John Ransom is the Finance Editor for Townhall Finance. The Intentional Buffoonery of the Progressive Left

Goldilocks wrote: So how are beginning workers and poor people supposed to advance economically?Obama Wage Hike is Obamacare by 'Other Means'

Dear Comrade Goldi,

I can tell you one way to make it more difficult for “beginning workers and poor people” to advance. If you raise the minimum wage, they’ll be likely to be hurt worst, first.

People advance economically by gaining experience and thus bringing more value to an employer, not by passing capricious laws.

According to a BLS survey done in 2011, only 5 percent of workers who make hourly wages are at or below the federal minimum wage to begin with. Of the 1.7 million people who receive minimum wage salaries, 54 percent are aged 24 or below even as 80 percent of the workforce is 25 and above. So despite accounting for only 20 percent of the workforce, we see that minimum wages are more concentrated in those “beginning workers and poor people.”

When you are younger and lack skills you make less money.

Only a liberal would have difficulty understanding this obvious fact.

Powerful or Pitiful?

Curiously-- and damningly too-- 2.1 million of the 3.8 million at or below the minimum wage are accepting wages below the federal minimum.

This suggests that a hike in the minimum wage would: 1) force employers to break the law or 2) fire employees.

While the media has been busy proclaiming the good news that unemployment is down, unemployment amongst teenagers aged 16 to 19 rose by 0.5 percent last month and black unemployment has risen 0.2 percent over the same period.

I suspect that this is more of the Obamacare Effect taking place. But whatever is happening, it’s clear the policies of the administration are not helping those populations having a hard time.

So, why the rush to hike minimum wage laws?

Well, I can tell you it’s not because politicians want to help young people and poor people.

Minimum wage laws are really designed to bolster union wages, as unions peg contract negotiations to minimum wages. The people who end up paying the freight are the ones with the least experience, the youngest and the poorest, the least equipped members of our society.

Paying for Slavery and Segregation

The way to help them is to provide the highest number of opportunities to gain experience and to make sure our schools teach them skills relevant to the main function we have in society: to work.

“Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken,” says Genesis 3:23.

I knew a woman who didn’t graduate from high school, yet she began working in fast food when she was sixteen. By the time I met her, she was managing a restaurant at a luxury resort. She never would have gotten the opportunity to be a four-star restaurant manager were it not for that first job as a fry cook.

I myself started out working as a bellman for a Holiday Inn when I was 14 years old. While I made minimum wage for "tipped" employees, I also made a great deal of money from tips. And the tips I made were all dependent upon my efforts.

I can tell you this much: There is no healthy person in America who can’t make a living wage in this country carrying bags for people at hotels. Today, right now.

Dmich wrote: On Tuesday, the Congressional Budget Office projected that The Affordable Care Act will reduce the number of full-time workers by 2.3 million in 2021, leading critics to seize on the claim as evidence that the health care law is undermining job growth. But that’s not what the CBO actually said. In fact, CBO economists write that “[t]he estimated reduction [in labor] stems almost entirely from a net decline in the amount of labor that workers choose to supply, rather than from a net drop in businesses’ demand for labor.” Americans won’t be losing their jobs, but people who are only working to maintain access to their employer sponsored health insurance plans will be able to leave the workforce or work fewer hours because they can obtain coverage elsewhere. Did any of you idiots actually read the report, or did you just read what the buffoon John Ransom wrote? Thanks ObamaCare- Now With 25% Fewer Jobs

Dear Comrade D-Mich,

Let’s go to that bastion of Right Wing Buffoonery, Reuters wire service to settle this:

In its latest U.S. fiscal outlook, the nonpartisan CBO said the health law would lead some workers, particularly those with lower incomes, to limit their hours to avoid losing federal subsidies that Obamacare provides to help pay for health insurance and other healthcare costs.

Thanks for pointing out our error in thinking.

See, we all thought we’d be losing 2.3 million jobs. What you’ve made clear is that we’d be losing the EQUIVALENT of 2.3 million jobs in hourly employment.

Gosh, I feel like such a buffoon when I accuse liberals of doing something like damaging jobs accidentally, when in fact what they are doing is damagingproductivity intentionally.

"It's not that the businesses are cutting those jobs," said Jason Furman, who chairs the White House Council of Economic Advisers. Yeah, I mean why work when you can make your neighbors pay for the better benefits package you get?

