1) ACORN: Breibart’s Web site was the central agency for disseminating videos that were later shown to have been heavily edited in order to convey a fictional scenario smearing a social service organization that had for years been assisting low-income citizens with financial advice and voter registration. Every investigation of the affair exonerated ACORN and affirmed the videos’ deception. Breitbart’s henchman, James O’Keefe, is being sued by former ACORN employee Juan Carlos Vera.

2) Shirley Sherrod: In this episode, Breitbart was responsible for slandering a USDA employee by calling her a racist. Lately he has been defending himself by saying that he had included the “redemptive arc” of her story revealing her innocence. But let’s not forget how he originally portrayed the situation:

“In her meandering speech to what appears to be an all-black audience, this federally appointed executive bureaucrat lays out in stark detail, that her federal duties are managed through the prism of race and class distinctions. [...] In the first video, Sherrod describes how she racially discriminates against a white farmer.”

That is a pretty clear accusation of discriminatory behavior on the part of a federal employee. It is also a lie. Sherrod did not discriminate against the farmer, as Breitbart later acknowledged, and the story she told was about an incident that occurred 20 years before she held a federal post. Nevertheless, Breitbart’s reaction at the time was another demonstration of his paranoid narcissism, as he whined, “As difficult as it probably was for her, it’s been difficult for me as well.” Poor guy. Sherrod is suing Breitbart.

3) Clinton Plotting a Tea Party Attack: Breitbart published a story with no evidence, about an alleged conspiracy that never came to pass:

“Big Government has learned that Clintonistas are plotting a ‘push/pull’ strategy. They plan to identify 7-8 national figures active in the tea party movement and engage in deep opposition research on them. If possible, they will identify one or two they can perhaps ‘turn’, either with money or threats, to create a mole in the movement. The others will be subjected to a full-on smear campaign.”

Also never coming to pass…a retraction. This story bubbled up through the media like much of Breitbart’s fiction, eventually getting coverage from Fox Nation.

4) Jason Mattera’s Punking of Grayson and Franken: Jason Mattera, who later became editor of Human Events, was employed to run a couple of “ambush” interviews that were posted on Breitbart’s Web site. One interview targeted Rep. Alan Grayson and castigated him for his support of a bill that funded a program to prevent child abuse. The other interview was directed at Sen. Al Franken, who was attacked for supporting student health and school safety. In both cases Mattera twisted the purpose of the legislation into something unrecognizable and patently false. Expect more of this, because as Breitbart says in his book, Righteous Indignation, “Ambush journalism is the most valuable kind of journalism.”

5) University of Missouri Labor Class: In another phony video sting, Breitbart published a video of the proceedings of a class on the history of labor at the University of Missouri at Kansas City. As usual, the video was a deceitful mashup that misrepresented the professors and students as supporting violent labor activity. The twist here is that it was Breitbart’s one-time friend Glenn Beck who published an accounting of the video deception and vindicated the professors. As a bonus intrigue, the party who gave Breitbart the UM video is identified only as Insurgent Visuals. That, however, may be a ruse to disguise Breitbart’s long-time partner in crime, James O’Keefe.

6) Beck’s Back Alley Snitch: Speaking of Glenn Beck, in happier times when the two weren’t feuding, Breibart was the source for numerous Beck offensives. He provided Beck with scandalous material on Van Jones who, at the time, was a White House adviser on environmental initiatives. Beck lauded Breitbart, saying…

“You know where the great journalists of our time are? Andrew Breitbart. [...] You were the only one, besides watchdogs, that were really aggressively working behind the scenes with us on Van Jones.”

The same thing occurred with Yosi Sergant, communications director for the National Endowment for the Arts. Breitbart went after him and provided the data to Beck, who said…

“This is again another Breitbart story, where the NEA communications director reached out and said, hey, listen, we have to be very careful with our language here.”

In both cases the information provided by Breitbart was vague and/or untrue, but both Jones and Sergant were jettisoned — just as Sherrod was — by a nervous White House for violations that were either false or greatly exaggerated.

