ThinkProgress
ThinkProgress Logo

Morning Joe: Muslims Hate Us 'Because Of Their Religion'

Ten Key Charts About Inequality

Newsweek's Islamophobic Cover

Politics

BREAKING: Romney Stands By Controversial Comments, Claims He Says The Same Thing In Public

By Judd Legum on Sep 17, 2012 at 10:12 pm

At a hastily arranged press conference on Monday night, Romney stood by controversial comments he made at a private fundraiser in May, saying that his remarks were “not elegantly stated” and spoken “off the cuff.” “This is something I talk about a good deal in rallies and speeches and so forth,” Romney claimed, adding “The president’s approach is attractive to people who are not paying taxes.” The former Massachusetts governor took just three questions, walking away when asked if his claims that almost half of Americans see themselves as “victims” represent his “core convictions” and what he believes. From reporter Holly Bailey, who was on the scene:

Watch it:

Romney said that the comments were indicative of his campaign’s effort to “focus on the people in the middle” and, “I hope the person who has the video will put out the full material.” Mother Jones’ David Corn — who first reported on the video — has said that he will release more video from the May fundraiser on Tuesday.

Romney made the original comments at the “Boca Raton home of private-equity executive Marc Leder on May 17.” Leder, is the co-CEO of the private equity firm Sun Capital, which has a reputation for bankrupting companies in the pursuit of profit. “Since 2008, some 25 of its companies — roughly one of every five it owns — have filed for bankruptcy.” Not only that, but the company was accused by the federal Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) just a few months ago of intentionally pushing a company into bankruptcy in order to avoid paying workers’ pensions.

Corn explained on MSNBC Monday evening, “The fact that Mitt Romney has not challenged a word here shows you that this is what he said, this is what he said behind closed doors with a bunch of other millionaires he felt quite comfortable with.”

NEWS FLASH

Romney Stands By Claim That 47% Of Americans Are ‘Dependent’ On Government | Responding to an undercover video showing Mitt Romney claiming that President Obama’s voters — 47% of Americans — are “dependent upon government” and “believe they are victims,” the GOP presidential candidate’s campaign stood by the former governor’s claim. “As the governor has made clear all year, he is concerned about the growing number of people who are dependent on the federal government, including the record number of people who are on food stamps, nearly one in six Americans in poverty, and the 23 million Americans who are struggling to find work,” Romney spokesperson Gail Gitcho said in a statement. RNC Chairman Reince Preibus agreed, telling CNN, “No, I don’t think the candidate’s off message at all.”

Education

Republican Congressman Pushes For Unlimited Calorie School Lunches

By Annie-Rose Strasser posted from ThinkProgress Education on Sep 17, 2012 at 6:03 pm

Last week, Rep. Steve King (R-IA) called calorie caps on school lunches “the nanny state personified.” This week, he is moving to eliminate the caps with his pleasantly-titled “No Hungry Kids Act,” H.R. 6418.

King’s bill is a direct response to the the Let’s Move! campaign, an initiative from First Lady Michelle Obama. Her effort prompted the Healthy and Hunger Free Kids Act, which set such calorie limits on school meals and opened up funding for physical fitness programs. But while some might see the move as a way to combat childhood obesity, King believes that it is denying kids sustenance:

“For the first time in history, the USDA has set a calorie limit on school lunches,” King said last week. “The goal of the school lunch program was — and is — to insure students receive enough nutrition to be healthy and to learn.

“The misguided nanny state, as advanced by Michelle Obama’s ‘Healthy and Hunger Free Kids Act,’ was interpreted by Secretary [Tom] Vilsack to be a directive that, because some kids are overweight, he would put every child on a diet. Parents know that their kids deserve all of the healthy and nutritious food they want.“

The Congressman may believe that an unlimited amount of “healthy” foods may be beneficial to a kid, but he’s got his facts wrong. One can have too much of a good thing.

