Confidence Fairies Still Hanging Out With Iraqi WMD, Pregnancies Avoided by Abstinence-Only Education, and Unicorns

Kthug (who Soonergrunt Zandar linked to earlier) has to just love headlines like this:

At this point, we’re in the economic equivalent of the movie Groundhog Day:

Since the beginning of the debt crisis in Europe more than two years ago, defenders of the euro currency union have stuck to a basic argument: if the euro zone’s weaker economies would only keep pursuing policies of austerity, even as growth collapsed and job losses mounted, they would be rewarded by investors more willing to buy their bonds.

Yes, the social cost would be high, but over the long term economies would benefit from the lower interest rates that can come with the seal of approval from global bond investors. Or so goes the argument.

That approach, though, has failed in Greece, Ireland and Portugal. And now it is being severely tested in Spain, where the more the government promises to cut its budget deficit, the more foreigners are unloading their Spanish bond holdings.

Late Thursday, when Standard & Poor’s jumped into the fray by slapping Spanish bonds with a two-notch downgrade, it gave public voice to what investors have been sensing for months now — that it will be nearly impossible for Spain to meet its current deficit-lowering target amid one of the most severe recessions in the euro zone.

For those of you who, like me, do not have degrees in economics, here is a very useful primer for determining who to trust. If anyone ever sincerely used the phrase “bond vigilantes” or asserted that austerity would inspire confidence, and that would turn the economy around- ignore them. Forever.

On a more serious note, how long are we going to live in a world ruled by self-serving idiots who lie or are wrong about everything?

▲

Wingnut Welfare is the Shit

I have to admit, I am staggered by this amount:

George Zimmerman, the neighborhood watch volunteer accused of wrongly killing Trayvon Martin, will not immediately have to turn over donations made to his website, a Florida judge said Friday.

Zimmerman collected about $204,000 in donations through the website, but did not disclose the contributions during his bond hearing last week, according to his attorney, Mark O’Mara. Prosecutors had asked for a bond of $1 million, but Judge Kenneth Lester Jr. made it $150,000 after Zimmerman’s family testified they did not have the resources necessary to meet the higher level.

The story is over whether he deceived the judge by claiming he had no money, thus getting himself really low bail, when he actually had 200k in his paypal account. Talk about that if you want, but what I find shocking is that there are enough sociopaths out there that would donate 200 grand to a killer.

Shoot a black kid, set up a blog, make a quarter million. Our society is sick.

▲

On Manchin

I saw the remarks by him that Mistermix mentioned, and I’m basically just stumped as to where Manchin is on the stupid/evil axis. Considering he doesn’t think politics is a team sport (I hope his campaign staff and volunteers don’t hear that) and he’s sponsored several bills he clearly doesn’t understand, there is ample evidence for the stupid side. He’s also a lifelong member of ALEC and was their chairman in WV in the 90’s, has never seen an environmental regulation he didn’t want to gut, and will basically do anything coal tells him, so there is solid evidence for the evil side.

None of this changes one simple fact, though, and that is that John Raese is nucking futs. Manchin’s got the Democrats by the short hairs, and will leverage that for all it is worth until he eventually switches to the GOP as the state gets redder.

▲

Why Would He Do This?

Does he not realize this sort of self-serving statement is just going to infuriate everyone? Better yet, does his lawyer not understand this will just infuriate everyone:

A Florida judge Friday set a $150,000 bond for George Zimmerman, the neighborhood watch volunteer who shot an unarmed black teenager and touched off a firestorm of controversy about race and the American justice system.

Zimmerman, 28, appeared in court in a dark suit and gray tie, and, in a surprising move, took the stand. There, in a voice verging on meek, he apologized to the family of Trayvon Martin, the 17-year-old he admits he shot—but only, he says, in self-defense.

“I wanted to say I am sorry for the loss of your son,” he said to the parents, who attended the hearing in the central Florida city of Sanford, where the shooting took place. “I did not know how old he was. I thought he was a little bit younger than I am, and I did not know if he was armed or not.”

What a load of nonsense. This wasn’t an apology, it was excuse making and playing to the prospective jury pool.

“I’m sorry for the loss of your son.” They didn’t lose him. They didn’t misplace him. He didn’t run away or die of leukemia or vanish into thin air. You fucking shot him to death for the crime of walking while black in your neighborhood.

“I did not know how old he was.” Who cares? Is there some sort of catch and release program down in Florida? Unarmed black minors are off limits, but unarmed black adults are fair game for cowboy wanna-be cops who want to play with their guns?

“I thought he was a little bit younger than I am, and I did not know if he was armed or not.” Again, just more bullshit. If you didn’t know whether he was armed or not, why did you confront him, against the expressed rules of Neighborhood Watch and the directions of the 911 dispatcher? Why were you carrying a gun, again against the explicit rules of Neighborhood Watch?

I can’t wait to hear this idiot testify under oath.

▲

Total Systemic Failure

Brad Hicks reviews the UC Davis Pepper Spray Report (.pdf here) and discovered that as awful as we thought this event was, it turns out it was much, much worse:

But before it even came to that point, the student protesters had, with the help of Legal Services, gone over all the relevant state laws, city ordinances, campus ordinances, and campus regulations and concluded that no matter what the Chancellor thought, it was entirely legal for them to set up that camp. When the university’s legal department found out that Chancellor Katehi was going to order the camp removed, they thought they made it clear to her that the students were right.