7) Democrats Plotted to Blame Tea Party for Slaughter: Breitbart’s site featured an article making the sensationalist claim that Democrats devised a plan to blame the Tea Party for the tragic shooting in Tucson, AZ. The allegation consisted of a single, unidentified source who merely offered his own opinion that the massacre could be pinned on Tea Partiers. There was no allegation of a conspiracy or even of any discussions of such a plan by anyone connected to the Democratic Party. But that didn’t stop Breitbart from posting the story with an irresponsibly provocative headline.

The Abbie Boudreau Affair: In one of the most bizarre adventures by the James O’Keefe gang, they set out to lure CNN reporter Abbie Boudreau into a floating love nest to embarrass her in some manner that was never really explained. While Breitbart did not act as the agent for this prank, he did provide a platform for O’Keefe to publish his defense after having been outed by an accomplice. O’Keefe managed to take a situation in which he appeared to be a revolting pervert and make it worse by saying about Boudreau…

“She would have had to consent before being filmed and she was not going to be faux ‘seduced’ unless she wanted to be.”

Considering the fact that he never sought the consent of his previous video victims, why should we accept his assertion that he was going to start seeking consent now? Even more troubling is his implication that his intended victim “wanted” it. O’Keefe is resorting to the disgusting defense that rapists offer about their victims. And Breitbart permitted this to be published on his site.

9) GEICO Gecko – Tea Party Crasher? Breitbart’s Big Government blog posted a mind-numbingly stupid article that accused Ricky Gervais, the actor/comedian and voice of the GEICO gecko, of disparaging the Tea Party in a profanity-laced voice-mail. The only problem is that Gervais had nothing to do with it. It was an actor (D.C. Douglas) who worked for GEICO a couple of years prior. But it wasn’t enough to smear Gervais with insinuations, Breitbart also posted a picture of the gecko atop a table adorned with a poster of President Obama sporting a Hitler mustache. What that had to do with the story is anyone’s guess. It just appeared to be a gratuitous slap at the president while falsely slandering Gervais.

10) Racism: Breitbart is obsessed with the theme of racism. He is convinced the charge is thrown around cavalierly, and mostly to insult Tea Partiers and himself. He embarked on a campaign to prove that congressman and civil rights hero John Lewis was lying when he said he had been the victim of racial epithets when attending a congressional rally.  Breitbart regards the Shirley Sherrod incident as an example of the racism demonstrated by the NAACP. But when discussing allegations of his own prejudice, Breitbart said this to radio host Adam Carolla:

“Can I prove that I’m not a racist toward Hispanics? Did you ever see Moscow on the Hudson? Remember Maria Conchita Alonso in that? The things I did to myself as a teenager prove that I’m not a racist.”

So Breitbart’s proof that he is not a racist is that he used to masturbate to pictures of a Latino actress. Breitbart’s repulsive pride in his perverse view of racial open-mindedness tells us much about him. And he is certainly in no position to assess the veracity of people like John Lewis.

This should be a good starting point for the press in case they ever get the chance again to respond to Breitbart’s call for evidence of his dishonesty and low character. Here’s hoping the press is listening and that no one presumes to use the Weiner affair to rehabilitate Breitbart’s reputation. Just because Breitbart lucked into being correct (the way a broken clock is right at least once a day) doesn’t mean that his long-established pattern of deception should be dismissed. Just because Charles Manson didn’t kill Marilyn Monroe doesn’t mean that he’s innocent of every other crime attributed to him.

Breitbart deserves no accolades over this, and he still owes the many people he deliberately harmed an apology. Weiner, at least, was man enough to own up to his mistakes, eventually.

Mark Howard is an artist, author and the publisher of News Corpse. His political and socially disruptive artwork has been displayed internationally.

