This is what segregation looks like ~~ Alabama


Right-wing attacks on voting and equal representation are pushing Black Alabamians out of the picture.

Gov. Bentley bill signing

Now the state’s unaccountable government is taking it to the next level. Help stop extreme legislation that mocks and vilifies our history:

Take Action

Aggressive gerrymandering efforts designed to dilute Black Alabamians’ votes have delivered supermajority control of the state’s legislature — and Alabama’s entire executive branch — to the extreme right wing. With Black voters largely blocked from electing their candidates of choice, Alabama’s unaccountable politicians are hard at work shredding the social safety net and attacking federal laws that protect our health.

Demonstrating just how reckless Alabama’s political leadership has become, the GOP is actually invoking Brown v. Board of Education in its latest campaign to harass and vilify Black women and families. Comparing herself to civil rights champions fighting to end school segregation, Rep. Mary McClurkin (R-Indian Springs) just pushed a package of bills through the House that would force women to carry pregnancies to term even where pregnancy results from rape.1

The GOP is appropriating the civil rights struggle to ram through its extreme, unconstitutional policy agenda,2 while depending on massive civil rights violations to win and hold office. And with November’s election already heating up, we can expect the hypocrisy will only get worse — unless national attention makes Alabama’s government’s predatory behavior toward its own Black constituents too difficult to publicly justify.

It’s time to take a stand: Demand Alabama’s Senate leadership and Gov. Robert Bentley recognize the House is committing a repugnant, costly overreach and reject HB 489, HB 490, HB 493, HB 494, and HB 31 now.

While Alabama’s white political bosses mock both the civil rights movement and Deep South’s continuing legacy of chattel slavery to the faces of their few remaining Black colleagues in Montgomery,3 everyday Alabamians are struggling to survive. Federal Temporary Assistance for Needy Families dollars are consistently diverted to projects that have nothing to do with fighting Alabama’s staggering poverty rates, and the state has flirted with becoming the first to end TANF entirely.4,5

Alabama insists single adults making just $1,332 a year are too wealthy to qualify for Medicaid,6 blocking access to basic medical care for hundreds of thousands of residents. Gov. Bentley could easily expand Medicaid coverage with funding from President Obama’s Affordable Care Act — creating 30,000 much-needed jobs, growing wages, and generating nearly $1 billion in new revenue — but he’s refused.7,8 Alabama’s already low abortion rate could be further reduced under the ACA’s expanded access to contraception, but Attorney General Luther Strange is suing to keep that from happening.9,10

It’s clear the right wing’s retrograde agenda has nothing to do with standing up for families or protecting the vulnerable — it’s about foreclosing opportunity for Black communities and suppressing Black political power. Despite our growing numbers — over 26% of Alabamians identify as Black — and record levels of voter registration, Black voters and elected officials now have less influence than at any time since the civil rights era.

The GOP strategy is to “pack” Black constituents into fewer districts, “crack” up influential communities in non-majority Black districts, and otherwise “bleach” formerly diverse districts prone to cross-racial coalition building. The resulting, unearned Republican wins have stripped formerly influential Black legislators of leadership positions and the ability to move policy or conduct oversight,11 making Alabama’s government increasingly indifferent to Black constituents’ interests. Even before last year’s Shelby County Supreme Court ruling validated Alabama’s “unbroken chain of repetitive discrimination” dating to the early days of the Voting Rights Act,12 this ruthless redistricting push has sought to reinstate the bad old days of political apartheid, when representing Black folks was simply not required of white officials.13

What’s happening in Alabama should be a national scandal. Tell the state Senate and governor to do their jobs representing all Alabamians — and ensuring the state doesn’t fall farther behind — instead of finding new ways to victimize Black families and communities.

Thanks and Peace,

–Arisha, Rashad, Matt, Kim, Johnny, Hannah and the rest of the ColorOfChange team
April 1st, 2014

Help support our work. ColorOfChange.org is powered by YOU—your energy and dollars. We take no money from lobbyists or large corporations that don’t share our values, and our tiny staff ensures your contributions go a long way.

