings or fatwas seem to alter their analysis of the situation.

Take today’s news coverage, for instance. How many times have you heard a pundit describe “a Muslim film” as the catalyst for the violence in Egypt and Libya? Since I’m kindly paid by my employer to watch the news, I’ll give you the short answer: A lot. And the fact of the matter is, this had nothing to do with a stupid Youtube video some guy made that “insulted” Islam.

Any culture that churns out “holy warriors” to fight over cartoons, movies, speeches or random remarks in a country of 400 million people, is an unhealthy one. And yet, idiots at MSNBC like Mike Barnicle and Donny Deutsch want to prosecute Americans for engaging in free speech. Got that? Liberals on MSNBC want to you to bow down to the demands of Sharia Law fanatics. If you make a YouTube video that sets off jihadi head choppers, MSNBC panelists want you to be tried “before or after the fact.” It’s scary to think that there are Americans with MSNBC-sized megaphones who go around shilling for Sharia Law tyrants in the Middle East.

President Obama wanted to “lead from behind.” The only problem with that is, he climbed into the back seat of the car and left the guys who were drunk on jihad or genocide behind the wheel. If we had reporters who did their job, they’d be asking him tough questions about a Middle East that is spinning out of control (faster than usual). Instead, they’re focused on grilling Mitt Romney over his defense of free speech.

When radical Islamists went nuts, members of the U.S. Embassy in Cairo thought it would be a good idea to take to Twitter and apologize for hurting their feelings. Mitt Romney thought that was dumb and dangerous. So do sane Americans.