Herman Cain Compares Social Security To Slavery

By Tanya Somanader/Think Progress

When it comes to Social Security, the pugilisticpresidential contender Gov. Rick Perry (R-TX) is normally the one attracting all the attention. After all, he called the program all sorts of names: A “Ponzi scheme,” a “monstrous lie,” and unconstitutional. But the new GOP front runner — pizza mogul Herman Cain — seems eager to challenge Perry’s title as the world heavyweight champion fear-monger on the nation’s most successful economic program.

From 2005 to 2010, Cain wrote weekly commentary for his company The New Voice, Inc. He dedicated a few of his columns to register full support for President George W. Bush’s disastrous idea to privatize Social Security. Viewing Social Security as “immoral” and “oppressive,” he blasted Democrats for supporting “involuntary servitude” of African Americans through the Social Security and payroll tax system. From one column entitled, “Ownerships: An Unalienable Right”:

The 70-year-old Social Security structure and the 92-year-old income tax code thwart the natural, individual motivation of citizens to use their God-given talents to pursue happiness and their respective dreams. Any program that undermines an individual’s liberty to create ownership is, then, by its very nature, immoral. It took our nation nearly 250 years to end slavery and live up to the self-evident truth that all men are created equal. It should not take us another 250 years to cease the involuntary negative return most working people receive from Social Security, or the involuntary servitude imposed by the oppressive income tax code.

In another column entitled “Separate Water Fountains,” Cain said the Social Security system “by its very nature discriminates against black men and women.” With their “unconscionable” refusal to implement private accounts, Democratic “so-called black leaders” want to see “the next generation of Blacks remain in economic slavery on the Democratic plantation“:

It is now evident that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not apply to the Social Security system. Due to the rising retirement age, differences in life expectancy between Blacks and Whites, and mandatory payroll tax deductions,the system by its very nature discriminates against black men and women.[...]

Perhaps most unconscionable is the opposition to personal retirement accounts by the NAACP, the Congressional Black Caucus, and many of our nation’s so-called black leaders. Personal retirement accounts would provide future generations of Blacks the retirement security their parents and grandparents never had.

Instead, black Democratic leaders are willing to see the next generation of Blacks remain in economic slavery on the Democratic plantation, so long as they can deny any Republican a perceived political victory.

Cain’s over the top rhetoric strongly suggests that he shares Perry’s belief that Social Security is unconstitutional. Under the 13th Amendment, “[n]either slavery nor involuntary servitude . . . shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.”

His claims are also wildly inaccurate. Indeed, the nearly 5 million African Americans who receive Social Security benefit more from this essential program than the average white American. Studies show that they “receive modestly more in Social Security benefits for each dollar they pay in payroll taxes than whites do” because of the progressive benefit structure and that they benefit more from SSDI because they are unfortunately more likely “to become disabled or die before retiring.”

Private accounts, however, would leave African-Americans worse off. As the GAO notes, they “are likely to disproportionately affect equity for minorities.” Because of the “gaps in earnings at younger ages and lower average pay than whites who have the same level of education,” minorities would be at a disadvantage in how much and when they could invest in the private account. Ultimately, “the risks would be more acute for African Americans than for whites, and the potential rewards likely would be smaller.”

As is often the case with Cain, the rhetorical glaze can’t hide the rotten consequences of his policies. And given the popularity of the program as it is, he’s unlikely to win over anyone by equating them with slave owners.

Bachmann’s ‘Must-Read’ List Included A Book That Claims Blacks Were ‘Better Off In Nearly Every Way’ Under Slavery

By Travis Waldron/Think Progress

Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann (R) has already made one slavery-related gaffe during her presidential campaign, signing a pledge produced by the Iowa FAMiLY LEADER that included language suggesting black children were better off under slavery than they are now. Bachmann offered half-hearted apology at the time, saying she had only signed the “candidate vow,” not the part that included slavery, and compared it to “economic enslavement” brought on by taxes.

But in his profile of Bachmann released yesterday, The New Yorker’s Ryan Lizza revealed that Bachmann’s “worldview” on slavery goes much deeper. In 2002, then-state Sen. Bachmann’s campaign posted a “must-read” list of books on her web site. Included in the list were the Declaration of Independence, The Federalist Papers, and a book titled, “Call of Duty: The Sterling Nobility of Robert E. Lee,” authored by J. Steven Wilkins. The Lee biography includesthis apologetic passage:

Northerners were often shocked and offended by the familiarity that existed as a matter of course between the whites and blacks of the old South. This was one of the surprising and unintended consequences of slavery. Slavery, as it operated in the pervasively Christian society which was the old South, was not an adversarial relationship founded on racial animosity. In fact, it bred on the whole, not contempt, but, over time, mutual respect. This produced a mutual esteem of the sort that always results when men give themselves to a common cause.