Facebook icon Twitter icon

References

1. “Alabama House Passes Extreme ‘Heartbeat’ Abortion Ban, Three Other Anti-Choice Bills,” RH Reality Check, 03-05-2014
http://act.colorofchange.org/go/3386?t=9&akid=3341.1689899.mOw4eJ

2. “Alabama Lawmakers Propose Near-Total Abortion Ban, Other Severe Restrictions,” RH Reality Check, 02-20-2014
http://act.colorofchange.org/go/3398?t=11&akid=3341.1689899.mOw4eJ

3. “Equating Slavery and Abortion: Where are the Women in this story?” Feministing, 01-24-2011
http://act.colorofchange.org/go/3387?t=13&akid=3341.1689899.mOw4eJ

4. “Alabama Voters to Decide Whether to Save Poor Kids,” Mother Jones, 09-18-2012
http://act.colorofchange.org/go/3389?t=15&akid=3341.1689899.mOw4eJ

5. “Alabama: The sixth poorest state in America,” AL.com, 01-16-2014
http://act.colorofchange.org/go/3390?t=17&akid=3341.1689899.mOw4eJ

6. “As Alabama Cuts Benefits, Desperate Man ‘Robs’ Bank To Get Food, Shelter In Jail,” ThinkProgress, 07-11-2013
http://act.colorofchange.org/go/3388?t=19&akid=3341.1689899.mOw4eJ

7. “Study: Expanding Medicaid would create 30,700 jobs,” AL.com, 10-09-2013
blog.al.com/wire/2013/10/study_expanding_medicaid_would.html

8. “Senate Democrats Remind Governor Bentley that Alabama Must Expand Medicaid,” Alabama Political Reporter, 10-12-2013
http://act.colorofchange.org/go/3391?t=21&akid=3341.1689899.mOw4eJ

9. “Alabama joins EWTN in new lawsuit against Obamacare contraception mandate,” AL.com, 10-28-2013
http://act.colorofchange.org/go/3392?t=23&akid=3341.1689899.mOw4eJ

10. “Study: Abortion rate at lowest point since 1973,” Washington Post, 02-02-2014
http://act.colorofchange.org/go/3393?t=25&akid=3341.1689899.mOw4eJ

11. “The Decline of Black Power in the South,” New York Times, 07-10-2013
http://act.colorofchange.org/go/3394?t=27&akid=3341.1689899.mOw4eJ

12. “What Is Alabama’s Problem With the Voting Rights Act?” The Nation, 02-26-2013
http://act.colorofchange.org/go/3395?t=29&akid=3341.1689899.mOw4eJ

13. “Keeping Black Voters in Their Place,” New York Times, 11-05-2013
http://act.colorofchange.org/go/3396?t=31&akid=3341.1689899.mOw4eJ

 

A Threat To Women And Workers


By

What you Need To Know About Today’s Supreme Court Rulings

The Supreme Court issued two important rulings this morning: one that makes it harder for women to exercise their right to choose, and a second that effectively eliminates a President’s ability to make recess appointments and could imperil unions down the road as a consequence. The remaining decisions this session are expected to come next Monday, including Hobby Lobby (can owners of a for-profit, secular corporation impose their religious beliefs on their employees?) and Harris v. Quinn (are public sector unions’ fair share fees that ensure all employees, regardless of whether they are members of the union, receive the collectively bargained-for benefits constitutional?)

The decisions today were both handed down unanimously by the High Court. Here’s more on what the implications are for each:

McCullen v. Coakley

The decision: The Court struck down a Massachusetts’ law establishing a 35-foot buffer zone around abortion providers, ruling in favor of anti-choice protesters who argued that being required to stay that far away from clinic entrances is a violation of their freedom of speech. The decision rolls back a proactive policy intended to safeguard women’s access to reproductive health care in the face of persistent harassment and intimidation from abortion opponents.

The argument: The Justices argue that the 35-foot zone in the Massachusetts law restricts “access to ‘public way[s]‘ and ‘sidewalk[s],’ places that have traditionally been open for speech ac­tivities.” Therefore, the opinion states, the law burdens “substantially more speech than necessary to achieve the Commonwealth’s asserted interests.” The justices do not categorically deny the right for states to set up buffer zones protecting abortion clinics, but do effectively remove the Massachusetts law and threaten other similar safety measures around the country.