The Eight Reasons Written by Dr. Art Kamm

1.  The Key Objective of Tax Cut Policy, Stimulating US Capital Investment, Failed

Tax cuts, largely favoring the wealthiest in the nation who have high saving rates, were supposed to increase US capital investment that in turn would stimulate the economy.  This simply failed.  US capital investment in the decade following the Bush tax cuts was by far the weakest in the post WWII era (ref) (ref).  Additionally, the 1990′s, where supply-side tax cut policy was reversed (taxes were raised on taxable income above $250,000), experienced more than a 3-fold greater growth in US capital investment than did either of the supply-side tax cut periods under the Reagan/GHW Bush and GW Bush administrations (ref);  the authors concluded that without better investment growth being associated with supply-side tax cut policy it is difficult to draw any plausible connection between tax cut policy and any observed positive economic performance during the periods this policy was in place.

2.  Supply-Side Tax Cut Policy Has Been Ineffective in Stimulating US Jobs Growth

Median job growth (total non-farm payroll employment) since 1977 from the five complete Republican presidential terms where supply-side tax cut policy was in place versus the 3 complete Democratic presidential terms that utilized progressive tax rate policy was 2.6 million/term (0.0-10.8) versus 11.2 million/term (10.3-11.5), respectively (ref) (ref).  Jobs creation during the GW Bush years where tax cut policy was in place was the lowest since the presidency of Hoover (ref).  Additionally, time to sustained jobs growth following recessions where supply-side tax cut policy was in place was prolonged – 12 months (the 1990-1991 recession) and 22 months following the March – November 2001 recession).  In comparison, time to sustained jobs growth after the current Great Recession was 6 months following passage of the stimulus legislation (ref).

3.  Supply-Side Tax Cut Policy Offered No Advantage over Progressive Tax Rate Policy in Growing Our Economy

Overall, our Gross Domestic Product (the standard measure of our economy) experienced greater growth during progressive tax rate periods than supply-side tax cut periods from 1978-2005, 12.6% vs 10.7%, respectively.  Ranking the presidencies having the strongest to weakest GDP growth during that period: Clinton, followed by Reagan, followed by Carter, followed by GW Bush, followed by GHW Bush (ref).  These data argue that there was no advantage associated with supply-side tax cut policy versus progressive tax rate policy in growing the US economy.

4.  Supply-Side Tax Cut Policy Has Consistently Been Associated With Large Federal Deficits

Between 1977-2008, when expressed as a fraction of our economy, all 5 Republican presidential terms where supply-side tax cut policy was in place experienced substantial increases in gross federal debt;  all 3 Democratic presidential terms where progressive tax rate policy was in place experienced a reduction in debt (ref) (ref).  In 1980 our gross federal debt stood at less than $1 Trillion ($909 Billion); by the end of 2009, the last year of the GW Bush budgets, our gross federal debt stood at $12.3 Trillion (ref).  Although conservative politicians argue that the debt increase during the GW Bush presidency was the result a spending problem in Washington, CBO data showed that the tax cuts played a much larger role than domestic spending increases in fueling the deficits (ref).

5.  Tax Cut Policy Favoring the Wealthiest is an Unreliable Way to Stimulate the US Economy

Investors will invest where the return is the greatest – thus the inherent weakness in providing large tax cuts to the wealthiest to grow our economy.  The US participates in a global economy and many factors can influence where investment capital is placed.   As noted above, US capital investment in the decade following the Bush tax cuts was the lowest in the post WWII era (ref).  However, during this same period, there were record flows to high growth emerging market debt and equity funds.  In short, investment capital leaked out of the US into emerging foreign markets.  What is problematic about this point is that the tax cuts were the largest single contributor of the record deficits during the GW Bush years (ref).  We essentially drove up our national debt by borrowing heavily from China, for example, to support tax cuts intended to grow the US economy, that instead got invested back into China while business investment and employment lagged in the US – and the debt for this activity is being passed to our future generations.