Remember Furman is the same guy who was basking in the glow of “6.6 percent” unemployment because it meant we were waaaaay ahead of schedule tackling that problem.

And you call me a buffoon?

Seriously, progressives couldn’t spell cat if I spotted them the K and the T these days.

Let’s face it, when you celebrate 2.3 million missing jobs as a benefit to the economy-- because there’s nothing else you can say-- you’ve reached the end of the line. Now it’s just a matter of when everyone else realizes it.

Ichtelite wrote: John your comment "Say what you want about George W. Bush, but people had jobs under Bush" really isn't correct because things started falling apart just before the 'Lil' Wanna be General' left office. Things were getting ready for a fast downhill slide and the GOP wanted out. Why do you suppose they put together the duo of McCain and Palin? Who was going to put their confidence in a doting old war monger whose only claim to fame was that he was once a POW and some no name pulled off the Alaskan Tundra for his running mate?

No, the GOP knew what was getting ready to happen and they didn't want a hand in it any longer. That is when the powers controlling those setting on Capitol Hill knew they had a good chance of slipping someone of color into the Oval Office. Making history and at the same time putting someone in the seat they would have better control over. Thanks ObamaCare- Now With 25% Fewer Jobs

Dear Comrade Ich,

I was out sick the evening the Stonecutters decided all this while eating ribs at the Stonecutter Local 478.

So excuse me if I have no freakin’ idea what you are talking about.

I’m guessing that you think the Illuminati, represented by Colin Powell, Harry Kissinger and Stansfield M. Turner—who by the way was born a few miles from—da da DA!—Donald Rumsfeld—thought up this whole “Obama-as-Messiah” motif because he’s black.

I’m thinking that anyone with the smarts to plan and execute a global conspiracy of this magnitude might be able to find a black guy, who, at the very least, can run a website… and have a name more like Bill Mitchell or Sam Moore.

What’s Right with Ransom:

Catfish Keith wrote: J.R., whats stopping you, Krauthammer and Cruz was picking up a rifle and going to war for the Lobby? Why Certainly: Obama For Peace Brings Us War

Dear Comrade Catfish,

You know, I don’t have a problem with you questioning my patriotism, but for the love of everything holy, could you please leave the great American catfish out of your sordid doings?

Anyone who would degrade the catfish, that star of the Mississippi, that pastry of the Arkansas River, that great tribute to the life and works of Samuel Clemens, must be full-blooded comrade.

"If Catfish did not exist,” said Voltaire of Mark Twain, “it would be necessary for Him to invent Them."

It might be noted, Mr. Comrade-Who-Shall-Not-Be-Named, that Krauthammer is physically unable to join the military. He injured his neck in college, severing the spinal chord.

He is indisputably a great man.

Ted Cruz, you’d have to ask personally about his lack of military service.

I myself am still subject to recall into the Navy, but likely would be disqualified because 1) I’ll be 50 this year and 2) I’m fat.

If I get called up, you know we’re losing. Badly.

Tinsldr wrote: Below I pasted Tebow's stats and showed his poor performance as a QB. His QB rating was like 28th out of 34 in 2011 and he had a lack luster year as a back up the next year. Where are the facts to back it up? Give an analysis of his actual playing. What is his pass completion % as a starter? How good is he at throwing deep passes over 30 yards? What is his percent in that range?

If you claim he is not playing because of his faith why not back it up? Like most things in life, you should win a spot on a team by ON FIELD performance not what you believe about things off the field. His performance not his beliefs lost him his chance.... Tebow Blacklist: Isn’t The Beginning, It’s The End

Dear Comrade Tin,

7-4 as a starter is a pretty decent fact in Tebow’s favor.

If it weren’t for the Christian aspect of Tewbow, he’d be on an NFL roster. True, he’d likely not be a starter, but he has value as a guy who can win games—even if he has to manufacture a win—if the franchise quarterback goes down.

Jordan Palmer, who has no starts, hasn’t been on a roster since 2010 and has less than 20 professional game snaps, was signed as a back-up to Josh McCown when the Bears’ Jay Cutler went down.

I’d rather have Tewbow, if just counting ability to win, which by the way is how I judge players.

BTW, the list that I put up was of backup QBs, not starters.

From Pat Kirwin, former NFL general manager:

We came into Week 8 with 54 different quarterbacks having thrown at least a pass in an NFL game this season. Injuries and disappointments are starting to mount and in the past few weeks when a backup or replacement quarterback has had to start or finish a game the end result has been a 2-19 record for those teams.

