How Godless White Liberals Dupe Blacks Into Supporting Welfare State

WashingtonExaminer.com:

People in the media and academia are mostly leftists hellbent on growing government and controlling our lives. Black people, their politicians and civil rights organizations have become unwitting accomplices. The leftist pretense of concern for the well-being of black people confers upon them an aura of moral superiority and, as such, gives more credibility to their calls for increasing government control over our lives.

Ordinary black people have been sold on the importance of electing blacks to high public office. After centuries of black people having been barred from high elected office, no decent American can have anything against their wider participation in our political system. For several decades, blacks have held significant political power, in the form of being mayors and dominant forces on city councils in major cities such as Washington; Philadelphia; Detroit; Washington, D.C.; Memphis, Tenn.; Atlanta; Baltimore; New Orleans; Oakland, Calif.; Newark, N.J.; and Cincinnati. In these cities, blacks have held administrative offices such as school superintendent, school principal and chief of police. Plus, there's the precedent-setting fact of there being 44 black members of Congress and a black president.

What has this political power meant for the significant socio-economic problems faced by a large segment of the black community? Clearly, it has done little or nothing for academic achievement; the number of black students scoring proficient is far below the national average. It is a disgrace -- and ought to be a source of shame -- to know that the average white seventh- or eighth-grader can run circles around the average black 12th-grader in most academic subjects. The political and education establishment tells us that the solution lies in higher budgets, but the fact of business is that some of the worst public school districts have the highest spending per student. Washington, D.C., for example, spends more than $29,000 per student and scores at nearly the bottom in academic achievement.

Each year, roughly 7,000 -- and as high as 9,000 -- blacks are murdered. Ninety-four percent of the time, the murderer is another black person. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, between 1976 and 2011, there were 279,384 black murder victims. Contrast this with the fact that black fatalities during the Korean War (3,075), Vietnam War (7,243) and wars since 1980 (about 8,200) total about 18,500. Young black males have a greater chance of reaching maturity on the battlefields than on the streets of Philadelphia, Chicago, Detroit, Oakland, Newark and other cities. Black political power and massive city budgets have done absolutely nothing to ameliorate this problem of black insecurity.

Most of the problems faced by the black community have their roots in a black culture that differs significantly from the black culture of yesteryear. Today only 33 percent of black children are raised in two-parent households, but as far back as 1880, in Philadelphia, 75 percent of black children were raised in two-parent households -- and it was as high as 85 percent in other places. Even during slavery, in which marriage was forbidden, most black children were raised with two biological parents. The black family managed to survive several centuries of slavery and generations of the harshest racism and Jim Crow, to ultimately become destroyed by the welfare state. The black family has fallen victim to the vision fostered by some intellectuals that, in the words of a sociology professor in the 1960s, "it has yet to be shown that the absence of a father was directly responsible for any of the supposed deficiencies of broken homes." The real issue to these intellectuals "is not the lack of male presence but the lack of male income." That suggests that fathers can be replaced by a welfare check. The weakened black family gives rise to problems such as high crime, predation and other forms of anti-social behavior.

The cultural problems that affect many black people are challenging and not pleasant to talk about, but incorrectly attributing those problems to racism and racial discrimination, a need for more political power, and a need for greater public spending condemns millions of blacks to the degradation and despair of the welfare state.

RELATED: Black Unemployment Rose in January to 12.1 Percent

Politiks As Usual: In The News 1/19/14

Hoboken Mayor: 'It's True' Christie Administration Withheld Sandy Funds

Philadelphia School Cheating Probe Widens; More Than 100 Educators Targeted

The Need Of The Hour: A Governor Who Will Defy Judiciary On Marriage

Obama on Pot: 'I Don't Think It Is More Dangerous Than Alcohol' 
 
The Perverted Science of Global Warming Gets Dirty(er) 

Target Hacking Mastermind Identified as 17-year-old Russian

What Recovery? Sears And J.C. Penney Are DYING

Dan Savage Wanted Sarah Palin to Choke on Her Christmas Pastry

Vapid ABC Thrills Over 'Revealing,' 'Elegant' Michelle Obama and Her Extended 'Vacay' 

Conservatives Adopt Progressive Priorities

Feminist Lena Dunham Defends Vogue Photoshopping Her Glamor Shots

Wendy Davis Stretches the Truth

Unions Won’t Support Bill to Keep Sex Predators Out of Classrooms

5 Things Obamacare Teaches You About Liberals

Townhall.com:

1) It's inherently dishonest: In many ways, Obamacare is a typical liberal program. Unfortunately for Barack Obama, there are two key differences. The first is that the Affordable Care Act was implemented on a short enough timetable for people to remember the promises that were made about it. Furthermore, because it is such an enormous program, it impacts a lot more lives. Otherwise, it's a standard liberal program that makes promises it never intends to keep and does more damage than good. Liberal programs usually have huge, yet very predictable downsides that are systematically hidden, ignored and downplayed because liberal ideas can't survive an educated, honest debate about whether they work or not. 

2) Results are irrelevant: Barack Obama promised that if you like your insurance, you can keep it. He said the same thing about your doctor. He claimed Obamacare would REDUCE the cost of health care, save the average person money and provide universal coverage. Not only are all of those promises untrue, it's hard to miss the fact that no one on the Left SEEMS TO CARE. That's because whether Obamacare actually works or not is secondary to left-wing goals like centralizing government power, gaining more control over the American people and making liberals feel good about themselves. This is the rule, not the exception when it comes to liberals. Put another way, whether a liberal supports a program doesn't have anything to do with whether it works or not. 