6.  Supply-Side Tax Cut Policy Contributed To a Growing Inequality of Income

The average benefits of the Bush tax cuts are as follows – those with million+ dollar incomes: $10,000/mo; the middle 20% of America: $60/mo; those in the bottom 20%: $1.67/mo (ref).  Additionally, the tax cuts have been regressive regarding increase in post-tax income – those having million+ dollar incomes experienced an average increase of 7.6% in after tax income whereas the middle 20% of America received only a 2.3% average increase in income (ref).  Income inequality in the US has been tied to America’s two biggest economic crashes, the Great Depression and this recent Great Recession, where in both cases 1% of this country held almost a quarter of this nation’s income thus reducing the purchasing power of the remainder to buy what America produces (ref).  In the late 1970′s the top 1% claimed 8-9% of this country’s income.  By 2007 the top 1% claimed 23.5%, back to where they were prior to the Great Depression.  This is not all due to tax policy, but tax policy has been a contributing factor.

7.  The Wealthiest Already Have a Lower Tax Rate Than the Middle Class

Warren Buffet has often complained about a tax system where his 2006 tax rate (for federal income taxes and Social Security withholding) on $46 million of income was 17.7% while his secretary’s combined tax rate was 30% (ref).  The reason for this is that income from capital gains and stock dividends, that make up a disproportionate amount of income for the very rich, is taxed at 15% whereas the bulk of what the rest of America earns, wages and interest from savings accounts, is taxed at up to 35%.  Although the term ‘class warfare’ has been used by conservatives to describe increasing taxes on the wealthy, Mr. Buffett has said “There’s class warfare, all right, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning” (ref).  Supply-side tax policy has given the wealthiest of American’s the means to increase their income streams from investments where returns are taxed at a lower rate than ordinary income thus lowering their overall tax rate below what the rest of America pays.  It must also be pointed out that during the Clinton years, and what president Obama is proposing, the wealthy pay the same level of tax as do all Americans on wages and interest up to $250,000 – it is only on taxable income above that level does the additional 3.6% tax apply.

8.  Letting the Tax Cuts Expire for the Wealthy Will Be Detrimental to Small Business is Myth

I speak from the experience of having founded and managed a multi-million dollar ‘small business’ in the 1990′s that employed up to 50 workers.  I was amongst the few percent of small business owners that had to pay the additional 3.6% on taxable income over $250,000.  There simply is no tax paid on money that is spent to grow a business.  All hiring, employee costs, leases for space and equipment, etc., including the owners health insurance (excluding FICA, my firm was a sub-S) are paid for with pre-tax dollars, not post-tax dollars.   A business is grown on strength of backlog.  It would be folly for an owner to invest in a business and hope that demand shows up on the doorstep.  Should a small business owner (LLC or Sub-S) be in the fortunate position of having taxable income over $250,000, once the taxes have been paid (corporate profit flows through the personal return) they can pull the profits from the company without further taxation and become the banker to the business, charging a competitive interest rate (good for the business) that more than makes up for the 3.6% surtax that the owner paid on those profits.  Additionally, should the business grow large enough, the owner can also consider converting the business to a C-corp which could lower the overall tax load as corporate profit does not flow through the personal return and is therefore not subject to the 3.6% surtax.  The additional 3.6% I paid on taxable income above $250,000 never once hindered my ability to hire or grow the business.

Discussion and Conclusion

The objective of increasing US capital investment and stimulating our economy through tax cuts largely favoring the wealthiest of Americans simply failed. During periods where supply-side tax policy was in place there is no evidence that it stimulated business investment, economic growth, or employment.  In fact, periods during which this policy was in place underperformed periods where progressive tax rate policy was in place.  The policy has substantially driven up national debt, contributes to lowering the overall tax rate of the wealthiest below that of the middle class, and contributes to income inequality that has been associated with both the Great Depression and this recent Great Recession.  But the most damning point about this policy is its unreliability to pump money into the US economy as investors, participating in a global economy, will place the benefit where it will get the best return.  During the 2000′s money we borrowed to support US investment went abroad, in some cases back to where we borrowed, and the debt being incurred to support foreign economies is being passed to our future generations.  Both the wealthy and ‘Wall Street’ have done quite well with this policy, but the rest of America and our future generations have not.