The credit for this startling reality must go to the Christian faith.

Wilkins goes on to claim that slavery existed on a “relationship of trust and esteem,” that positive race relations may have progressed further if the pro-slavery South had won the war, and that Lee, despite being a slave-owner himself, “never held any animosity for blacks.”

After explaining the “cruelty and barbarism” of “pagan” Africa, he goes on:

The fact was (and is) easily demonstrable that, taken as a whole, there is no question that blacks in this country, slavery notwithstanding, were “immeasurably better off” in nearly every way [than they were in Africa].

In Lee’s view, however, emancipation could only be accomplished successfully if it was gradual. Time was needed for the sanctifying effects of Christianity to work on the black race and fit its people for freedom. [...]

Abolitionism was not the best answer.

The idea that the relationships between white slave owners and black slaves were not founded on racial animosity has no basis in history. Whites viewed themselves as inherently superior to blacks, who were bought and sold as property and, for population counts, were worth onlythree-fifths of a white person. The idea that sanctifying blacks through Christianity made them “immeasurably better off” than they would have been in Africa, meanwhile, ignores the utter loss of humanity caused by enslavement. It ignores the untold number of blacks who died on slave ships, the sale of blacks at auctions as if they were livestock, the families split up at an owner’s whim, and the loss of all basic human rights, not least of which was their own free will.

Bachmann has a history of using slavery analogies, and she has made multiple mistakesregarding American history already in her campaign. None, however, is nearly as disturbing as her love for a book that attempts to explain away the horrors of slavery by rewriting history to make it seem like it was a minor price to pay for the sanctifying favors whites did blacks by bringing them to America as slaves.

Bachmann did not read pledge calling slavery a better arrangement for blacks

You could forget her reading bills before signing them if
elected President.

By David Edwards/Raw Story

When Republican presidential candidate Michele Bachmann signed a pledge that claimed black Americans were better off as slaves than they are today, she apparently hadn't read it in detail.

Her campaign said Saturday that she actually didn't agree with that part of the pledge.

By signing the pledge created by Iowa-based Christian group The Family Leader, Bachmann agreed to opposes same sex marriage, oppose Sharia law and ban "all forms of pornography."

The "marriage vow" also begins by noting that the children of slaves were better off than African-American children today.

"Slavery had a disastrous impact on African-American families, yet sadly a child born into slavery in 1860 was more likely to be raised by his mother and father in a two-parent household than was an African-American baby born after the election of the USA's first African-American President," the document (PDF) claimed.

But Bachmann campaign spokeswoman Alice Stewart said Saturday that the candidate didn't sign that part of the pledge.

"She signed the 'candidate vow,'" Stewart told Politico. "In no uncertain terms, Congresswoman Bachmann believes that slavery was horrible and economic enslavement is also horrible."

The campaign forwarded a note from The Family Leader to reporters Saturday.

"After careful deliberation and wise insight and input from valued colleagues we deeply respect, we agree that the statement referencing children born into slavery can be misconstrued," group spokeswoman Julie Summa wrote. "We sincerely apologize for any negative feelings this has caused, and have removed the language from the vow."

Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum alsosigned the pledge before the slavery language was removed.

Santorum told CNN Sunday that he was "taken aback" by the pledge at first, but host Candy Crowley failed to ask him about the slavery claim.

Ron Paul compares Social Security and Medicare to slavery

By David Edwards

The legality of Social Security and Medicare must be reversed, just like slavery was abolished in 1865, according to Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul.

“You talk a lot about the Constitution,” Fox News’ Chris Wallace noted Sunday. “You say Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid are all unconstitutional.”

“Technically they are,” Paul insisted. “There is no authority. Article 1, Section 8 doesn’t say I can set up an insurance program for people. What part of the Constitution — liberals are the ones that use this general welfare clause.”

“Doesn’t Social Security come under promoting the general welfare,” Wallace asked.

“Absolutely not,” Paul replied. “Maybe sound currency is general welfare, maybe markets, maybe judicial system, maybe a national defense, but this is specific welfare. This justifies the whole welfare state. The military industrial complex, the welfare to foreigners, the welfare state that imprisons our people and impoverishes our people and gives us our recession.”

“That is such an extreme liberal viewpoint that has been mistaught in our schools for so long. That’s what we have to reverse, that very notion you’re presenting,” he added.

“Congressman, it’s not just a liberal view. It’s the decision of the Supreme Court in 1937 when they said that Social Security was constitutional under Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution,” Wallace explained.