3) It penalizes success: Contrary to what you'd believe if you listen to the Left, 85% of Americans were perfectly happy with their insurance before the Affordable Care Act came along. Yet because of Obamacare, tens of millions of those people are going to lose their health insurance and most of them will pay more. In other words, our health care system was working just fine for the vast majority of Americans until Barack Obama took a wrecking ball to it. So, in order to help a relatively small number of people, liberals are perfectly willing to penalize Americans -- who worked hard, played by the rules and took care of themselves -- with much higher costs and lost plans. This is standard operating procedure for liberals who act as if doing well enough to live your life free of welfare, food stamps and government nannies is "cheating." 

4) It doesn't work: A hammer is a good tool to use for pounding nails. It's not such a great tool to use in place of a screwdriver, saw or wrench. Government can be a good tool as well when it's used for the limited purposes for which it’s designed -- such as putting up street signs, building roads and forming a military to protect us from other nations. The problem with liberals is that they want to use their government hammer for every task imaginable instead of letting the free market provide the right tool for the job. You think a billing dispute with an insurance company is unpleasant? Wait until you're hashing it out with the IRS. You don't like to deal with your insurance company? Wait until you have a problem with your insurance and can't get it corrected until you get approval from a government agent. Our government is slow, stupid, arrogant and generally unfriendly to consumers. The more government you have in your life, the more unpleasant your life is likely to be. 

5) There are no trade-offs: Liberals seem to be incapable of mentally comprehending trade-offs. So instead, they present Utopian visions of how life would look in a perfect world and offer that up as a political alternative to the messy, oftentimes unpleasant reality we live in. It would be fantastic if Santa Claus, Star Trek replicators, and genies were real, but when you seek heaven on earth, you're more likely to start wandering towards hell.

RELATED:  Judge: Obamacare’s HHS Mandate Forces Catholic Groups to Violate Their Religion

Liberal Media Desperately Playing Word Games to Dismiss 'Knockout Game' As Phony Threat

Newsbusters.org:

Whenever liberals are in a tight spot, they adopt the scorched-earth policy of argumentation. With no answer, they start demanding that you define words: What do you mean "liberal"? What do you mean "democracy"? What do you mean "patriotism"?

They retreat from argument, burning the English language as they go.

Accustomed to playing the role of Soviet commissar censoring the news when it comes to black violence, the Non-Fox Media are in a panic now that the alternative media can post videos of young black males punching out random strangers.

As a result, liberals are denying the "Knockout Game" exists by refusing to understand the meaning of basic words, such as "game" and "trend."

Knockout Game-debunkers place great significance, for example, on the fact that the assailants have not signed affidavits calling it a "game."

Thus, The New York Times noted that in one recent case of a random stranger being knocked out by young black males, "the attacker insisted the assault was not part of any organized 'game.'"

A 78-year-old woman is punched by a young black male for no reason, and the Times' central point is: "Perp says it's not a 'game.'"

Similarly, in Philadelphia magazine, Stephen Silver said of two recent knockout attacks in Philadelphia that he wasn't counting either one as "confirmed cases of the Knockout Game" on the grounds that the puncher said he "was not participating in the Game."

Until the assailants admit they're playing a game, liberals say the Knockout Game is a "hoax."

Obviously, it doesn't matter what the participants call it. I don't know anyone who calls himself a "pundit," but that doesn't mean people don't go on TV and give their opinions. Every liberal denies he's a liberal, but that doesn't mean "liberals" don't exist. (Would that it were so!)

While we're on the subject, I can't think of a single instance in which someone has admitted to committing a "hate crime," but liberals are always calling things "hate crimes."

The Huffington Post concluded that the Knockout Game was "fabricated" based on one of the most famous victims, James Addlespurger, denying that it was a game. Instead, he calls his knockout an "assault," saying "game" is just a "label."

Hey, you know what else is just a label? The word "assault." "James Addlespurger" is a label. Another expression for "label" is "word" -- meaning, "something liberals try to blow up whenever they're about to be trapped into admitting the truth."

As Sgt. Tom Connellan of Syracuse, N.Y., patiently explained to the Times, it's called a "game" because there is no other motive for these attacks. They're not done for vengeance, robbery, gang initiations or payback. Strangers are being punched out strictly for amusement. Also, there are rules. You get only one punch to knock someone out.

(Incidentally, the reason the Times was quoting a policeman from Syracuse -- in an article questioning the reality of the "Knockout Game" -- is that two recent knockout attacks in that city were fatal.)

RELATED: Larry Elder Blasts Media Outlets for Downplaying ‘Knockout Game’

Politiks As Usual: In The News 4/29/13

New York Officials Seek Human Remains Amid Debris from Boeing Jet

Obama Becomes First Sitting President to Address Planned Parenthood

Why Is Atheism So Appealing? 

Is The US Ready For A Third President Called Bush?

Liberals Suck at Math and Eyeballs

Obama's Borrowed More Per Household ($53,616) Than Median Household Earns ($50,502)

Huffington Post Journalist Admits ‘Gay Marriage Opens the Door’ for Polygamy ‘and Other Things’

Liberals: ‘We Do Want to Change Marriage’

ABC's Lobbying Failed: NFL Teams Failed to Draft the Openly Gay Kicker They Promoted

Holder Defends Mirandizing Boston Bombing Suspect

Judge: Firing Teacher Who Called Homosexuality A Sin Reflects ‘Modern British Values Of Tolerance’

McCain, GOP Lawmakers: Syrian Chemical Weapons Threaten U.S.