The implications: The decision is a blow to women. Since 1993, eight clinic workers have been murdered. There have been 6,400 reported acts of violence against abortion providers since 1977. According to the National Abortion Federation (NAF), which closely tracks threats and violence against abortion providers across the country, buffer zones have had a measurable impact improving safety in the areas where they’re in place.

BOTTOM LINE: The Supreme Court itself has a buffer zone around it’s 252-by-98-foot plaza, preventing protesters from demonstrating too close to the entrance. Surely it can see the need for abortion clinics, the subject of frequent and sometimes violent intimidation from their opponents, to have a reasonable buffer zone as well.

National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning

The decision: The Court effectively eliminated the president’s power to make recess appointments in all but the most unusual circumstances. It limits the president’s constitutional duty to appoint leaders that keep our country working for all Americans, from making sure our elections are fair to protecting workers’ and consumer rights.

The argument: Prior to Noel Canning, a federal appeals court — the highest legal authority to weigh in on the question — confirmed that a president does indeed have the power to make recess appointments. Specifically, it ruled that sham sessions known as “pro forma” sessions held by the Senate every three days in order to defeat a president’s attempts to make these appointments were in fact not enough to stop him. Every single justice on the Supreme Court, however, disagreed with that ruling and voted against recess appointments today, although the Court split 5-4 on rationale. Five justices, overturning the appeals court, opined that these “pro forma” sessions were in fact enough to block a president from making recess appointments because “the Senate is in session when it says it is.” The four conservative justices went even further, with an opinion that could have retroactively invalidated thousands of recess appointments made by presidents past if it had garnered just one more vote.

The implications: The impact of this ruling goes beyond a legal technicality. President Obama took the risk of making recess appointments in the first place to fill a minimum number of seats on the National Labor Relations Board, a government agency with exclusive authority to enforce much of federal labor law. NLRB members serve five year terms, and unless at least three seats on the board are occupied, it is powerless to act. Therefore, the fullest impact of this decision will likely be felt in 2018, when the five year terms of the NLRB’s current slate of members expire. Even if the president at that time supports allowing federal labor law to function in 2018, he or she will be unable to keep the NLRB functioning if a majority of the Senate is determined to shut down federal labor protections.

More broadly, the decision underscores the importance of the Senate’s action last November to allow executive nominees to receive an up or down confirmation vote. Without last year’s change to the Senate rules, today’s decision would have empowered a small, but vocal minority, to use arcane procedure to block the government from being able to function properly.

BOTTOM LINE: In a technical ruling, the Supreme Court took away the president’s power to make recess appointments. While today’s court decision will have little immediate impact, its long-term effects remain unclear and could threaten the rights of workers across the country if the NLRB is dismantled. The House and Senate must find new ways to ensure that the politics of obstruction and shutdown do not limit the ability of our nation to function properly.

Stay tuned for more Court decisions on Monday. If you are in the Washington, D.C. area, RSVP to join a rally hosted by NARAL in front of the Supreme Court that morning.

Fact Sheet: #AmericanJobsAct


Are Americans willing and ready to tell members of Congress to stop the bs already and do something