“The Constitution and the court said slavery was legal, too. We had to reverse that. So, I tell you. Just because a court in ’37 went very liberal on us and expanded the role of government, no, I think the original intent is not a bad idea,” Paul opined.

Watch this video from Fox’s Fox News Sunday, broadcast May 15, 2011.

Watch this video on iPhone/iPad

SC Senator Defends Slave Photo: ‘It’s A Great Statement As To How Far The State Has Come’

By Ben Armbruster

National Federation of Republican Women held its annual meeting at the Country Club of Charleston this past weekend, calling the event “A Southern Experience.” FITS news reported participants dressed in clothing from the Civil War and antebellum South era. The state’s Senate President Glenn McConnell eagerly dressed for the event as a Confederate Navy captain’s uniform. McConnell was pictured with two African-Americans in a photograph that many have observed “callously evokes the state’s slave-holding past”:

The State reports today that McConnell has no plans to apologize:

McConnell says a picture circulating on the Internet of him dressed in a Civil War-era military uniform alongside two African-Americans outfitted in period costumes was an innocent moment among friends — nothing more. [...]

“It was a friendly photograph,” McConnell said Wednesday. “It’s a great statement as to how far this state has come.”

“Receive it in the spirit it was presented that evening,” McConnell urged, adding there were no apologies to be made for the effort.

Regardless of McConnell’s intent, he appears to be overlooking the emotional response the photo has conjured. “That’s the senator’s unfortunate world view,” said Rev. Joe Darby, first vice president of the state NAACP. Darby told the State that the African-Americans in the photo are in a seemingly subservient role. “Our history is still an open wound in lots of cases,” local museum director J.R. Fennel said, “for blacks and whites who don’t want to deal with it.”

Former GOP Congressman J.C. Watts: ‘Social programs’ are the ‘new slavery.’

By Lee Fang

Over the weekend, former Republican congressman J.C. Watts gave a speech at the Southern Republican Leadership Conference, and later sat down for interviews. Speaking to KARN News Radio’s Dave Elswick, Watts explained that he believes “social programs” are equivalent to a “new slavery.” Watts — who left Congress to become a lobbyist, businessman, and board member to several corporations — said that government programs that “aren’t improving people’s lives or getting them into a life of productivity” are akin to the type of chattel slavery forced upon African Americans in the United States:

ELSWICK: We were talking about social programs, and J.C., she calls them the new slavery.

WATTS: Dave I think that’s a legitimate claim if the programs aren’t improving people’s lives or getting them into a life of productivity. It’s just like, we could say I think it’s slavery to give your kid an allowance unless you say you gotta take the trash out, you gotta keep your room clean. Parents usually don’t give their kids an allowance without saying you have to do something.

Watch it:

Watts’ whitewashing of slavery as something equivalent to giving “an allowance” without requisite chores is the latest example of right-wing Republicans trying to diminish the history and relevancy of American slavery. Gov. Bob McDonnell (R-VA) omitted slavery from a Confederate history month proclamation, telling reporters that slavery wasn’t a “significant” part of the Civil War. Though McDonnell eventually backtracked and apologized, Gov. Haley Barbour (R-MS) said the slavery omission “doesn’t amount to diddly.”

M.C.L comment: Black "conservatives" proves the old Ted DiBiase saying everyone has a price and money or the pats on the head from their white conservative counterparts trumps self respect.

Mississippi Gov. Barbour Thinks Slavery Omission ‘Doesn’t Matter For Diddly’

By Andrea Nill

This morning on CNN’s State of the Union, Gov. Haley Barbour (R-MS) defended Gov. Bob McDonnell’s (R-VA) omission of slavery from his proclamation on Confederate History Month. Barbour told CNN host Candy Crowley that it seems unnecessary to mention slavery because everyone knows that it was a “bad thing” and that people are exaggerating something that “doesn’t matter for diddly.” He also pointed out that the Mississippi Democratic legislature has approved a similar proclamation and has faced little criticism:

CROWLEY: The [Virginia] Governor didn’t even mention slavery in his proclamation. Was that a mistake?

BARBOUR: Well, I don’t think so…I don’t know what you would say about slavery, but anyone who thinks that you have to explain to people that slavery is a bad thing — I think it goes without saying.

CROWLEY: What about the sensitivity of it? Because we heard from a number of African American politicians and just people on the street that were interviwed in Virginia going “this is offensive to celebrate something that was really about slavery and has no mention of it?”

BARBOUR: Well maybe they should talk to my Democratic legislature, which has done exactly the same thing in Mississippi for years. As far as I know, the Democratic legislature — we have a majority — both houses are Democrats. I’m unaware of them being criticized for it or them having their supporters feel uncomfortable with it. [...]