Biden Says McCain Would’ve Won 2008 If Not For Economic Collapse, Senator Responds On Meet The Press

Social Liberalism In The Midst Of A String Of Stunning Defeats

Mediaite.com:

April has not been kind to those who subscribe to the tenets of cultural and social liberalism. The advocates of progressivism in American life have suffered two defeats in recent weeks – one fight they sought but the other was unforeseen. The trial of Kermit Gosnell has forced the media and the public to ask themselves some disturbing questions about the nation’s abortion laws and the disdainful treatment of pro-life ideas and advocates by the press. Similarly, gun control advocates suffered a dramatic defeat yesterday at the hands of the country’s elected representatives. Neither of these events had to unfold in the way they did. Convinced of the righteousness of their cause, social progressives have for some time failed to engage their critics as honest brokers. Absolutist social liberals have made a virtue of dismissing their opponents as uncaring or unthinking brutes. This conceit led to some stunning defeats with as yet untold repercussions.


The revelation that the political news media had not pursued the Gosnell case in the same way it pursued other “local crime stories” which many in the press implied were indicative of a larger societal problem; the shooting of Trayvon Martin or 2012’s mass shootings in Colorado and Connecticut, to name some recent examples. This admission that the press had abdicated its job provoked a level of introspection in the media that is virtually unprecedented. 

Pro-choice writers issued mea culpas for their lack of coverage. Some wondered in print if they overlooked the story because of their own biases or because their social and professional circles simply are not interested in reports that ultimately lead to discomforting conclusions about some abortion practices.
“I understand why my readers suspect me, and other pro-choice mainstream journalists, of being selective — of not wanting to cover the story because it showcased the ugliest possibilities of abortion rights,” wrote The Daily Beast columnist Megan McArdle. “The truth is that most of us tend to be less interested in sick-making stories — if the sick-making was done by ‘our side.’” 

“There is a bubble,” acknowledged Slate columnist Dave Weigel. “Let’s just state the obvious: National political reporters are, by and large, socially liberal. We are more likely to know a gay couple than to know someone who owns an ‘assault weapon.’ We are, generally, pro-choice. Twice, in D.C., I’ve caused a friend to literally leave a conversation and freeze me out for a day or so because I suggested that the Stupak Amendment and the Hyde Amendment made sense.”

Beyond the media, the Gosnell case has transcended the filter on information which the press jealously guards and has percolated into the national consciousness. The public, largely comfortable with the notion of “safe, legal, and rare,” must now confront the idea that some abortion practices in this country may be none of the above. 

Not all in the media are willing to ask themselves the tough questions. Salon’s Irin Carmon has called into question the Democratic credentials of The Daily Beast columnist Kirsten Powers who so effectively shamed the media into covering the Gosnell case. She added that the Gosnell case, almost certainly an outlier, deserves as much coverage as the relatively high fatality rate for African-American women due to pregnancy. Those alleging a media cover-up of the Gosnell case “just want all reproductive freedom curtailed,” she writes.

Carmon raises valid points, but she is also shifting the terms of the debate. After failing to effectively justify the media’s silence on Gosnell last week, it is doubtful she will derail the debate about late-term abortion this week. For a nation which has been rapidly trending away from calling itself “pro-choice” over the last 20 years, the Gosnell case has focused the minds of many who would prefer not to face the gruesome realities of abortion after the first trimester. This is not evidence of a trend towards religiosity in America – data suggests the nation is turning away from organized religion. It is a trend in America towards libertarianism. The protection and preservation of an individual’s “right to life” has become a winning argument — emphasis on the word “right.” 

This defeat – and it is a defeat – for one of social liberalism’s most sacred cows is compounded this week by the failure of the Senate to pass even a modest tightening of the nation’s gun laws. After four months of campaigning on the issue of gun control by the Democratic political establishment and by their allies in the media in the wake of the Newtown massacre, Republicans and red-state Democrats joined together to kill the token modification to the background checks for gun purchasers. This development was greeted with shock by gun control proponents, but it was a foreseeable development. 

“Do we really think thousands of families whose lives have been shattered by gun violence don’t have a right to weigh in on this issue? Do we think their emotions and loss is not relevant to this debate?” President Barack Obama asked rhetorically during his post-vote berating of all of Washington D.C.

But Obama intentionally conflated reasoned opposition with cowed obedience to entrenched interests. The endlessly compassionate American people and their Congressional representatives did not cede their logic to their emotions on the issue of gun ownership, but gun control advocates steadfastly refused to accept that their opponents had a legitimate counterargument. 

Further, gun control backers refused to reconcile a discrepancy in public polling which showed some proposed new gun laws to be wildly popular in the same way that the fundamental right to own a firearm remains wildly popular. 

During the height of the debate over the Affordable Care Act, the law’s supporters dismissed the unpopularity of healthcare reform by identifying particular provisions within the bill that polled well. They said that the bill’s unpopularity would fade away as those popular provisions began to take effect. Of course, that day never came. 

In this same way, gun control advocates are fooling themselves. A backlash against those Senators who struck down new gun laws in spite of their popularity is unlikely to materialize. Gun control supporters presumed that their opponents were animated by base or disingenuous motives. In doing so, they failed to make a convincing case for their cause. 

RELATED:  The World Is Marching Toward Anarchy

Five Decades of Lies Help Democrats Create Monolithic Black Vote

Townhall.com:

As recently as 1956, nearly 39 percent of blacks voted Republican in that year's presidential election. After the Civil War, Abe Lincoln's Republican Party easily carried the black vote -- where blacks were allowed to vote. Unwelcome in the Democratic Party, most blacks voted Republican and continued to do so through the early part of the 20th century. It wasn't until 1948, when 77 percent of the black vote went to Harry Truman, who had desegregated the military, that a majority of blacks identified themselves as Democrats. 

Yet, as a percentage of the party, more Republicans voted for the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 than did Democrats. For his key role breaking the Democrats' filibuster and getting the act to pass the stalled Senate, Republican Sen. Everett Dirksen, a conservative from Illinois, landed on the cover of Time magazine. President Lyndon Johnson called Dirksen "the hero of the nation." The Chicago Defender, then the country's largest black daily newspaper, applauded Dirksen's "generalship" for helping to successfully push through the bill. 