  • Immediately Invests in Our Roads, Rails and Airports ($50 Billion):  The Senate bill provides $50 billion in immediate investments for highways, transit, rail and aviation, helping to modernize an infrastructure that now receives a grade of “D” from the American Society of Civil Engineers and putting hundreds of thousands of construction workers back on the job.  This investment will put people to work upgrading 150,000 miles of road, laying/maintaining 4,000 miles of train tracks, restoring 150 miles of runways, and putting in place a next-generation air-traffic control system that will reduce travel time and delays. The plan includes $27 billion to rebuild roads and bridges, $9 billion to repair transit systems, $5 billion for projects selected through a competitive grant program, $4 billion for construction of the high-speed rail network, $2 billion to improve airport facilities and $1 billion for a NextGen air traffic control system.  The call for greater infrastructure investment has been joined by leaders from AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka to U.S. Chamber of Commerce President Thomas Donohue.
  • Establishes a National Infrastructure Bank ($10 Billion):  The Senate bill establishes a National Infrastructure Bank capitalized with $10 billion that will leverage private and public capital to help fund a broad range of infrastructure projects. The Bank would be based on the model Senators Kerry and Hutchison have championed, which has been endorsed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce while building on legislation by Senators Rockefeller and Lautenberg and the work of long-time infrastructure bank champions like Rosa DeLauro and the input of the President’s Jobs Council.
  • Asks Millionaires to Pay Their Fair Share Without Adding a Dime to the Deficit. In order to create or save hundreds of thousands of construction jobs, the Senate bill imposes a 0.7% surtax on modified adjusted gross income in excess of $1 million for both single filers and married couples filing jointly.  The surtax is effective for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2012.

AMERICANS OVERWHELMINGLY SUPPORT MODERNIZING OUR NATION’S INFRASTRUCTURE

CNN/ORC Poll: 72% of Americans, 54% of Republicans Support Rebuilding Our Infrastructure. According to a recent CNN/ORC Poll, 72% of Americans support “increasing federal spending to build and repair roads, bridges and schools,” while only 28% oppose. This is up from 64% from September of this year. 70% of Independents and 54% of Republicans support funding our infrastructure. [CNN/ORC Poll, 10/17/11]

Rockefeller Foundation: 72% of Americans Support Infrastructure Bank. The Rockefeller Foundation infrastructure survey, conducted in February 2011, found that 72% of Americans support “Creating a National Infrastructure Bank that helps finance transportation projects that are important to the whole nation or large regions and that funds projects based on merit, not politics.” [Rockefeller Foundation, 2/14/11]

THERE IS BROAD BIPARTISAN SUPPORT FOR INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT

U.S. Chamber of Commerce: President “Was Right to Call For” Transportation Infrastructure Investments. Thomas J. Donohue, President of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, said after President Obama’s September jobs speech that the President “was right to call for… smart investments in our transportation infrastructure. The administration and Congress must now act on these priorities without further delay in order to save and create hundreds of thousands of American jobs.” [U.S. Chamber of Commerce, 9/8/11]

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials: $50 Billion For Infrastructure Projects Could Create or Protect Hundreds of Thousands of Jobs. “John Horsely, executive director of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, said at its peak a year ago, the Recovery Act helped employ 64,000 workers on highway projects. He says a concentrated infusion of $50 billion now could lead to the employment of hundreds of thousands more. ‘The president wants to jump-start the economy and create jobs, and so if he could manage to get the authority to spend $50 billion all in one year, you would probably have a much higher number of jobs created, if it all happened in one year,’ Horsely said.” [ABC News, 9/8/11]

President of GOP Mayors and Local Officials Coalition: Infrastructure Spending “Puts People to Work,” Needs to Be “Higher Priority” for Congressional Republicans. Mick Cornett, the GOP mayor of Oklahoma City, welcomes the infrastructure spending that Obama has proposed in his jobs bill, explaining that mayors witness the impact of such investments on the ground level. ‘Mayors see up close the deferred maintenance that’s going on in nation’s cities…it’s just a ticking time bomb. We also know that it puts people to work,’ says Cornett, president of the Republican Mayors and Local Officials coalition within the U.S. Conference. Obama’s jobs plan proposes new infrastructure spending on everything from rebuilding schools to an infrastructure finance bank–all of which Cornett supports… Cornett says that, by contrast, Congressional Republicans have not put forward any substantial plans to revitalize the country’s infrastructure.”  [Washington Post, 9/20/11]