This week there are eight games where a non-opening day quarterback will take the field as a starter. Teams in this situation are Buffalo (Jeff Tuel), Cleveland (Jason Campbell), Minnesota (probably Josh Freeman), Chicago (Josh McCown), Houston (Case Keenum), Philadelphia (Nick Foles), Tampa Bay (Mike Glennon), and St. Louis (Kellen Clemens). These eight men have appeared in 18 games this year and have a combined record of 3-15.

The only numbers that matter in football is the score at the end of the game. If a backup QB had the ability to generate all those other numbers you cited, they’d be starters.

Especially when it comes to backups, you need someone who can win games close.

More often than not, Tebow’s been a master of that number in a way that the current backups in the NFL have not.

Ericynot wrote: Have you guys considered the very real possibility that 2016 will have yet another Clinton running against yet another Bush?

Good grief -- you'd think we can find some new blood after 30 years! Soros Trolls Hit Bottom Of The Barrel

Dear Comrade Y,

Yeah, we’ve considered it.

Much more likely that Clinton will win a Democrat primary than Bush will win a Republican primary.

But then I thought there was no way Romney would win – and then lose.

BetterBrain wrote: It was good that we invaded Iraq because we showed Middle Eastern countries they had a"choice". *facepalm* Congratulations. That is the stupidest thing ever written by anyone, ever, anywhere. I also got a chuckle when I learned that Obama's strong stock market is only because he inherited at a low point, but simultaneously, he "owns" Iraq and Afghanistan.

Lastly, I leave you with an example of Ransom's prognostication skills:http://youtu.be/JIUapEJTnZ8Soros Trolls Hit Bottom Of The Barrel

Dear Comrade *facepalm*,

Actually I think comparing the stock market to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is probably dumber.

Obama didn’t “inherit” Afghanistan and Iraq at low points and then make something great happen.

He screwed up stable situations that were already hard won.

The Middle East is not better off than it was when Obama took over. I know he has personal reasons for wanting to drive foreign policy the way he is, but I think a better measure of foreign policy is the best interest of the United States.

But by any reckoning you’re missing the point.

The stock market isn’t better either. Or the economy. Or workers.

It took the stock market until about a year ago to get to the previous levels we saw in 2007. In fact, the markets under Clinton, Bush and Obama look very much alike. That’s not surprising because they all follow the same easy money recipe of low interest and high money supply to supercharge the market.

Today earnings are growing and stock prices moving up because companies are doing non-traditional things to increase value, like buying back stock.

If you had asked candidate Obama which is more important: stock market performance or creating jobs, you and I both know what the answer would have been.

Once again liberals are calling an Obama defeat a victory.

Here are the numbers that are important for presidents: When Obama took over GDP was at about $14 trillion, while stock market capitalization was at about $9 trillion.

That’s a pretty significant undervaluation on stocks.

Today GDP is $17.1 trillion—real GDP growth of about 1.2 percent annually-- while market capitalization is at $19 trillion.

While not quite irrational exuberance, it’s close.

Markets can outperform GDP for a few years, but they do eventually revert back to the mean.

Same thing with politicians. Obama’s term isn’t over yet.

As to the Romney call on the election: So what?

I wasn’t the candidate. And I wasn’t the only one who got the election wrong.

The American people did too.

Who is doing the facepalm now? They are.

And before you go around accusing people of saying the stupidest things EVA, you should probably watch a White House press conference. They out-do themselves almost every day.

That’s it for this week,

V/r,

JR

http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/johnransom/2014/02/09/the-intentional-buffoonery-of-liberals-n1791926/page/full

Chris Matthews Sneers: Concern Over Executive Orders Is 'Second Term Birtherism'

Chris Matthews is at it again. The liberal MSNBC anchor on Friday found a new way to deride conservative concern over Barack Obama's use of executive orders to get around Congress. Matthews dismissed it as unthinking and tribal, sneering, "I think it's a second term birtherism. 'He was illegitimately elected. Now he is behaving illegitimately.'" [MP3 audio here.]

Using his typical broad generalizations, Matthews railed, "This goes back to the whole notion that the right has. 'He really wasn't a law-abiding or even legally, legitimately elected president.'" According to the host, the concern over Obama's plan to sidestep Congress isn't even rational: "And this seems to be based upon ideology rather than events or even behaviors of the President."