It has been repeatedly argued by Republican politicians, (McConnell, Boehner, Cantor and others) that we do not have a tax problem but rather a ‘spending problem’ in Washington.  Yet, time and again when pressed in interview the spending problem is left undefined.  In 2001 the Bush tax cuts went into effect when our country not only had a balanced budget (without borrowing from the entitlement programs), but surpluses that were paying down debt (ref).  In 2005, that year being post-recession and pre-economic crisis, this country ran over a half trillion dollar deficit with the tax cuts being the largest single contributor.  So if there is a ‘spending problem’, where does a half trillion dollars come out of the budget?  That amount is in the ball park of what we spend on Defense, or Medicare/Medicaid/CHIP, or Social Security every year (ref).

Starve the Beast

It would be naive to believe that five consecutive Republican presidential terms, all with substantial increases debt as a fraction of our economy, and three consecutive Democratic presidential terms, all with debt reduction, occurred by chance.  Truth be told, what is occurring with our deficits from the tax cut policies is intentional and relates to a conservative fiscal-political strategy called ‘Starve the Beast’ (ref) (ref).  The intent by the right is to use budget deficits via tax cuts to force future reductions in the size of government (the ‘beast’) and the programs it funds, particularly social programs such as welfare, Social Security, Medicare and public schools.  The difficulty I have with this strategy is that polling reveals that most of America, even those identified as Tea Party supporters, feel that Social Security and Medicare are worth the cost to taxpayers (ref).  This tactic is therefore deceitful to the American public that is not being given the opportunity to understand the nature of the sacrifice that will need to be made to support the tax cuts.

If our country is to seriously consider making the Bush tax cuts permanent, we should demand that the ‘spending problem’ be defined and where the cuts will come from so that the public has the opportunity to decide whether it agrees or whether it is willing to support the costs.  And if we feel that the programs are worth the cost, we do have room to move here on the tax front. Despite the rhetoric about the need to further reduce taxes, in 2009 our country’s tax bill was the lowest since 1950, when Harry Truman was in office (ref) and sits at only 15% of GDP (ref), below where it was when we had a balanced budget and surpluses during the Clinton years.  Additionally we have the healthcare legislation that is projected to cut our long-term fiscal imbalance by a quarter and reduce the projected deficit within Medicare by three-quarters ‘as long as Congress sticks to its guns and the Obama administration does a good job in carrying out the provisions of the law’ (ref).

__________

In conclusion, extending the tax cuts for the middle class during recovery makes sense as there is a greater chance that this benefit will be spent here at home and thus flow into our economy. However, based on the above, it is difficult to defend additional borrowing to keep the tax cuts to the wealthiest in place as long as the entitlement programs remain popular with the public.  So prior to any decision being made about a permanent extension of the Bush tax cuts, we should demand to have the budget cuts defined.

We should all be looking for substance, and honesty, in the upcoming negotiations.  We deserve arguments based on outcomes and information rather than subjective statements and spin that is all too often used to the benefit of special interests or in the name of ideology.  We should demand no less from our elected officials.

I’m Just Saying!

From Change.org:
A week ago, the magazine Psychology Today published an article titled “Why Are Black Women Less Physically Attractive Than Other Women?” on its website. Within hours, following widespread outrage and criticism, the post disappeared.
(It can be still be read here http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3412493 )
Colleagues and peers of Satoshi Kanazawa, the article’s author, have since analyzed his same data and unanimously (and unsurprisingly) found his conclusions in error.
Yet Psychology Today has remained silent. They have refused to apologize or even explain why they published the article.

Articles like Kanazawa’s are more than offensive or spurious—they’re deeply harmful because they promote racist and sexist stereotypes as science.
That’s why documentary filmmaker Aishah Simmons and academic Alisa Bierria are leading a petition on Change.org to call on Psychology Today to apologize and take transparent steps to prevent the publication of racist and sexist material in the future. Click here http://www.change.org/petitions/psychology-today-stop-publishing-racist-sexist-articles  to sign Aishah and Alisa’s petition.