Associated General Contractors: “Should Congress Fail To Enact” President’s Infrastructure Plan, “Too Many Construction Workers Will Remain Unemployed, The Private Sector Will Suffer, And Taxpayers Will End Up Paying More.” Stephen E. Sandherr, CEO of the Associated General Contractors of America, said, “Should Congress fail to enact the desperately needed infrastructure investments the President proposes, too many construction workers will remain unemployed, the private sector will suffer, and taxpayers will end up paying more, later, for infrastructure. Infrastructure projects don’t just create construction jobs… Investing in infrastructure is the most effective way to create good jobs, deliver great roads, build a strong economy and protect taxpayers. That is why the Associated General Contractors of America stands with the president and everyone else who is willing to make the investments needed to revive our industry and rebuild our economy.” [Associated General Contractors, 9/9/11]

American Society of Civil Engineers: Current, Insufficient Funding for Infrastructure Will Cost America More Than 870,000 Jobs and $900 Billion By 2020. Patrick J. Natale of the American Society of Civil Engineers wrote, “Obama’s call for infrastructure investment was not only about jobs but about our competitiveness in global markets. Both the Information Technology & Innovation Foundation and the Building America’s Future Educational Fund have released reports showing how we are rapidly falling behind our global competitors such as China, Japan, and South Korea when it comes to investing and modernizing our transportation systems… A recent economic study from ASCE found that even current investment levels in transportation infrastructure will cost the American economy more than 870,000 jobs and suppress the growth of the country’s Gross Domestic Product by almost $900 billion by the year 2020.” [National Journal, 9/12/11]

President Reagan Said Infrastructure Investment Was Common Sense. “Common sense tells us that it will cost a lot less to keep the system we have in good repair than to let it disintegrate and have to start over from scratch. Clearly this program is an investment in tomorrow that we must make today. It will allow us to complete the interstate system, make most — the interstate repairs and strengthen and improve our bridges, make all of us safer, and help our cities meet their public transit needs.” [Remarks, 1/6/83]

THERE IS BROAD BIPARTISAN SUPPORT FOR THE INFRASTRUCTURE BANK

Earlier This Year, Two Republican Senators Co-Sponsored an Infrastructure Bank. According to the Washington Post, “Earlier this year, in fact, two Senate Republicans — Kay Bailey Hutchison (Tex.) and Lindsey Graham (S.C.) — had co-sponsored Massachusetts Democrat John Kerry’s infrastructure bank bill, which bears close resemblance to the proposal in Obama’s failed jobs bill.” [Washington Post, 10/13/11]

  • Sen. Hutchison: “A National Infrastructure Bank is an Innovative Way” to Address the Nation’s Water, Transportation, and Energy Infrastructure Needs. “The idea of a national infrastructure bank is an innovative way to leverage private-public partnerships and maximize private funding to address our water, transportation, and energy infrastructure needs. In our current fiscal situation, we must be creative in meeting the needs of our country and spurring economic development and job growth, while protecting taxpayers from new federal spending as much as possible.” [Hutchison Blog, 9/7/11]

Bipartisan BUILD Act Is Endorsed By Chamber of Commerce & AFL-CIO. “Amid growing concerns that the nation’s infrastructure is deteriorating, a group of Democrats, Republicans, and labor and business leaders called Tuesday for the creation of a national infrastructure bank to help finance the construction of things like roads, bridges, water systems and power grids. The proposal — sponsored by Senator John Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts, and Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, Republican of Texas — would establish an independent bank to provide loans and loan guarantees for projects of regional or national significance. The idea is to attract more infrastructure investment from the private sector: by creating an infrastructure bank with $10 billion now, they say, they could spur up to $640 billion worth of infrastructure spending over the next decade… To underscore the need for better infrastructure, two frequent rivals were on hand at the news conference: Richard Trumka, the president of the A.F.L.-C.I.O., and Thomas J. Donohue, the president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the main business lobby. With a nod to the strange-bedfellows experience of having a labor leader as an ally, Mr. Donohue said, ”He and I are going to take our show on the road as the new ‘Odd Couple.’” [New York Times, 3/16/11]

Alliance for American Manufacturing Said Infrastructure Bank Would Create Jobs.  Scott Paul, Executive Director of the Alliance for American Manufacturing, provided a list of recommendations that would create more manufacturing jobs, including, “we need to invest in infrastructure and establish a national infrastructure bank”  [Testimony before the Joint Economic Committee, 6/22/11; The Hill, 8/15/11]