Older black voters sometimes explain they're opposed to Republicans because of the "racist" Southern strategy. But Richard Nixon speechwriter Pat Buchannan, credited with inventing the "Southern strategy," considered the Democratic Party the party of the racists. Buchanan said: "We would build our Republican Party on a foundation of states' rights, human rights, small government and a strong national defense, and leave it to the 'party of [Democratic Georgia Gov. Lester] Maddox, [1966 Democratic challenger against Spiro Agnew for Maryland governor George] Mahoney and [Democratic Alabama Gov. George] Wallace to squeeze the last ounces of political juice out of the rotting fruit of racial injustice.'" 

But before that, another pivotal event occurred that helped the GOP-as-racist meme. In 1960, during the presidential campaign, Martin Luther King Jr. was arrested following a sit-in at a segregated lunch counter in Atlanta. Hundreds of other protestors were released, but King was jailed on a trumped-up probation violation for failing to have a Georgia driver's license. 

King's aides reached out to then-Vice President and Republican presidential candidate Richard Nixon. They also reached out to the Democratic nominee, John F. Kennedy. Bobby Kennedy called the Atlanta judge handling the case. Shortly after that call, the judge released King. Nixon, according to Harry Belafonte, a King supporter, "did nothing." Is that true? 

Nixon, it turns out, had a much closer relationship with King than did Kennedy. In the Nixon Presidential Library in Yorba Linda, Calif., records show considerable handwritten notes and correspondence between Nixon and King. This includes a 1957 letter from King acknowledging their previous meetings, which thanked Nixon for his "assiduous labor and dauntless courage in seeking to make the Civil Rights Bill a reality," and praised him for his "devotion to the highest mandates of the moral law." 

But in 1960, on the eve of the election, Nixon was in a tough spot. Nixon's public silence might be misconstrued as acceptance of King's arrest. On the other hand, as a candidate for his boss's job, Nixon worried about the political costs of appearing ungrateful if he chastised President Dwight Eisenhower for not taking stronger action. Eisenhower, however, was content to let the Justice Department handle the matter. 

According to historian and presidential biographer Stephen Ambrose, while Nixon made no public comments, he telephoned Attorney General William Rogers to find out if King's constitutional rights were being infringed, thus opening the door for federal involvement. Nixon, a lawyer, was concerned about the ethics of calling a judge to get him to release someone. 

Nixon, writes Ambrose, told his press secretary: "I think Dr. King is getting a bum rap. But despite my strong feelings in this respect, it would be completely improper for me or any other lawyer to call the judge. And Robert Kennedy should have known better than to do so." That Bobby Kennedy, also a lawyer, nevertheless made a phone call to the judge did not alter the issue of whether it was appropriate. In retrospect, an easy call, but not at the time. 

Two million pamphlets titled, "'No Comment' Nixon Versus a Candidate With a Heart, Senator Kennedy," were distributed in black churches. Never mind that in 1956 Nixon revealed he was an honorary member of the NAACP. Or that Nixon pushed for passage of the '57 civil rights bill in the Senate. Or that Time magazine wrote that Nixon's support for civil rights incurred the wrath of one of his segregationist opponents, Sen. Richard Russell, D-Ga., who sarcastically called Nixon the NAACP's "most distinguished member." 

But the GOP-is-racist meme can be heard nightly on MSNB-Hee Haw and in political science and history classes all over the country. Actor Morgan Freeman calls the tea party racist. Democratic National Committee Chair Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla., tells us that the GOP wants to "literally drag us all the way back to Jim Crow laws." 

Keeping blacks ignorant of history remains crucial to this caricature of the Republican Party -- and to the monolithic Democratic black vote. Not so black and white, is it? 

RELATED:  NY Times Columnist Charles Blow Completely Wrong: GOP Didn’t Lose Black Vote, Democrats Won It

Liberal Judge Outrageous DWI Ruling Kept Hit-and-Run Driver Julio Acevedo, Who Crashed Into and Killed a Brooklyn Family, Behind the Wheel

NYDailyNews.com:

He should have never been behind the wheel.

When Julio Acevedo was arraigned last month on a drunken driving bust, a Brooklyn judge not only refused to set bail, he declined to suspend the ex-con’s license — even after being told it was mandatory.

Court transcripts show Brooklyn Supreme Court Justice Michael Gary fumbled on the law and released Acevedo, 44, after a Feb. 18 arraignment. With an active driver’s license and no bail, the felon was free to speed a borrowed BMW into a livery car, killing a young Hasidic couple in Williamsburg about two weeks later.

Nachman and Raizel Glauber’s son, delivered by C-section after the March 3 wreck and weighing less than 3 pounds, died the next day.

Gary, a judge for 26 years, had said that if he was wrong about the mandatory license suspension in February, a judge could correct him during the next court date on April 10.

Records show the prosecutor, Ashley Ford, tried to keep Acevedo behind bars after the DWI arrest. And she wanted his driver’s license suspended.

“The defendant has a bench warrant history and is not recommended for release,” said Ford, requesting $5,000 bail and noting that Acevedo was apprehended chasing a cabbie who had cut him off.

Gary released the lowlife without bail and ordered him to attend an alcohol screening. Ford then pointed out that state law required the judge to suspend his license.

“I believe the statute requires that the license be suspended,” she said, according to the arraignment transcript. “I’m not quite sure it’s discretionary.”

But the judge disagreed, telling Acevedo he could have his license back despite registering a 0.13 blood-alcohol level in a breath test.

“I don’t believe that I must do it ...,” Gary said. “If I’m wrong, the judge can correct me on April 10 (Acevedo’s next court date), but I think I’m correct.”