Kanazawa’s article never would have survived a thorough and responsible editorial process. In fact, the author himself doesn’t stand up to review.
Kanazawa has a history of pushing discredited research and is particularly notorious for making meritless claims about race and gender. (He is also known as the mind behind the much-mocked book Why Beautiful People Have More Daughters.)
In an attempt to defend previous publications, Kanazawa wrote, “If what I say is wrong (because it is illogical or lacks credible scientific evidence), then it is my problem. If what I say offends you, it is your problem.”
Well, as Khadijah Britton of Scientific American put it, “Satoshi Kanazawa has a problem.” So does Psychology Today.
Prominent women’s rights advocates, including Gloria Steinem and Beverly Guy Sheftall, former President of the National Women’s Studies Association, have already declared their support for the campaign.
Please click here to add your name to theirs:

http://www.change.org/petitions/psychology-today-stop-publishing-racist-sexist-articles

Thanks for taking action,
Shelby and the Change.org team

 
Psychology Today” posted:
Why Are Black Women Less Physically Attractive Than Other Women?Why black women, but not black men?
Published on May 15, 2011 by Satoshi Kanazawa in The Scientific Fundamentalist

There are marked race differences in physical attractiveness among women, but not among men. Why?

Add Health measures the physical attractiveness of its respondents both objectively and subjectively. At the end of each interview, the interviewer rates the physical attractiveness of the respondent objectively on the following five-point scale: 1 = very unattractive, 2 = unattractive, 3 = about average, 4 = attractive, 5 = very attractive. The physical attractiveness of each Add Health respondent is measured three times by three different interviewers over seven years.

From these three scores, I can compute the latent “physical attractiveness factor” by a statistical procedure called factor analysis. Factor analysis has the added advantage of eliminating all random measurement errors that are inherent in any scientific measurement. The latent physical attractiveness factor has a mean of 0 and a standard deviation of 1.

Recall that women on average are more physically attractive than men. So women of all races are on average more physically attractive than the “average” Add Health respondent, except for black women. As the following graph shows, black women are statistically no different from the “average” Add Health respondent, and far less attractive than white, Asian, and Native American women.

In contrast, races do not differ in physical attractiveness among men, as the following graph shows. Men of all races are more or less equally less physically attractive than the “average” Add Health respondent.

This sex difference in the race differences in physical attractiveness – where physical attractiveness varies significantly by race among women, but not among men – is replicated at each Add Health wave (except that the race differences among men are statistically significant, albeit substantively very small, in Wave III). In each wave, black women are significantly less physically attractive than women of other races.

It is very interesting to note that, even though black women are objectively less physically attractive than other women, black women (and men) subjectively consider themselves to be far more physically attractive than others. In Wave III, Add Health asks its respondents to rate their own physical attractiveness subjectively on the following four-point scale: 1 = not at all, 2 = slightly, 3 = moderately, 4 = very. As you can see in the following graphs, both black women and black men rate themselves to be far more physically attractive than individuals of other races.

What accounts for the markedly lower average level of physical attractiveness among black women? Black women are on average much heavier than nonblack women. The mean body-mass index (BMI) at Wave III is 28.5 among black women and 26.1 among nonblack women. (Black and nonblack men do not differ in BMI: 27.0 vs. 26.9.) However, this is not the reason black women are less physically attractive than nonblack women. Black women have lower average level of physical attractiveness net of BMI. Nor can the race difference in intelligence (and the positive association between intelligence and physical attractiveness) account for the race difference in physical attractiveness among women. Black women are still less physically attractive than nonblack women net of BMI and intelligence. Net of intelligence, black men are significantly more physically attractive than nonblack men.

There are many biological and genetic differences between the races. However, such race differences usually exist in equal measure for both men and women. For example, because they have existed much longer in human evolutionary history, Africans have more mutations in their genomes than other races. And the mutation loads significantly decrease physical attractiveness (because physical attractiveness is a measure of genetic and developmental health). But since both black women and black men have higher mutation loads, it cannot explain why only black women are less physically attractive, while black men are, if anything, more attractive.