Matthews spun the whole topic as not very serious. Rather than bring in other examples of the President's overreach, such as whether Obama circumvented Congress by making recess appointments when Congress wasn't in recess, the anchor psychoanalyzed: 

CHRIS MATTHEWS: Why do they have to insist on this most primitive approach to Obama which is he is not really President? And I'm not making this up you, because you ask these guys, they could just throw it off the board and say, "of course, he's legitimately elected. But let's move on to policy issues." They don't.

For Matthews it's as simple as declaring, "They don't want to accept him as president, let alone executive orders."

As the MRC pointed out in a new analysis, MSNBC has a long record of dismissing almost all conservative and Republican concerns as unhinged or racist.

A partial transcript of the Janauary 31 segment is below:

CHRIS MATTHEWS: President Obama's decision to go around Congress and use executive action to do things like raise the minimum wage for federal contractors may not seem like the end of the world, but, in the right-wing clown car, it came close. Ted Cruz wrote in "The Wall Street Journal" -- quote -- "Of all the troubling aspects of the Obama presidency, none is more dangerous than the president's persistent pattern of lawlessness, his willingness to disregard the written law, and instead enforce his own policies via executive fiat."

...

MATTHEWS: Well, why is the right-wing freaking out over the president issuing a series of relatively modest executive actions, something he is far from the first president to do?

Well, sadly, it fits a pattern from the right in dealing with this president, of course, and calling into question, as they often do, his legitimacy. Dana Milbank is a columnist "The Washington Post" and Sam Stein's a political editor for The Huffington Post. Dana, this word lawless seems to -- lawlessness, like he is some cowboy maverick out there in the saddle somewhere, breaking the law, shooting up a town. Where did the word lawless first originate in the -- I think it's a second term birtherism. He was illegitimately elected. Now he is behaving illegitimately. This goes back to the whole notion that the right has. He wants -- they want to put an asterisk next to this guy. He really wasn't a law-abiding or even legally, legitimately elected president.

DANA MILBANK: Right.

MATTHEWS: Your thoughts. Your own thoughts here.

MILBANK: Yes. I think what is going on here is, this is one of those episodes when it flares up, Chris. And the Republicans from the very beginning have been seeking to discredit Obama, not saying we disagree with his policies, but to say, this guy is bad, this guy is other, this guy is something else. And, you know, there has been this sort of latent Obama derangement syndrome. The virus remains in the blood. And it just seems to flare up from time to time. But it's not necessarily something they're calculating, I think. It's just there is some sort of reflexive hatred that drives us from time to time.

...

MATTHEWS: And this seems to be based upon ideology rather than events or even behaviors of the President. They grab at these behaviors. But they really believe this long before he came into office. And now, they're using him as the worst case scenario.

MATTHEWS: It's almost like a trump card. You say once you say somebody is a dictator, you really don't have to lay it out much, because I think they think his very election was giving the guy too much power, a lot of people on the right. Why is this guy got all this power? Who says (ph) he's president?

STEIN: Yes.

MATTHEWS: "Where did he come from anyway? Wait a second, are you sure he is legal?

And remember the guy I had on the other night. I don't know if you're watching every night. But I thought it was interesting on HARDBALL, the other night this week. I had someone on, an activist, a local Republican figure who was pushing this petition in Arizona to get rid of John McCain and some sort of lefty.

STEIN: Oh, yes, I saw that one. Yes.

MATTHEWS: And I asked him, do you think this president was elected legitimately. And he said I'm not going down that rat hole. I knew you would take me there. Why do they have to insist on this most primitive approach to Obama which is he is not really president? And I'm not making this up you, because you ask these guys, they could just throw it off the board and say, of course, he's legitimately elected. But let's move on to policy issues.

They don't. They say, I will not answer your question because I don't think they go back to their crowd at home, wherever they are, people the far right of them, and say, they have to answer the question, did you say Obama was legitimately president of the United States? How dare you say that? Anyway, was that too primitive to say that's where they are at? That they don't want to accept him as president, let alone executive orders?

http://www.mrc.org/biasalerts/chris-matthews-sneers-concern-over-executive-orders-second-term-birtherism

It’s Not Just One Tweet: MSNBC’s Despicable Record of Smearing Conservatives as Racists

On Thursday, MSNBC President Phil Griffin apologized for a Twitter post suggesting conservatives (“the rightwing”) are racists who would “hate” a cute new Cheerios ad because it featured a biracial family: “Maybe the rightwing will hate it, but everyone else will go awww: the adorable new #Cheerios ad w/ biracial family.”