Gary was handling arraignment court during the February hearing, part of a rotation in which Supreme Court justices each fill in five days a year. He declined to comment Tuesday.

Black Liberals Bowing Down To The Altar of Rachel Maddow

Since Barack Obama became President he has gone out of his way to help garner "civil rights" for people who engage in same-sex behavior and illegal immigrants. During that same time Black unemployment has increased, as has crime, teenage pregnancy in the urban community and the percentage of blacks in prison. These facts haven't stopped blacks from not only assisting greatly in Obama getting re-elected, but watching MSNBC, the countries best, race-baiting channel designed to  lock Blacks down on a Democrat plantation that no longer cares about the needs of black people:

2012 was a very good year for cable news, with a presidential election that generated huge public interest, and a brightly-lit media landscape that cranked out content to a voracious audience. While Fox News remained the number one cable news network, and CNN performed well on breaking news stories, MSNBC had a lot to brag about in 2012. The network enjoyed significant (around 20%) ratings increases across the board, but made astonishing gains with their already-large African American audience, growing that audience by 60.5% for the Mon-Sun 8pm-11pm period. MSNBC President Phil Griffin told me, in a phone interview, that he is “thrilled” with that result, and that it “says a lot about what we’ve been doing over the last few years.”

In that same time period, CNN grew its black audience by 23.7%(from 131,000 in 2011 to 162,000 in 2012, 23.9% of their total audience) , while Fox News’ declined by 23.7% (38,000 in 2011 to 29,000 in 2012, 1.4% of their total audience), but MSNBC had more black viewers than both of those nets combined (from 177,000 in 2011 to 284,000 in 2012, 31.4% of their total audience). What’s more impressive is that MSNBC attained 60% growth after being number one in that demographic last year, and the year before.

“This has been steady growth for us for some time,” Griffin noted. “I think we made a commitment, we decided, that in order for this channel to succeed, that we had to reflect the country. This meant that we had to be part of the country in ways that the other channels weren’t.”

Part of that commitment, according to Griffin, is the “look” of the channel. ”We have a diverse on-air group of people,” Griffin said, “because that matters, and people want to know that we reflect their world. And it’s not just a single show – its across the board. You look at the guests every hour and we make sure that we have women, African Americans, everything, and I think to spend a day watching MSNBC is to see America as we have seen it.”

That diverse array of talent, including hosts like Tamron Hall, Touré, Melissa Harris-Perry, and Rev. Al Sharpton, and ubiquitous contributors like Joy Reid, Goldie Taylor, Karen Finney, Prof. Michael Erik Dyson, Chairman Michael Steele, Eugene Robinson, and Jonathan Capehart, is an organic result of the network’s editorial philosophy, rather than an end unto itself, says Griffin.

“It wasn’t like we said ‘Oh, we have to have a diverse person on here and there,’” he said. “We made a decision. We made a commitment in ideas, issues and everything – the audience followed, and that goes back to four or five years ago. As we grew, we recognized that it was the right thing to do. It’s giving a voice to people in these kinds of programs who don’t always get a voice. Our look is as diverse as any on mainstream TV. I’m incredibly proud of it. It’s not like we decided ‘We’re going to increase our African American viewership by 60%,’ but I’m thrilled that it happened, and it says a lot about what we’ve been doing over the last few years.”

2012 was also a year in which race played a central part in some huge news stories, and MSNBC was instrumental in putting them on the public’s radar.

RELATED:  WSJ: African-Americans Haven’t Fared Well Under Obama

Why A Good Person Can Vote Against Gay Marriage

It's the moral fabric of America that social liberals are looking to extinguish, just pay attention to the facts:

Next week voters in Maine, Maryland and Washington will vote on whether to redefine marriage to include same-sex couples. 

Given that there are good people on both sides of this issue, how are we to explain their opposing views? 

The primary explanation is this: Proponents and opponents ask two different questions. 

Proponents of same-sex marriage ask: Is keeping the definition of marriage as man-woman fair to gays?

Opponents of same-sex marriage ask: Is same-sex marriage good for society? 

Few on either side honestly address the question of the other side. Opponents of same-sex marriage rarely acknowledge how unfair the age-old man-woman definition is to gay couples. And proponents rarely, if ever, acknowledge that this unprecedented redefinition of marriage may not be good for society. 

That is why proponents have it much easier. All they need to do is to focus the public's attention on individual gay people, show wonderful gay individuals who love each other, and ask the American public: Is it fair to continue to deprive these people of the right to marry one another? 

When added to Americans' aversion to discrimination, to the elevation of compassion to perhaps the highest national value, and to the equating of opposition to same-sex marriage with opposition to interracial marriage, it is no wonder that many Americans have been persuaded that opposition to same-sex marriage is hateful, backwards and the moral equivalent of racism. 

Is there any argument that can compete with the emotionally compelling fairness argument? 

The answer is that one can -- namely, the answer to the second question, Is it good for society? 

Before answering that question, however, it is necessary to respond to the charge that opposition to same-sex marriage is morally equivalent to opposition to interracial marriage and, therefore, the moral equivalent of racism. 

There are two responses: 

First, this charge is predicated on the profoundly false premise that race and sex (or "gender" as it is now referred to) are analogous. 

They are not. 

While there are no differences between black and white human beings, there are enormous differences between male and female human beings. That is why sports events, clothing, public restrooms, and (often) schools are routinely divided by sex. But black sporting events and white sporting events, black restrooms and white restrooms, black schools and white schools, or black clothing stores and white clothing stores would be considered immoral. 

Because racial differences are insignificant and gender differences are hugely significant, there is no moral equivalence between opposition to interracial marriage and opposition to same-sex marriage. 