The only thing I can think of that might potentially explain the lower average level of physical attractiveness among black women is testosterone. Africans on average have higher levels of testosterone than other races, and testosterone, being an androgen (male hormone), affects the physical attractiveness of men and women differently. Men with higher levels of testosterone have more masculine features and are therefore more physically attractive. In contrast, women with higher levels of testosterone also have more masculine features and are therefore less physically attractive. The race differences in the level of testosterone can therefore potentially explain why black women are less physically attractive than women of other races, while (net of intelligence) black men are more physically attractive than men of other races.

Mr. Kanazawa has made a career out of explaining why Asians are biologically smarter, African-Americans are biologically inferior, and why nuking the middle east is a good idea. Rather than being confined to Stormfront, however, he’s given an article in Psychology Today.

A view of the President by Ram Tringo

(1) First Black President in US history.
(2) Biggest election victory of the century.
(3) Received the largest budget deficit ever.
(4) First President to enact Healthcare Law to cover all Americans.
(5) First President to allow Gays to serve openly in the Military.
(6) First President to receive a Nobel Peace Prize in his first year in office.
(7) First President to be born in Hawaii.
(8) First President to be directly responsible for the formation of a hate-filled group of Americans who call themselves Teabaggers.
(9) First President  fit and healthy enough to play basketball regularly.
(10) Made the most speeches and public appearances so far.
(11) Only President with an American mother and African father.
(12) Only President and first Black student to be elected President of the Harvard Law Review.
(13) First President who was an actual Law Professor.
(14) Only President to command so much disrespect that a member of Congress thought it was normal and acceptable to shout out “YOU LIE” while he’s addressing Congress.
(15) First President to receive two active wars.
(16) Only President to be forced to produce his Birth Certificate to prove that he’s actually an American citizen.
(17) Saved GM, the US car industry and hundreds of supporting companies from bankruptcy, along with millions of jobs.
(18) Exterminated the world’s most wanted terrorist/American-hater, after his predecessor spent seven years, wasted $trillions and couldn’t locate him.

One of the most intelligent American Presidents to ever occupy the WhiteHouse !!!

Remember the Tulsa Race Riot

Submitted by Sean Price on May 9, 2011
Keywords: History Race and ethnicity
May 31 marks the 90th anniversary of the Tulsa Race Riot. You can be excused if you’ve never heard of it. Despite being the bloodiest attack on African-American citizens in U.S. history, the riot was almost completely ignored by most history books for about 75 years. Only recently has the event received the attention it deserves.

In 1921, the Greenwood section of Tulsa, Okla., was one of the most prosperous black neighborhoods in the country. Greenwood’s nickname was “the black Wall Street.” The discovery of oil in Tulsa in 1901 turned the city into a boomtown. In the 1910s, Tulsa’s economic good times coincided with an exodus of African Americans from the Deep South called the Great Migration. Oklahoma was a Jim Crow state. But blacks wanted to cash in on the state’s oil wealth like everyone else.

There was one problem: The speedy arrival of so many blacks—as well as immigrants from overseas — provoked fear among many of Oklahoma’s whites. A great number of them had come from the South or the conservative Midwest. The 1910s witnessed a resurrection of the Ku Klux Klan nationally, and Oklahoma joined the trend enthusiastically. Soon after the riot, Tulsa would report more than 2,000 people had signed up with the Klan.

The riot started on May 31, 1921, in the way many racial disturbances did at the time — with an accusation that a black man assaulted a white woman. Whites gathered to lynch the 19-year-old being accused. But they were surprised when local African Americans, some of them veterans of World War I, moved to defend him with guns. One white man tried to disarm a black man. They struggled. A shot was fired. The riot was on.

Blacks protected their homes and businesses as best they could. But they were badly outnumbered. Within 24 hours, a 42-block area was burned. At least 300 people were killed — most of them black — but the true death toll could be much higher. About 10,000 people were left homeless, and more than 1,000 homes and businesses were destroyed. Greenwood never really recovered.