Perhaps King’s motivation in this area stems from his financial backing by “Big Food,” which has a vested interest in selling more school lunch supplies. King has not been similarly vocal in favor of nutrition assistance programs for low-income kids.

The exact wording of the original legislation limits lunch calorie counts for K-5 students to 650, while 6-8 grad students get 700 calories, and high school student’s meals can be up to 850 calories. Those numbers follow the suggestions of the Mayo Clinic.

Election

Romney Tells Wealthy Donors That 47% Of Americans Are Lazy Moochers

By Annie-Rose Strasser posted from ThinkProgress Election on Sep 17, 2012 at 5:00 pm

It’s only September, but Mitt Romney has already written off almost half the country’s voters. A hidden-camera recording obtained by Mother Jones captures Romney at a private fundraiser telling donors that, “There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it.” Watch it:

Publicly, Romney claims that he aims to help middle-class Americans. As he told CNN’s Gloria Borger last month, “I know the very wealthy are going to do just fine whoever is elected. The middle class is the people that is the group of people that I am most concerned about, they need our – and the poor – they need our help. They need our help with good jobs. That is only going to come if we encourage this economy by keeping the burdens on small business down.”

Update

Romney from April 11, 2012: “Is there anyone who believes that dividing America and trying to find some group to tax more is somehow going to create more jobs?”

Security

GOP Congressman Blows Up At CNN Host: ‘I Don’t Care What Fact Check Says,’ Obama Apologizes For America!

By Igor Volsky posted from ThinkProgress Security on Sep 17, 2012 at 4:04 pm

During an appearance on CNN’s Starting Point on Monday, Rep. Peter King (R-NY) could not explain when President Obama “apologized” for the United States, despite repeatedly claiming that he went on an “apology tour” across the Middle East shortly after becoming president.

Since violence broke out across the region, Republicans have charged that Obama’s “defeatist” policies have caused the unrest and contributed to the death of Libyan ambassador Christopher Stevens. But pressed to detail where Obama has apologized for America by CNN host Soledad O’Brien, King came up short:

O’BRIEN: Never once in that speech, as you know, which I have the speech right here. that was — he never once used the word “apology.” He never once said “I’m sorry.”

KING: Didn’t have to. The logical — any logical reading of that speech or the speech he gave in France where he basically said that the United States can be too aggressive. [...]

O’BRIEN: Everybody keeps talking about this apology tour and apologies from the President. I’m trying to find the words ‘I’m sorry, I apologize’ in any of those speeches. Which I have the text of all those speeches in front of me. None of those speeches at all, if you go to factcheck.org which we check in a lot, they all say the same thing. They fact check this and they say this whole theory of apologies…

KING: I don’t care what fact check says.

O’BRIEN: There are fact checks. You may not care, but they’re a fact checker.

KING: No. Soledad. Any commonsense interpretation of those speeches, the president’s apologizing for the American position. That’s the apology tour. That’s the way it’s interpreted in the Middle East. If I go over and say that the U.S. has violated its principles, that the United States has not shown respect for islam, that’s an apology. How else can it be interpreted?

O’BRIEN: I think plenty of people are interpreting it as a nuanced approach to diplomacy is how some people are interpreting it. So I don’t think that everybody agrees it’s apology.

Watch it:

As the Washington Post put it, “the apology tour never happened.” Rather, shortly after becoming president, Obama traveled to the world introducing himself and differentiating his foreign policy from that of President Bush. “This is typical of many new presidents,” including Bush himself, who “quickly broke with Clinton administration policy on dealings with North Korea, the Kyoto climate change treaty and the international criminal court.”

The manufactured attack, which Republicans kicked off in 2009, “feeds into a subterranean narrative that Obama, with his exotic, mixed-race background, is not really American in the first place.”