Second, if opposition to same-sex marriage is as immoral as racism, why did no great moral thinker, in all of history, ever advocate male-male or female-female marriage? Opposition to racism was advocated by every great moral thinker. Moses, for example, married a black woman, the very definition of Catholic is "universal" and therefore diverse and has always included every race, and the equality of human beings of every race was a central tenet of Judaism, Christianity, Islam and other world religions. But no one - not Moses, Jesus, Buddha, Muhammad, Aquinas, Gandhi, not the Bible or the Koran or any other sacred text, nor even a single anti-religious secular thinker of the Enlightenment -- ever advocated redefining marriage to include members of the same sex. 

To argue that opposition to same-sex marriage is immoral is to argue that every moral thinker, and every religion and social movement in the history of mankind prior to the last 20 years in America and Europe was immoral. About no other issue could this be said. Every moral advance has been rooted in prior moral thinking. The anti-slavery movement was based on the Bible. Martin Luther King, Jr. was first and foremost the "Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr." and he regularly appealed to the moral authority of the scriptures when making his appeals on behalf of racial equality. Same-sex marriage is the only social movement to break entirely with the past, to create a moral ideal never before conceived. It might be right, but it might also be an example of the moral hubris of the present generation, the generation that created the self-esteem movement: After all, you need a lot of self-esteem to hold yourself morally superior to all those who preceded you. 

We now return to our two primary questions. 

Is the man-woman definition of marriage fair to gays who wish to marry? No, it isn't. And those of us opposed to same-sex marriage need to be honest about this, to confront the human price paid by some people through no fault of their own and figure out ways to offer gay couples basic rights associated with marriage. 

But whether a policy is fair to every individual can never be the only question society asks in establishing social policy. Eyesight standards for pilots are unfair to some terrifically capable individuals. Orchestra standards are unfair to many talented musicians. A mandatory retirement age is unfair to many people. Wherever there are standards, there will be unfairness to individuals. 

So, the question is whether redefining in the most radical way ever conceived -- indeed completely changing its intended meaning -- is good for society. 

It isn't. 

The major reason is this: Gender increasingly no longer matters. There is a fierce battle taking place to render meaningless the man-woman distinction, the most important distinction regarding human beings' personal identity. Nothing would accomplish this as much as same-sex marriage. 

The whole premise of same-sex marriage is that gender is insignificant: It doesn't matter whether you marry a man or a woman. Love, not gender, matters. 

Some examples of this war on gender: 

--This year Harvard University appointed its first permanent director of bisexual, gay, lesbian, transgender, and queer student life. The individual, Vanidy Bailey, has asked that he/she never be referred to as he or she, male or female. Harvard has agreed. 

--In 2010 eHarmony, for years the country's largest online dating service, was sued for only matching men and women. Its lack of same-sex matchmaking meant that it violated anti-discrimination laws in some states. As a result, eHarmony was forced to begin a same-sex online service. 

--Each year more and more American high schools elect girls as homecoming kings and boys as homecoming queens. Students have been taught to regard restricting kings to males or queens to females as (gender-based) discrimination. 

--When you sign up for the new social networking site, Google Plus, you are asked to identify your gender. Three choices are offered: Male, Female, Other. 

--Catholic Charities, which operates the oldest ongoing adoption services in America, has had to end its adoption work in Illinois, Massachusetts and Washington, DC because the governments there regard placing children with married man-woman couples before same-sex couples as discriminatory. 

Increasingly, even the mother-father ideal is being shattered in this battle to render male-female distinction insignificant. 

--The socialist French government has just announced that in the future no government issued document will be allowed to use the words "mother" or "father." Only the gender-neutral term "parent" will be acceptable in France. 

--And in Rhode Island this year, one school district cancelled its father-daughter dance after the ACLU threatened to sue the district for gender discrimination. Only parent-child events, not father-daughter dances or mother-son ballgames, will be allowed. 

And all this is happening before same-sex marriage is allowed. Imagine what will happen should same-sex marriage become the law of the land. 

It will hasten the end of the male-female distinction and of any significance to mothers or fathers as distinctive entities. 

It will mean that those who, for religious or other reasons, wish to retain the man-woman definition of marriage will be legally and morally as isolated as racists are today. 

And it will mean that teachers and other adults who ask little boys and girls who they would like to marry, will, in order to be in sync with the morality of our times, have to make it clear that it might be a someone of the same sex. "Will you marry a boy or a girl?" will be the only non-bigoted way to ask a young person about their marital plans. 

The history of left-wing policies has largely consisted of doing what feels good and compassionate without asking what the long-term consequences will be; what Professor Thomas Sowell calls "Stage One Thinking." That explains, for example, the entitlement state. It sounds noble and seems noble. But the long-term consequences are terrible: economic ruin, a demoralized population, increasing selfishness as people look to the state to take care of their fellow citizens, and more. 

By redefining marriage to include same sex couples we are playing with sexual and societal fire. Just as the entitlement state passes on the cost of our good intentions to our children and grandchildren - unsustainable dependency and debt -- so, too, same-sex marriage will pass along the consequences of our good intentions to our children and grandchildren - gender confusion and the loss of motherhood and fatherhood as values, just to cite two obvious consequences. 

It is not enough to mean well in life. One must also do well. And the two are frequently not the same thing.
There are reasons no moral thinker in history ever advocated same-sex marriage.