The end of Tulsa’s white riot was the beginning of a massive cover-up. The event was almost completely ignored by most journalists and historians. Official documents, police records and photographs disappeared. People who participated refused to talk about it. Local newspapers from the time vanished. It was as if the worst single incident of racial violence in U.S. history had never taken place.

That began to change about 15 years ago, as African Americans — who had never forgotten — and historians began to demand an accounting. Today, teachers can find many resources. This two-part news story, found here and here, is a good introduction. And this slide show can give students an idea of what Greenwood was like before and after the riot.

The Tulsa Race Riot is just one chapter of American history that has been deliberately ignored because it involves race. Many students are surprised to find that that familiar landmarks were once sites for lynchings, that racial segregation was once prevalent locally or that the Ku Klux Klan once had a big following in their city. This Teaching Tolerance article can show you how to help students uncover their forgotten past.

Haley Barbour’s decision to forgo a run for the presidency in 2012 puts him in the company of a half-dozen top Republicans who have considered — and rejected — a challenge to President Obama next year.

The question is: why?
In a statement that surprised much of official Washington, Mr. Barbour indicated that he does not have “absolute fire in the belly” to mount a campaign that, if he wins, could consume the next 10 years of his life.
“I cannot offer that with certainty, and total certainty is required,” he said.
Others have offered different reasons. Senator John Thune, Republican of South Dakota, said he considered himself “best positioned to fight for America’s future here in the trenches of the United States Senate.” Representative Mike Pence of Indiana hinted that he might run for governor instead, saying that he and his family “choose Indiana.”
Among those who have turned down the chance to run in 2012: Chris Christie, the governor of New Jersey; Jeb Bush, the former governor of Florida; and Senator Bob Corker of Tennessee. Mr. Christie said that he could win but that “I’ve got to believe I’m ready to be president, and I don’t.”
An additional half-dozen potential 2012 hopefuls remain on the fence about whether to run, leaving just a handful of major candidates who appear certain to take the plunge.

But the publicly stated reasons often mask other considerations as politicians consider whether to run for president. Here are five reasons why some of the Republican Party’s brightest stars might be opting for the sidelines this year.

1. Biden. If Mr. Obama wins re-election, there is almost zero chance that Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. would run for the presidency in 2016, when he would turn 74 years old. That puts him in the same place where Vice President Dick Cheney was in 2008. That means that Republicans who can afford to wait until 2016 can assure themselves not only that they will not face an incumbent Democratic president, but also that they won’t face a sitting vice president.

2. The economy. Mr. Obama’s approval ratings have dipped below 50 percent, but he remains personally popular and by many calculations the economy appears to be improving — if slowly. Even Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts and one of the handful of very likely candidates, said last September that Mr. Obama would be “difficult to beat” if the economy continued improving, which he predicted it would. (He later changed his tune and said Republicans should focus on the economy if they wanted to win.)

3. Money. Mr. Obama is expected in some quarters to raise $1 billion for his re-election campaign, and he has no serious primary opposition, which means he will be free to aim that firepower at his Republican adversaries. For a potential challenger, that raises the stakes for fund-raising at a time when more outside groups are competing for the same dollars, many of which, even on the Republican side, would go to congressional races.

4. The Tea Party. The emergence of the Tea Party movement as a force inside the Republican Party requires potential presidential candidates to pick sides in an intraparty philosophical struggle. The risks are clear for some Republicans who may have to alter or modify earlier positions to get through a contentious primary. Less clear are the benefits of having that support during a general election, especially if it means alienating independents in the process. Some of the most high-profile Tea Party candidates in 2010 did not fare so well in the general election.

5. The media glare. Candidates for president have always had to contend with scrutiny from the press. But the intense, Internet-driven political environment in 2011, when everyone has a camera phone and every offhand comment can be recorded, is enough to scare away even the most hearty of politicians. Mr. Barbour’s family apparently hated the idea of his running for president (though reports suggest that they had made peace with the idea, were he to have run). Candidates who have been on the fence about making a run often consider the consequences to their privacy if they do.