To me it’s a sort of feeling that it’s just a nit. That it is not significant. It’s trying to make a big deal out of something that doesn’t matter for diddly.

Watch it:

Slavery is an especially sensitive issue in a state like Mississippi, where the wounds are still fresh. Not until 1995 did Mississippi finally ratify the 13th Amendment which abolished slavery. It wasn’t until 2009 that the Mississippi legislature finally passed a bill to repeal discriminatory Jim Crow laws that had been enacted in 1964 but ruled unconstitutional in 1967 by federal courts.

Some maintain that Barbour won his bid for Governor of Mississippi in 2003 in part because he pledged to keep intact Mississippi’s state flag design, which contains a miniature representation of the Confederate battle flag. Byron LaMasters of Burnt Orange Report has pointed out that Barbour has had documented connections with the racist Council of Conservative Citizens, a neo-Confederate Organization that lashes out at “so-called neo-conservatives” that “have embraced the legacy of Martin Luther King and the civil rights movement.” Barbour, however, refers to himself as a “fat redneck with an accent” who holds himself to a higher standard.

Last week, Think Progress pointed out that both Mississippi and Georgia join Virginia in officially honoring the Confederacy while omitting any mention of slavery. McDonnell has since apologized, stating “the failure to include any reference to slavery was a mistake.”

McDonnell: Slavery Wasn’t ‘Significant’ Enough To Be Included In My Proclamation Honoring The Confederacy

By Amanda Terkel Last week, Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell (R) issued a proclamation quietly declaring April 2010 Confederate History Month, saying it was important for Virginians to “understand the sacrifices of the Confederate leaders, soldiers and citizens during the period of the Civil War, and to recognize how our history has led to our present.”

Notably absent from McDonnell’s proclamation was any mention of slavery. Yesterday, McDonnell explained that it wasn’t “significant” enough to merit a mention:

McDonnell said Tuesday that the move was designed to promote tourism in the state, which next year will mark the 150th anniversary of the start of the war. McDonnell said he did not include a reference to slavery because “there were any number of aspects to that conflict between the states. Obviously, it involved slavery. It involved other issues. But I focused on the ones I thought were most significant for Virginia.“

Neither of Virginia’s previous two governors, Democrats Mark Warner and Tim Kaine, issued a Confederate History Month proclamation. Republican governor Jim Gilmore, who served from 1998-2002, did issue multiple proclamations honoring the Confederacy, but even they acknowledged the role of slavery in the Civil War. From his 1999 proclamation:

WHEREAS, Virginia has long recognized her Confederate history, the officers and enlisted men of the Army and Navy and those at home who made sacrifices on behalf of their families, homes, communities, Virginia and country; and that it is just and right to do so and [...]

WHEREAS, our recognition of Confederate history also recognizes that slavery was one of the causes of the war; and

WHEREAS, slavery was a practice that deprived African-Americans of their God-given inalienable rights, which degraded the human spirit, is abhorred and condemned by Virginians, and was ended by this war<

For his final proclamation in 2001, however, Gilmore, replaced Confederate History Month with “a tribute to both black and white Civil War combatants that expressly denounces slavery as the root cause of the four-year conflict. He called it “the right approach to bring all Virginians together” and won praise from former Virginia governor L. Douglas Wilder, the nation’s first elected black governor.

Gilmore’s predecessor, Republican George Allen, started the practice of Confederate History Month. He didn’t include slavery in his proclamation, and under significant pressure from civil rights leaders, eventually apologized. As the Richmond Times-Dispatch reported on April 12, 1997, Allen said, “Surely, I don’t want want to upset anyone. For those who are sincerely offended…I apologize.” He added that he wanted to “celebrate our diversity.”

Update Adam Serwer writes, "Still, McDonnell's statement is telling, if only because it reveals which Virginians he feels are 'significant.'"

Update Lawyers, Guns, & Money reminds McDonnell of the role slavery played in the Civil War.

Update McDonnell isn't getting much support from the right, according to Instaputz. The Corner's Ramesh Ponnuru said that he takes "issue" with the proclamation. Power Line has more criticism for McDonnell.

Update Yglesias looks at Virginia's history of slavery. The Washington Post slams McDonnell for "airbrushing" history.

Update David Frum doesn't think that McDonnell's proclamation is a big deal.