RELATED:  Same-sex marriage is unnatural

Politiks As Usual: In The News 8/13/12

Obama Campaign Also Tied Romney To Woman's Death

Palin: Ryan Pick Makes This An Election Of Competing Visions

The One Thing You Need to Know About The Democrat Plan to Attack Paul Ryan

Ann Coulter Wants Romney Spokeswoman Fired

10 Interesting Facts About Paul Ryan 

Obama Calls Ryan ‘Ideological Leader of Republicans in Congress’

Obamacare Mandate: Sterilize 15-Year-Old Girls for Free--Without Parental Consent

Study: In Social Psychology, Left-Wing Agenda is King

National Review's Rich Lowry Destroys MSNBC's Rachel Maddow on Meet the Press

Death Toll in Iran Quake Raised to at Least 250

Newt Gingrich: Romney/Ryan Lack Of Foreign Policy Experience An ‘Advantage’

19 Months After Mass Shooting, ex-Rep. Giffords Moves Back to Tucson

5 Ways Liberalism Destroys Virtue

Townhall.com:

The more completely a person, group, or organization embraces liberalism, the less virtuous it becomes. It's almost like a mental sickness in that respect. People or groups who are lightly infected can soldier on without having it eat them alive. However, the deeper the sickness goes, the more it changes them. Eventually the liberal disease inside of people can grow so much that it warps their morals, their religious beliefs, and their way of thinking until they can no longer tell right and wrong. This destruction of virtue is a natural consequence of the fundamental beliefs that go along with liberalism.

5) "When one becomes a liberal, he or she pretends to advocate tolerance, equality and peace, but hilariously, they’re doing so for purely selfish reasons. It’s the human equivalent of a puppy dog’s face: an evolutionary tool designed to enhance survival, reproductive value and status. In short, liberalism is based on one central desire: to look cool in front of others in order to get love. Preaching tolerance makes you look cooler, than saying something like, 'please lower my taxes.’" -- Greg Gutfeld

Doing the right thing is often tough. It's hard to take money you could use yourself and give it to charity. It's difficult to hold to a position that you think is best for the country even though some people will think it's "mean." It takes self-denial to ask that the government spend less today so that future generations will still be able to enjoy the American Dream.
Liberals don't have that sort of moral courage. They advocate giving away other people's money and call it being charitable. They take positions that are terrible for the country because they're afraid of criticism and call it bravery. They're willing to sell future generations of Americans into debt bondage so they can have a little more comfort now and they pat themselves on the back for their compassionate "investments."
Liberals aren't actually charitable, courageous, or compassionate; they just claim to be those things by virtue of the fact that they're liberal. In fact, that's one of the major selling points of liberalism: being able to think of yourself as moral and good without the trials and sacrifice that go along with actually being moral and good.

4) "There are no bad guys on the left. There are only people who’ve been driven to desperation by conservative evil." -- Allahpundit

Liberals begin with the proposition that conservatives are unwitting dupes at best and evil at worst while other liberals are on the side of the angels. This leads them to excuse just about any and every behavior from killing cops (Muhammad Abdul Jamal), to terrorist bombings (Bill Ayers), to treason (Jane Fonda) as long as the perpetrator has the right beliefs and is useful to the movement. When you think that the only real crime is disagreeing with your ideology, you can make a hero out of a drunken, disreputable coward who left a woman to die in a tidal pool or even come up with justifications for why it's fine for the Department of Justice to help Mexican cartels get weapons they used to kill more than 300 people as part of some misguided political stunt to encourage gun control.

3) "Liberals have created, and the minority leadership has exploited, a community of dependent people, unaware of the true route to prosperity and happiness: self-reliance and self-investment. Instead, people are told that America is unjust, unfair, and full of disadvantages. They are told that their only hope is for government to fix their problems. What has happened is that generations of people have bought into this nonsense and as a result have remained hopelessly mired in poverty and despair — because the promised solutions don’t work. And they will never work — they never have." -- Rush Limbaugh

Individuality is a necessary condition of morality. When you embrace tribalism based on race, gender, and sexual orientation as the Left does, you inevitably end up embracing a tribal mentality as well. Everyone in your tribe is on "your side” and other people are viewed as "enemies." Most people don't apply the same ethical standards to their enemies as they do to their tribe. That's why we're fine with sending Predator Drones to kill terrorists in Pakistan, but we would riot in the street if the same policy were put in place to target people accused of murder in New Jersey.

RELATED:  Why Conservatives Are Happier Than Liberals

Bono Smugly Declares ‘We Need More Aid’ And Only The ‘Brain-Dead’ Disagree

Great piece by Andrew Kirell over at Mediaite about what a smug a-hole that far-Left, super rich "humanitarian" Bono is. Amazing how many people worldwide fall this guy's claptrap:

The Daily Caller reports that Friday afternoon at the Chicago Council on Global Affairs Food and Global Agriculture (mouthful!) symposium, U2 singer and humanitarian Bono declared that even though “we are broke,” we need to increase foreign aid budgets. And to those who disagree? Well, Bono says you’re all “brain-dead, heart-dead ideologues or controversialists.”

Bono spoke to the crowd about Europe’s debt woes, conceding that “we’re broke.” He continued on to explain that during these tough economic times, when he goes busking for foreign aid in Western capital cities, “the word ‘aid’ sounds like an expletive. It’s like you brought a bad smell into the room.” But despite the resistance, Bono insists, “we need aid.”

“Of course we still need aid. Of course we do,” he declared. “Does anyone disagree? Anyone apart from brain-dead, heart-dead ideologues or professional controversialists? Come on. Every sensible person knows that.”

What smugness. 

It’s a common tactic to minimize the opposition by claiming that no sensible person could possibly disagree with you. (Hey, remember when President Obama said there was simply no disagreement that we need a government stimulus? And then this showed up.) Bono has mastered this tactic over the years.

Bono must believe that serious economists, scholars, and writers like Andrew Mwenda, Dambisa Moya, William Easterly, June Arunga, James Shikwati, Karol Boudreaux, and many others are all “brain-dead.”

It’s easy to claim everyone else is “heart-dead” when you believe you have millions of poor people on your side. But Bono is simply wrong about foreign aid.