Mark Zandi: Infrastructure Bank Would Boost Manufacturing. Mark Zandi of Moody’s Analytics testified, “To lower the cost of transportation, telecommunications and energy, policymakers could provide consistent support to public investment in transportation networks, the internet backbone, and the electric grid. As a potential example of this support, Build America bonds issued as part of the recent fiscal stimulus efforts have been very successful. A national infrastructure bank, which could marry private capital with financial support from the government, would provide a substantial boost to this effort.” [Testimony before the Joint Economic Committee, 6/22/11]

Private Infrastructure Investment Could Create 1.9 Million Jobs. Sphere Consulting LLC reported, “Over $250 billion of private equity capital is currently available, and some additional legislative and administrative changes could accelerate infrastructure projects and enhance funding.” The firm found that private investment in infrastructure could generate 1.9 million U.S. jobs. They suggested that the U.S. “Create a National Infrastructure Bank (NIB) that is authorized to lend at favorable terms to both the public and private sectors for qualified infrastructure projects.” [Sphere Consulting, July 2011]

SENATE REPUBLICANS HAVE HISTORICALLY SUPPORTED INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENTS

Sen. Inhofe Said Conservatives Need To Recognize Transportation is a Place We Need to Be Spending More Money. “I think a lot of the people who are my good friends, and primarily over in the House, who came under the banner of the tea parties and all that, they recognize, yes, they can be a conservative. But when they got home, they said: Wait a minute. We want to not be spending on these big things, but we weren’t talking about transportation. So we have to single out transportation for my friends to recognize there is a place we need be spending more money, not less money.” [Floor Remarks, 10/20/11]

Sen. Johanns Said He “Can’t Imagine” Why Anyone Would “Stand in The Way” of States Working to Rebuild Infrastructure. “I can’t imagine why this body would stand in the way of states trying to rebuild their roads and bridges.” [Senate Floor Speech, 10/19/11]

Sen. Graham: Infrastructure Investments Translates to Job Creation. “So ifyou’re a Republican and you want to create jobs, then you need to invest in infrastructure that will allow us to create jobs.” [GOP Press Conference, 4/13/11]

Sen. Sessions on the Importance to Invest in Infrastructure: “Jobs Are Created As It’s Being Constructed and You Have a Permanent Improvement to Society That May Be There for a Hundred Years.” Sessions said,“Jobs are created as it’s being constructed and, second, you have a permanent improvement to society that may be there for a hundred years.” [Washington Post, 10/13/11]

Sen. Thune Called Transportation Infrastructure “Critical to Our Nation’s Commerce” “This is a critically important subject for the entire country. Maintaining a transportation infrastructure is just critical to our nation’s commerce. We’ve got a $2.2 trillion backlog out there of infrastructure projects, a $12 billion projected shortfall in gas tax revenues versus current spending levels over the next two years.” [Senate Commerce Committee Hearing, 7/20/11]

Sen. Collins Called Transportation Infrastructure “Essential to Economic Recovery” “One of my highest priorities is to help ensure that our nation’s transportation infrastructure does not fall into disrepair. Safe and efficient transportation is essential to economic recovery and cannot be left solely to state governments, which are struggling with budget shortfalls.” [Press Release, 5/11/11]

Sen. Lugar Said Addressing The Aging Infrastructure Is “Critical To Our Nation’s Economic Viability” “Addressing the aging infrastructure of our roads, bridges and railways is critical to our nation’s economic viability. Indiana has developed a sophisticated rail network that is central to our state’s agricultural and manufacturing economy. It is important to enhance the existing railways in Perry County to provide a vital link and spur economic growth.” [Press Release, 9/10/08]

Sen. Rubio Called Infrastructure Investment “The Proper Role of Government” “And it is the proper role of government to invest in infrastructure. Yes, government should build roads and bridges, but it should do so as part of economic development as part of infrastructure.” [Speech, 8/24/11]

Sen. Shelby Called Infrastructure Spending “Essential” For Our Economy “Infrastructure spending is essential to our long term economic stability and growth.” [Remarks, 5/19/11]

When Sunday Shows Ignore The News


 John Whitehouse, MMFASome other things I’ve read this week: Andrew Crumey on how myths live on in our language, Audrey Quinn and Jackie Roche on how climate change contributes to Syria’s conflict, Megan Finnerty on indigenous people fighting stereotypes, and Derrick Clifton on a T-shirt that debunksLGBT myths.John Whitehouse
Twitter: @existentialfish

Wait What?