MSNBC took the post down after protests from other Twitter users. Griffin on Thursday issued a statement: “The tweet last night was outrageous and unacceptable. We immediately acknowledged that it was offensive and wrong, apologized, and deleted it. We have dismissed the person responsible for the tweet.”

Griffin’s statement was a good first step, but if an apology is owed for this tweet, then MSNBC owes conservatives many, many more. Just last month, weekend host Melissa Harris-Perry had toapologize after taking a cheap shot at Mitt Romney's adopted black grandson. “I am deeply sorry that we suggested that interracial families are in any way funny or deserving of ridicule,” Harris-Perry tearfully acknowledged a week later.

The Media Research Center has compiled a long list of instances in which the network’s anchors have committed character assassination disguised as journalism, unjustly smearing conservatives, Republicans and the Tea Party as racists. Here are just some of the many outrageous examples we have documented:

■ Wall Street Journal’s Steve Moore: “This is still a pretty conservative country and people are upset about the policies in Washington and they don’t think the politicians are listening.”
Host Chris Matthews: “Okay, I think, I think some of the people are upset because we have a black President.”
— Talking about the town hall protests against ObamaCare on MSNBC’s Hardball, August 11, 2009.

■ “If racism is not the whole of the Tea Party, it is in its heart, along with blind hatred, a total disinterest in the welfare of others, and a full-flowered, self-rationalizing refusal to accept the outcomes of elections, or the reality of democracy, or the narrowness of their minds and the equal narrowness of their public support.”
— MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann on Countdown, March 22, 2010.

■ “The Republican Party in this country has been running on hate and division for the last 50 years....What black person, gay guy or girl, immigrant or Muslim American in their right mind would vote for the Republican Party? They might as well hang a sign around their neck saying, ‘I hate myself.’”
— Fill-in host Cenk Uygur on MSNBC’s The Ed Show, August 26, 2010.

■ Clip from RNC ad: “Stop Obama and his union bosses today. The Republican National Committee is responsible for the content of this advertising.”
Host Lawrence O’Donnell: “The Republican Party is saying that the President of the United States has bosses, that the union bosses this President around, the unions boss him around. Does that sound to you like they are trying to consciously or subconsciously deliver the racist message that, of course, of course a black man can’t be the real boss?”
Ex-Governor Jennifer Granholm (D-MI): “Wow, I hadn’t thought about the racial overtones....”
— MSNBC’s The Last Word, February 25, 2011.

■ “The interesting question is: what is it about this President that has stripped away the veneer of respect that normally accompanies the office of the President? Why do Republicans think this President is unpresidential — unpresidential, and shouldn’t dare to request this kind of thing? It strikes me that it could be the economic times, it could be that he won so big in 2008, or it could be, let’s face it, the color of his skin.”
— MSNBC political analyst and ex-Newsweek reporter Richard Wolffe talking about the brief contretemps over scheduling Obama’s speech to Congress, The Last Word, August 31, 2011.

■ “I get out of all of these things that many of these [Republican] candidates would rather take legislation to build a time machine and go back in time to where we had, you know, no women voting, slavery was cool. I mean, it’s just kind of ridiculous.”
— Daytime anchor Thomas Roberts on MSNBC Live, September 23, 2011, talking about the previous night’s GOP debate.

■ “Plus, what Mitt Romney has in common with the KKK. Details on a rare Romney campaign blunder ahead….So you might not hear Mitt Romney say ‘keep America American’ anymore. That’s because it was a central theme of the KKK in the 1920s. It was a rallying cry for the group’s campaign of violence and intimidation against blacks, gays and Jews.”
— Anchor Thomas Roberts on MSNBC Live, December 14, 2011.

■ Host Chris Matthews: “How does this guy [Mitt Romney] go from hard right, severely conservative, to this new regular mainstream character he’s portraying himself as?...He ran as a full mooner, Michael. You know, he was saying ‘There’s no such thing as science.’... How can he go from Flat Earth, ‘I don’t believe in evolution,’ to all of a sudden, ‘I’m teaching biology’?... It certainly was in the Grand Wizard crowd over there, okay?”
Former RNC Chairman Michael Steele: “Wait, I resent that! No. Come on, what is this ‘Grand Wizard’ nonsense? Are you saying that we’re Ku Klux Klan?”
Matthews: “Okay, I’m just saying, the far-right party.”
Steele: “Give me a break! Don’t go there with me on that.”
— MSNBC’s Hardball, April 23, 2012.