We give billions in aid to oppressive regimes who predictably hide portions of the money in Swiss banks or spend it on lavish mansions and cars. Food aid gets stolen too. ABC News visited Kenya several years ago and met Kenyan farmers who said bags of food aid from their government never arrives. This is not surprising because many of the aid-recipient regimes are kleptocracies – that is, they thrive mainly on plundering from the citizens they govern.

Much aid is rewarded without regard for internal reforms, despite the fact that corruption, absence of private property protections, and lack of rule of law are some of the main reasons the developing world experiences crippling poverty. Dumping foreign aid on them has done nothing to liberalize those oppressive regimes and create the economic growth to lift the people out of poverty.

World Bank economic studies confirm that foreign aid actually does great harm because “higher aid levels erode the quality of governance.”

In the past 40 years, Western governments have given Africa more than half a trillion dollars in aid. Yet Africa is even poorer than it was before the money started rolling in. A study from the London School of Economics further confirms the failure of foreign aid. By reviewing the aid given to more than 95 countries, the study finds that ‘‘aid does not increase investment and growth, nor benefit the poor as measured by improvements in human development indicators, but it does increase the size of government.’’ Another comprehensive study by the IMF also found no relationship between aid and growth.

Foreign aid hasn’t accomplished its goals. Instead it has financed mostly authoritarian governments, whose destructive policies — trade protectionism, insurmountable licensing schemes, price and wage controls, nationalization of industries — have all been supported in some fashion by our foreign aid programs.

To say foreign aid is a failure is not to say that we, as individuals, should do nothing to help. There are wonderful charities that do actual on-the-ground work. Micro-finance organizations are another way to directly empower the impoverished.

But no, Bono, we do not need more government foreign aid. And it’s not “heart-dead” to think so.

RELATED: Shocker: Massive aid does not mean improvement

Ellen Degeneres "Inspires" Soap Actress Joanna Johnson To Be A Lesbian

Sexually speaking there is nothing a woman can do for a woman that a man can't. Nothing. But putting aside one of the faux-facade's used by morally-bankrupt, alternative lifestyle-choosing homosexuals to excuse their amoral behavior, God made our bodies the way he did for many reasons including procreation. And the body is as much a temple of God as is the mind and spirit. That said, in a world that grows more and more perverse by the minute, the mere presence, acceptance and popularity of the world's most pwerful gay advocate, Ellen Degeneres, continues to do wonders on women who already live life without a moral compass:

“The Bold and the Beautiful” actress Joanna Johnson has come out of the closet.

The 50-year-old Johnson, who was first introduced to viewers as Caroline Spencer on the CBS soap in 1987 before going on to play Caroline’s twin sister Karen, told TV Guide that she is married to a female club promoter and has two adopted children.

Johnson said she was reluctant to reveal her sexuality in the past. “I was so worried I wouldn’t be employable as an actress if people knew I was a lesbian,” she said, “or that I wouldn’t be believable in romance stories. I had to deal with a lot of self-loathing.”

Johnson said she realized she was gay in her early twenties, but she didn’t have celebrity role models like Ellen DeGeneres to look up to. She said, “I guess it’s my turn to do my little part. It’s time to live a fully authentic life.”

Johnson’s “Bold and the Beautiful” character is currently involved in a lesbian relationship. She took a break from the show to work on the ABC sitcom “Hope & Faith” and returned to the soap in 2009.

RELATED: Ellen DeGeneres, Neil Patrick Harris, more applaud Obama's gay marriage stance

Politiks As Usual: 5/6/12

Black Women and Fat

Dianne Feinstein, Mike Rogers Agree The Taliban Is Stronger

Marco Rubio Says Obama of 2008 Is 'Gone,' Makes Case For Romney Amid VP Buzz

Dan Savage and Carrie Prejean

Obama Congratulates Incoming French Socialist President

  

Five Reasons Why Liberals Shouldn't be in Charge of Anything

  

Bad to Worst

  

Unemployment Rate Dips 0.1%, But Workforce Participation Rate Falls 0.2%

  

‘The Perfect Family’ Mocks Devout Catholics as Unthinking Bigots

  

NY Times Goes Hunting for Racist 'Ultraconservatives' in Ohio Who Won't Support Obama

  

Republicans Rally Behind Romney as Obama Officially Starts Bid

Arizona Says NO to Planned Parenthood

Video: Uncle Sam’s Unlimited Cell-phone Plan

Politiks As Usual: 4/30/12

Gingrich Expected To Leave GOP Presidential Race Wednesday, Sources Say 

What 'Gutsy Call'?: CIA Memo Reveals Admiral Controlled bin Laden Mission

The Audacity Of Cynicism

Korean Christians Aim To Stop Lady Gaga's "Pornographic" Show

'Crucify Them': The Obama Way

Those Cheapened Pulitzer 'Prizes'

Obama Economy Driving Youth Vote To Romney

Jonah Goldberg Tackles Liberal Cliches... In The WashPost 

L.A. Riots: Twenty Years Later, Many Changes but Same Rhetoric

How To Keep The Poor Poor

Great News: Secret Service To Get Chaperones For Foreign Trips

Politiks As Usual: 2/27/12

Video: Toronto Father Arrested After Child Draws A Gun In School

Trying Optics At Romney Event

Progressives And The Politics Of Victimhood

Polls Show Liberals, Not Santorum, Are The Ones Who Are 'Well Outside The Mainstream'

Off Camera: Networks Ignore Liberal Hollywood’s Influence in D.C.

Rick Santorum Scolds David Gregory For Focusing On Social Issues

California Asks Judges: Gay or Straight?

Feds Sued Over Kagan's Obamacare Role

Newt Gingrich Warns of Role of 'Secular Left'

Apologizing To Our Killers

Obama Campaign Set For Political Fallout From Gasoline Prices