AblowShortly before the United States qualified for the elimination round at the World Cup, A Fox News host lashed out at supporters of the team, saying that he was suspicious that the World Cup craze was just a distraction form President Obama: http://mm4a.org/1my8muT

When Sunday Shows Ignore The News

Sunday ShowsThe Sunday shows have hosted countless discussions of the attack on the American diplomatic facility in Benghazi. But when the alleged ringleader was captured, not one of the Sunday shows mentioned it: http://mm4a.org/1itGokp
Related: When faced with long-debunked Benghazi myths, David Gregory said nothing: http://mm4a.org/1lJOGDu

Right-Wing Radio Enraged

Ingraham Hannity Limbaugh BeckWhen Thad Cochran won the Mississippi Republican primary for Senate over tea party darling Chris McDaniel by appealing to African-Americans and Democrats, right-wing radio hosts were enranged, with Limbaugh even calling Cochran’s supporters “black Uncle Tom voters.” http://mm4a.org/1v6ZLzY

FEATURED VIDEO

MacCallumAs the Hobby Lobby decision grew near, Fox’s deceit went into overdrive: a Fox anchor actually told four lies about the case in just 17 seconds. http://mm4a.org/1v6ZMny

BEHIND BOEHNER

BoehnerSpeaker of the House John Boehner announced plans to sue President Obama. Boehner is taking this step because of the pressure from the fringe right-wing media: http://mm4a.org/1iwxqmu

THIS IS CNN!?

JonesWhy did CNN repeat a conspiracy theory started by Alex Jones that said that the U.S. government is paying to escort child migrants across the border? http://mm4a.org/1pOdZGj

IMAGE OF THE WEEK

CNBC
A CNBC Chyron About “Wealth Problems”

Pssst.


Hey –

I’ve got some inside info for you

The NRA’s lobbyists have finally made their move. They’ve emailed their activists a whole pile of lies to spread to their friends and families to scare and confuse them — and try to stop Washington from voting Yes on 594.

It’s some pretty crazy, tinfoil hat, conspiracy theory stuff — and pretty much exactly what we expected from these lobbyist types. But still, I was a little surprised at just how shrill and desperate the tone was.

Every tired, old cliché that the gun lobby has used for years to stop any reasonable reform was in there: from a paranoid registration conspiracy to a bunch of delusional fears not about what 594 actually does — but what it might lead to. Reading their email, it seems like they just hit “copy” and “paste” from whatever playbook they get from their lobbying headquarters in Washington, D.C.

And that’s why I need your help. We have to build up our rapid-reaction fund now to counter these lies, or we’ll never be able to win this fall.

Contribute $3 today, and help us build our rapid-reaction fund before our June 30 fundraising deadline!

Help us fight the lies!

Now, polling shows most gun owners are ready to vote Yes on 594 — but this pile of lies is designed to trick NRA members into thinking that the same easy, commonsense reform that is already saving lives in states like Colorado is some kind of crazy plot.

And nobody knows better what a bunch of hooey that is than the NRA lobbyist that is peddling it to their members — and soon to regular voters in Washington.

They know better, but they still are still trying to trick gun owners into thinking that simply extending our existing background check system to all gun sales is an evil scheme to steal their guns. It would be laughable if we didn’t know that these crazy rantings may be enough to scare someone into voting against 594.

We need to spread the truth — and we need your help to do that.

Contribute $3 today to our rapid-reaction fund by the June 30 deadline, and help us spread the truth about 594!

Now that we know for sure that they’re not going to hold back on the lies, we really need to get in gear.

Thanks for helping us fight these lobbyists’ lies,

Zach Silk
Campaign Manager
Yes on 594