Update McDonnell's spokesman has issued a statement about the governor's comments:

The Governor issued the proclamation because the Civil War was the defining moment in our nation's history, and Virginia was at the center of that conflict as the Capitol of the Confederacy. The Governor's proclamation calls for appropriate thoughtful and serious reflection upon this period, and what it meant for our country and our Commonwealth. The Governor knows that slavery is a significant part of Virginia's history. Slavery was evil and it is a stain on the soul of our state and nation.

Update Greg Sargent notes that the Richmond Times-Dispatch, which supported McDonnell's bid for governor, is now criticizing him for the proclamation.

GOP New Orleans Congressman: Health Reform ‘At A Par With Slavery’ Because Of Nonexistent Abortion Coverage

By Lee Fang Rep. Joseph Cao, a Republican representing New Orleans in Congress, voted repeatedly last night to kill health reform. Cao briefly supported health reform last November, when an amendment was added to the bill which altered current law and vastly restricted even private sector dollars from abortion insurance coverage. Staunch pro-life supporters — from a group of 59,000 Catholic nuns, to the Catholic Health Association, to Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) and Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI) — supported the health reform bill passed last night and said it does not provide taxpayer funds to abortion services.

Regardless, Cao said he withdrew his support for health reform because of nonexistent abortion services. In an interview with the New Orleans Times-Picauyne, he further explained that the Senate bill contained abortion services “at a par with slavery.” Cao’s ugly comparison lacks substance and is insulting to his majority African American district. Statistics show that expanding health insurance coverage is “one of the most powerful tools for reducing the number of abortions” in industrialized countries. Furthermore, Cao is promoting a culture of death by trying to deny health reform to his New Orleans constituents:

– According to a report by the Center for American Progress, health reform makes a tremendous first step to eradicate the “medical apartheid” of health disparities faced by communities of color in America. The bill establishes demonstration programs to promote access to Medicare beneficiaries with limited English proficiency and provides incentives to encourage a range of needed health professionals to work in primary care settings, public health services, and in areas of workforce shortage.

– New Orleans is heavily uninsured. At about 24%, Cao’s district is 10% more uninsured than the national average. A Harvard study found that nearly 45,000 people die every year because of a lack of health insurance. Health reform will provide 31 million previously uninsured Americans with coverage, while ensuring those with coverage are never denied treatment because of their health status.

– Louisiana has a high level of infant mortalities, 9.8 per 1,000 live births. Health reform includes expanded prenatal care for low income women.

– Cao’s district has high rates of obesity and diabetes. Among many provisions aimed at decreasing chronic illness and promoting health lifestyles, health reform guarantees that all insurance companies offer free preventive care.

Despite promising to be an independent voice, Cao has now voted in lockstep against the stimulus, the President’s progressive budget, clean energy reform, financial reform, and health reform. Notably, shortly before the vote last night, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) hosted a $500-per-person fundraiser for him at the Capitol Hill Club.

M.C.L comment: I didn't really believe when the time came to vote for the bill for the second go around Rep. Cao would vote for it.. I based that on the Orange Boner took him to the wood shed for him voting for it in November and pressure apply by Republican "leadership" since then was probably too much for him.. But 500 dollar fundraiser can and it apparently in this situation brought a no vote.

And using abortion is a good excuse for him to pocket the cash and vote no on health care, hopefully the voters in his district would return the favor and vote no on him in November.

Rep. Trent Franks: African-Americans were better off under slavery.

By Alex Seitz-Wald

Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ) — one of the most conservative member of Congress, according to a new National Journal ranking — decried the strained state of political discourse in an interview today with blogger-activist Mike Stark. While defending hate radio host Rush Limbaugh, Franks said bipartisanship and “true tolerance” is about “being halfway decent to each other in spite of the differences.” But when the conversation turned to abortion, Franks made a clearly indecent comment, claiming that African-Americans were probably better off under slavery than they are today:

FRANK: In this country, we had slavery for God knows how long. And now we look back on it and we say “How brave were they? What was the matter with them? You know, I can’t believe, you know, four million slaves. This is incredible.” And we’re right, we’re right. We should look back on that with criticism. It is a crushing mark on America’s soul. And yet today, half of all black children are aborted. Half of all black children are aborted. Far more of the African-American community is being devastated by the policies of today than were being devastated by policies of slavery. And I think, What does it take to get us to wake up?

Watch it (beginning 6:20):

Franks continued by saying, “[S]ometimes we get angry and say things that we shouldn’t say, and I apologize…[for saying things] that are intemperate. But I don’t want to hide from the truth.” Franks’ comments are reminiscent of a new anti-choice campaign which seeks to put up 80 billboards in “urban areas where blacks reside” with the message, “Black children are an endangered species.”

M.C.L comment: And Republicans wonder why blacks and other minorities flip them the bird during every election cycle.