Justice

New Anti-Obama Billionaire To Spend $12 Million To Buy Elections For Republicans

By Ian Millhiser posted from ThinkProgress Justice on Sep 17, 2012 at 3:10 pm

Joe Ricketts

Sheldon Adelson, the billionaire casino mogul who spent tens of millions of dollars seeking to buy Congress and the White House for Republicans, now has a new partner in this effort:

Joe Ricketts, the founder of what became online brokerage TD Ameritrade Inc., plans to spend $10 million airing ads supporting GOP nominee Mitt Romney and another $2 million to help Republicans running for Congress. The ads will begin airing this week. . . .

In one critical way, the Ricketts effort represents a new approach. Unlike big-money donors who have given to individual campaigns or independent political groups, including super PACs, Mr. Ricketts is doing it alone. He is funding his own super PAC, called the Ending Spending Action Fund, hired staff and has personally overseen the strategy and ads, tying him very directly to the effort.

It’s not clear yet what the ads will say about President Obama. Last May, a leaked document revealed that Ricketts considered a $10 million anti-Obama campaign starring an “extremely literate conservative African-American” that would attack Obama’s supposed image as a “metrosexual, black Abe Lincoln,” but Ricketts ultimately rejected this plan.

Ricketts’ decision to manage these ads himself, however, highlights why simply overruling Citizens United will not be enough to defeat efforts by well-moneyed individuals to buy seats in Congress or even the White House. Citizens United authorized corporations to spend their vast fortunes to elect the candidates of their choice. And it paved the road for new organizations such as super PACs, which make it easier for wealthy individuals to inject their fortunes into an election. But the truth is that the very rich have long been able to use their wealth to influence elections — just three people provided nearly $10 million to the infamous Swift Boat Veterans for Truth’s anti-Kerry campaign in 2004. Citizens United unquestionably led to a massive spike in election spending, but this likely stems as much from the fact that it let the Adelsons and the Ricketts of the world know that there was no risk that the justices would ever reign them in as it did from real changes to the law.

More than three decades ago, a very different Supreme Court recognized that campaign finance laws must be allowed “to limit the actuality and appearance of corruption.” There is no question that when a single billionaire spends $10 million to place someone in the White House, such spending at least creates the appearance of corruption. If America someday has a new Supreme Court that is not determined to give billionaires free reign to buy elections, eliminating such corrupting influence will require a whole lot more than simply restoring a world where corporations cannot fund their favorite candidates.

Media

Mike Huckabee Releases Islamophobic Theme Song: Middle East ‘Not Fit For Man Or Beast’

By Aviva Shen on Sep 17, 2012 at 2:15 pm

“Nutjobs stuck in the thirteenth century” is just one insult used in the parody song showcased by former Arkansas governor turned talk show host Mike Huckabee on his website Monday. Huckabee, an outspoken Islamophobe, is the latest media figure today to embrace anti-Islam rhetoric to explain the violent anti-American protests in the Middle East. The song, a parody to the tune of “We Didn’t Start The Fire” by an unknown group, mocks President Obama, the Arab spring, and employs many racist stereotypes. Here’s a sample verse:

Hot bed Middle East
Not fit for man or beast
Sand dunes, camels
Virgins when you die
Democracy, Arab spring
That doesn’t mean a thing
Culture, freedom, pyramids goodbye

Listen:

Earlier on Monday, MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough claimed that Muslims “hate us because of their religion,” while Newsweek’s cover blares “MUSLIM RAGE.” Huckabee has never hidden his Islamophobia, calling the religion “the antithesis of the gospel of Christ” and has warned against sharia law taking over America. He has previously accused Obama of giving special treatment to Muslims and lying about his religion.

Justice

Five SCOTUS Cases That Could Be Overruled In A Romney Court, And Five That Could Be Overruled Under Obama

By Ian Millhiser and Adam Peck posted from ThinkProgress Justice on Sep 17, 2012 at 1:26 pm

On Monday, the Center for American Progress Action Fund released a report outlining many of the Supreme Court cases that could be overruled if President Obama appoints just one progressive to replace a member of the Supreme Court’s conservative bloc — or, alternatively, what happens if Gov. Romney makes the Court even more conservative. Here are five examples of cases that are likely to be overruled in an Obama Supreme Court or in a Romney Supreme Court:

Four of the Court’s nine current members are over the age of 74, so the winner of November’s election could reshape the Court considerably. To learn about more cases that are on the cusp of being overruled, read the full report.