■ “You notice he [Romney] says ‘anger’ twice. He’s really trying to use racial coding and access some really deep stereotypes about the angry black man. This is part of the playbook against Obama. The other-ization, he’s not like us. I know it’s a heavy thing to say. I don’t say it lightly. But this is niggerization, ‘You are not one of us,’ and that ‘you are like the scary black man who we’ve been trained to fear.’”
— Co-host Touré on MSNBC’s The Cycle, August 16, 2012.

■ Host Martin Bashir: “Of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s forthcoming oration, can I quote something [to] you? ‘For four years, Barack Obama has been running from the nation’s problems. He hasn’t been working to earn re-election. He’s been working to earn a spot on the PGA tour.’ How about that?”
MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell: “Well, we know exactly what he’s trying to do there....These people reach for every single possible racial double-entendre they can possibly find in every one of these speeches.”
— MSNBC’s Martin Bashir, August 29, 2012, talking about McConnell’s speech at the Republican National Convention.

■ “They hate Obama. They want him out of the White House more than they want to destroy al Qaeda. Their number one enemy in the world right now, on the right, is their hatred — hatred for Obama. We can go into that about the white working class in the South, and looking at these numbers we’re getting in the last couple days about racial hatred in many cases. This isn’t about being a better president. They want to get rid of this president. That’s their number one goal and they’re willing to let Romney go to the hard center, even if it’s to the left on issues, as long as they get rid of this guy.”
— Chris Matthews during MSNBC’s post-debate coverage, October 22, 2012.

■ “I look at Obama as a perfect American. I don’t mean politically. We can disagree left and right on him. You can argue about the drones. Argue about the fiscal policy, all that stuff. But as a citizen. The guy went to school, he never broke a law. He did everything right. He raised a wonderful family. He’s a good husband, a good father. My God I don’t think he’s ever gotten a speeding ticket. The guy does everything right and these right-wingers — and he’s really been pretty moderate on guns until the horror of Newtown — and I don’t know what they’re so afraid of, except that he happens to be black.”
— Host Chris Matthews on MSNBC’s Hardball, March 6, 2013.

■ “What does your study tell you about the nature of the racial piece here of the Tea Party?...Is it sort of a resumption of the Old South, of the way things were before the Civil War, for example? Is it like that old dreamy nostalgia you get in the old movies, Gone With the Wind? Is it that kind of America they want to bring back or what? When there were no gays, where blacks were slaves, Mexicans were in Mexico? I mean, is this what they want?”
— Chris Matthews to author Christopher Parker on MSNBC’s Hardball, March 20, 2013.

■ “The problem is there are people in this country — maybe 10 percent, I don’t know what the number, maybe 20 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 is President, and a piece of it is racism. Not that somebody in one racial group doesn’t like somebody in another racial group. So what? It is the sense that the white race must rule. That’s what racism is. And they can’t stand the idea that a man who is not white is President.”
— Chris Matthews appearing as a guest on MSNBC’s PoliticsNation, May 15, 2013.

■ “The IRS is being used in exactly the same way as they tried to use the President’s birth certificate...Despite the complete lack of any evidence linking the President to the targeting of Tea Party groups, Republicans are using it as their latest weapon in the war against the black man in the White House....This afternoon, we welcome the latest phrase in the lexicon of Republican attacks on this President — the IRS. Three letters that sound so innocent, but we know what you mean.”
— MSNBC host Martin Bashir, June 5, 2013.

■ “At least back in 1939, when Marian Anderson had to sing here, ‘My Country ‘Tis of Thee’ rather than at the Constitution Hall, because — they said the reason was she was black. At least they were honest back then....[Today] you’ve got people talking about nullification of the law of the land [ObamaCare]. You got people talking impeachment like [Senator Tom] Coburn. You got Ted Cruz out there. They never say their problem with Obama is that he’s black, but look at the pattern....At least the Daughters of the American Revolution knew what they were saying and they said it out loud: ‘He’s black, she’s black, she can’t sing here.’ These guys today use all the techniques of nullification and talking about illegitimacy and accusing the President of being a crook, basically, for even being president, because he’s here illegally. And then they talk about impeaching him on grounds they can’t even come up with. At least in the old days they were honest about it. Today, they’re not.”
— Chris Matthews during MSNBC live coverage of the 50th anniversary of the March on Washington, August 28, 2013.