Economy

New Study Finds Tax Cuts For The Rich Cause Income Inequality, Not Economic Growth

By Pat Garofalo posted from ThinkProgress Economy on Sep 17, 2012 at 12:28 pm

According to a new report by the Congressional Research Service, cutting taxes for the wealthiest does not cause economic growth, despite constant conservative claims that it will. Instead, tax cuts for the rich merely exacerbate income inequality, CRS found:

Throughout the late-1940s and 1950s, the top marginal tax rate was typically above 90%; today it is 35%. Additionally, the top capital gains tax rate was 25% in the 1950s and 1960s, 35% in the 1970s; today it is 15%. The real GDP growth rate averaged 4.2% and real per capita GDP increased annually by 2.4% in the 1950s. In the 2000s, the average real GDP growth rate was 1.7% and real per capita GDP increased annually by less than 1%. There is not conclusive evidence, however, to substantiate a clear relationship between the 65-year steady reduction in the top tax rates and economic growth. Analysis of such data suggests the reduction in the top tax rates have had little association with saving, investment, or productivity growth. However, the top tax rate reductions appear to be associated with the increasing concentration of income at the top of the income distribution.

As this chart shows, per capita GDP growth rates and the top tax rate have essentially no relationship:

This jibes with other recent studies that show little relationship between the top tax rate and economic growth. A new analysis by Owen M. Zidar, a former staff economist on President Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers and a graduate student at California-Berkeley, found that “a one percent of GDP tax cut for the bottom 90% results in 2.7 percentage points of GDP growth over a two-year period. The corresponding estimate for the top 10% is 0.13 percentage points and is insignificant statistically.” GDP growth, business investment, and a host of other economic indicators were all stronger during the 1990s, after taxes were raised on the rich, than during the supply-side eras of Presidents George W. Bush and Reagan.

Security

Newsweek Publishes Islamophobic ‘Muslim Rage’ Cover In Response To Embassy Attacks

By Ben Armbruster posted from ThinkProgress Security on Sep 17, 2012 at 11:30 am

Ayaan Hirsi Ali (Photo: AEI)

Anti-Islam rhetoric in the United States has heated up this week in the wake of the violent protests in the Middle East. MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough joined in the backlash this morning, saying the entire Muslim world hates the United States “because of their religion.”

Newsweek picked up on this theme, today releasing its new cover story by with the headline “MUSLIM RAGE” and a photo of angry Muslims:

Somali-born Dutch AEI scholar Ayaan Hirsi Ali is the cover story’s author. In the article, Hirsi Ali claims that extremist Muslims “are not a fringe group“:

The Muslim men and women (and yes, there are plenty of women) who support — whether actively or passively — the idea that blasphemers deserve to suffer punishment are not a fringe group. On the contrary, they represent the mainstream of contemporary Islam.

In a speech back in May, Hirsi Ali expressed sympathy for one of the justifications for Norwegian anti-Muslim terrorist Anders Breivik‘s attacks, explaining that Breivik said “he had no other choice but to use violence” because his fringe views were “censored.” Breivik was convicted of mass murder last month, which he admitted to perpetuating in order to save Europe from a “Muslim takeover.”

As this blog has previously noted, in a 2007 interview with Reason Magazine, Hirsi Ali called for Islam to be “defeated.” The interviewer asked: “Don’t you mean defeating radical Islam?” Hirsi Ali replied bluntly: “No. Islam, period. Once it’s defeated, it can mutate into something peaceful. It’s very difficult to even talk about peace now. They’re not interested in peace.”

Update

Newsweek responds: “This weeks Newsweek cover accurately depicts the events of the past week as violent protests have erupted in the Middle East (including Morocco where the cover image was taken).”

Update

Hirsi Ali has also previously said that “Islam is a cult,” “there is no moderate Islam,” and that “we are at war with Islam.”

Economy

Occupy Wall Street One Year Later: Ten Key Charts About Inequality

By Pat Garofalo posted from ThinkProgress Economy on Sep 17, 2012 at 10:32 am

Today marks the one year anniversary of the Occupy Wall Street protests, and activists intend to mark the milestone by holding a new round of demonstrations. Dozens have already been arrested, even before the main protests began.

Occupy Wall Street managed to turn the attention of America’s politicians, at least for a moment, to income inequality, economic mobility, and the dismal state of both in the U.S. Here are some key facts and figures to know as Occupy once again takes to the streets:

1) Income inequality grew in 2011. According to data released last week by the Census Bureau, the gap between the wealthiest Americans and those in the middle grew last year, as all but the richest 20 percent of the country saw their income drop.

2) America’s 1 percent have 288 times as much wealth as the median household. This constitutes a huge increase from 1962, when the ratio was 125-1.


Read more

  • Comment Icon

Alyssa

How Obamacare Could Change Your Favorite Television Shows

By Alyssa Rosenberg posted from ThinkProgress Alyssa on Sep 17, 2012 at 9:46 am

Back in June when the Supreme Court upheld the Affordable Care Act, I predicted that one of its long-term effects would be on medical procedurals. One of the most common ways for televised doctors to show that they’re compassionate is for them to treat patients even if they don’t have insurance in defiance of hospital administrators’ wishes or their own well-being. The Mindy Project, Mindy Kaling’s sitcom about an OB/GYN, which premieres tomorrow on Fox, is making insurance and medical bill collection a core component of its storytelling. It will take a while to get most Americans insured, but as coverage is increasingly standard, medical procedurals will have to find a substitute for that kind of storytelling.

And shows may start incorporating health care reform into their storylines sooner than I even expected. As The New York Times reported on Saturday, California, as part of its efforts to stand up its health care exchange, has hired Oglivy Public Relations to handle a significant campaign to educate state citizens about their obligations and options, and the plan includes major outreach to Hollywood:

Realizing that much of the battle will be in the public relations realm, the exchange has poured significant resources into a detailed marketing plan — developed not by state health bureaucrats but by the global marketing powerhouse Ogilvy Public Relations Worldwide, which has an initial $900,000 contract with the exchange. The Ogilvy plan includes ideas for reaching an uninsured population that speaks dozens of languages and is scattered through 11 media markets: advertising on coffee cup sleeves at community colleges to reach adult students, for example, and at professional soccer matches to reach young Hispanic men.

And Hollywood, an industry whose major players have been supportive of President Obama and his agenda, will be tapped. Plans are being discussed to pitch a reality television show about “the trials and tribulations of families living without medical coverage,” according to the Ogilvy plan. The exchange will also seek to have prime-time television shows, like “Modern Family,” “Grey’s Anatomy” and Univision telenovelas, weave the health care law into their plots.

“I’d like to see 10 of the major TV shows, or telenovelas, have people talking about ‘that health insurance thing,’ ” said Peter V. Lee, the exchange’s executive director. “There are good story lines here.”

Now whatever happens will depend on the willingness of shows to play ball—and the extent to which viewers actually understand that the storylines that end up incorporated in the shows reflect accurate information and services that are really available to them. But at a time when Very Special Episodes have become common to the point that there’s nothing very special about them at all, I can’t think of a better reason for shows to explain to viewers that they’re really doing something different than explaining to their audiences that, unlike the miracle doctors on screen, there’s something out there in the real world that can actually make a difference to the uninsured among them.

  • Comment Icon

Older

Switch to Mobile
ThinkProgress Signup Overlay Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress

Sign Up