■ “I want to talk today about a controversial word....A word that was originally intended as a derogatory term, meant to shame and divide and demean. The word was conceived of by a group of wealthy white men who needed a way to put themselves above and apart from a black man, to render him inferior and unequal and to diminish his accomplishments.... Y’all know the word that I’m talking about: ‘ObamaCare.’”

— Host Melissa Harris-Perry on her eponymous MSNBC show, December 8, 2013.

http://www.mrc.org/media-reality-check/its-not-just-one-tweet-msnbcs-despicable-record-smearing-conservatives-racists

Another Evolutionary Biologist Finally Rejects The Bogus Theory of Evolu...

Uploaded on Jan 20, 2011

Taught Evolution of over 16 years

Everyone is cordially invited to join my new facebook group which deals with the evolution creation/ID debate.

The main advantage of the facebook page is that there is no 500 word limit and you are able to post videos as well..

https://www.facebook.com/groups/29940...

Problems with Darwin's theory of Evolution, Frog to Prince (1/2)

Uploaded on Oct 28, 2010

A scientific documentary of 5 Doctors/Professors interviewed regarding the problems with Darwin's theory of Evolution

Evolution - A Crumbling Theory ( StreetChurch Adelaide )

Published on May 5, 2012

Prior to the discovery of DNA the only thing evolutionists and creation scientists had to debate about were the morphology of fossils, bones and living species. Because the fossil record was overwhelmingly against the theory of evolution; such as the fact that the predicted gradualism was never observed and intermediate species were rarely found; the theory of evolution was dying a slow death.




When DNA was discovered in 1953, the theory of evolution should have died on the spot because now creation scientists had a new tool to disprove the theory of evolution. That tool was probability. But the theory of evolution did not die even after the Wistar Symposium in 1966.




What has happened is that the scientific establishment's total and absolute control of the media has completely buried the mathematical and genetic problems with the theory of evolution.




The blacklisting of the problems with the theory of evolution is so complete that many people today do not even know that there are scores of anti-evolution books which are very critical of the theory of evolution.




But in the process of burying the creation scientists, the scientific establishment had a lot of outside help!! Various "charities," ultra wealthy families, and other organizations (such as the American Civil Liberties Union), spent many, many, many millions of dollars exercising their massive influence over the media, the universities (via grant money) and the courts to the extent that these outside groups came to the rescue of the scientific establishment.




In fact, for reasons left to conspiracy historians, the theory of evolution started to flourish and today it is a very, very dominant scientific theory even though the scientific establishment still cannot address even the simplest criticisms of the theory of evolution.




Seven reasons why it is impossible that the theory of evolution could ever have happened anywhere in the Universe will now be discussed in summary form. After these seven sections, some additional criticisms will be discussed.

The Adelaide Street Preachers are passionate about preaching the gospel in Adelaide. Street preaching has been God's main method of evangelism since Jesus began his ministry. That's why the Adelaide Street Preachers have dedicated their lives to the public proclamation of the gospel in the streets of Adelaide South Australia. If you want to contact the Adelaide Street Preachers please visit www.StreetChurch.com.au.

Forbidden Science - Shattering the Myths of Darwin's Theory of Evolution

Uploaded on Nov 8, 2010

Journalist and Researcher Richard Milton presents a case that what we have been taught about Darwin's theory of evolution is totally wrong and that this most fundamental belief with respect to human origins should be completely re-evaluated by main stream scientific and academic institutions. Author of the book "Shattering The Myths of Darwinism," Richard Milton does not represent the Creationist movement either. He simply states, that Darwin's theory of evolution does not stand up to logical scientific scrutiny. Get the facts in this original uncut interview that was filmed for the production of the NBC Special Documentary "The Mysterious Origins of Man - Rewriting Human History,"

The Mysterious Origins of Man - Rewriting Human History - NOW on DVD in a New Extended 3-DVD Special Edition - LOADED with Bonus Features and Interviews, Not Shown on TV. - Cat# U664 - Go to http://www.UFOTV.com.