I kept having to stop and slap my forehead over that one repeated phrase in the report: (this person or that) was under the impression she had made it clear that (some order was given), but nobody else present had that impression. Anybody who is “under the impression that they made it clear” that some order was given who who didn’t put it in writing and who hasn’t had that order paraphrased back to them? Should be slapped. Or at the very least demoted. Unless you actually said it, you didn’t “make it clear.”

It turns out that it is illegal for anybody to lodge on the campus without permission, but the relevant law only applies to people trying to make it their permanent dwelling. The law prohibits non-students from camping on campus for any reason, but neither student affairs nor the one cop sent to look could find any non-students who were there overnight. A campus regulation says that students can’t set up tents without permission, but that regulation is not enforceable by police, only by academic discipline. Campus legal “thought they made it clear” that the law was on the students’ side, but according to multiple witnesses, what they actually said was “it is unclear that you have legal authority to order the police to do this” and Chancellor Katehi heard that as “well, they didn’t say I don’t have that authority, only that it’s not clear.”

Chancellor Katehi, on her part, “thought she made it clear” that when police ordered the students to leave, they were (a) not to wear riot gear into the camp, (b) not to carry weapons of any kind into the camp, (c) were not to use force of any kind against the students, and (d) were not to make any arrests. But all that anybody else on that conference call heard her say out loud was “I don’t want another situation like they just had at Berkeley,” and Chief Spicuzza interpreted that as “no swinging of clubs.”

Chief Spicuzza “thought she made it clear” more than once that no riot gear was to be worn and no clubs or pepper sprayers were to be carried. What Lieutenant Pike said back to her, each time, was, “Well, I hear you say that you don’t want us to, but we’re going to.” And they did, including that now-infamous Mk-9 military-grade riot-control pepper sprayer that he used. Oh, funny thing about that particular model of pepper-sprayer? It’s illegal for California cops to possess or use. It turns out that the relevant law only permits the use of up to Mk-4 pepper sprayers. The consultants were unable to find out who authorized the purchase and carrying, but every cop they asked said, “So what? It’s just like the Mk-4 except that it has a higher capacity.” Uh, no. It’s also much, much higher pressure, and specifically designed not to be sprayed directly at any one person, only at crowds, and only from at least six feet away. The manufacturer says so. The person in charge of training California police in pepper spray says that as far as he knows, no California cop has ever received training, from his office or from the manufacturer, in how to safely use a Mk-9 sprayer, presumably because it’s illegal. But Officer Nameless, when he wrote the action plan for these arrests, included all pepper-spray equipment in the equipment list, both the paint-ball rifle pepper balls and the Mk-9 riot-control sprayers.

You really need to read the whole report and Brad’s summary. I can’t believe Katehi still has a job, and the Buffalo Beast was too kind to her.

(via that Facebook thing)

▲

The Savings Aren’t The Point

This was never about saving money:

Ushered in amid promises that it would save taxpayers money and deter drug users, a Florida law requiring drug tests for people who seek welfare benefits resulted in no direct savings, snared few drug users and had no effect on the number of applications, according to recently released state data.

“Many states are considering following Florida’s example, and the new data from the state shows they shouldn’t,” said Derek Newton, communications director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida, which sued the state last year to stop the testing and recently obtained the documents. “Not only is it unconstitutional and an invasion of privacy, but it doesn’t save money, as was proposed.”

This week, Georgia instituted a nearly identical law, with supporters saying it would foster greater personal responsibility and save money. As in Florida, the law is expected to draw a legal challenge. The Southern Center for Human Rights, based in Atlanta, said it expected to file a lawsuit once the law takes effect in the next several months. A number of other states are considering similar bills.

The Florida civil liberties group sued the state last year, arguing that the law constituted an “unreasonable search” by the government, a violation of the Fourth Amendment. In issuing a temporary injunction in October, Judge Mary S. Scriven of Federal District Court scolded lawmakers and said the law “appears likely to be deemed a constitutional infringement.”

From July through October in Florida — the four months when testing took place before Judge Scriven’s order — 2.6 percent of the state’s cash assistance applicants failed the drug test, or 108 of 4,086, according to the figures from the state obtained by the group. The most common reason was marijuana use. An additional 40 people canceled the tests without taking them.

Because the Florida law requires that applicants who pass the test be reimbursed for the cost, an average of $30, the cost to the state was $118,140. This is more than would have been paid out in benefits to the people who failed the test, Mr. Newton said.

Just to put this in perspective, only 2.6% of the applicants used drugs, while the DOJ estimates that from 8-10.2 percent of the workforce is on drugs. In other words, far from being lazy shiftless drug addicts, they are, as a whole, cleaner than the general workforce. Which may seem odd to you, but if you think about it, it makes perfect sense. DRUGS COST MONEY. PEOPLE ON GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE DON’T HAVE… MONEY. This is not rocket surgery.

But none of this really matters, because this wasn’t about saving money, it was about shaming people. It was about continuing to stigmatize those who are down on their luck. It was about perpetuating the belief that our safety net is nothing more than a source of drug money for poor people, so people are less inclined to support these programs. And it was about neanderthal politicians catering to the know-nothings who vote Republican. For the cadre of cranky old white people forwarding chain emails and thinking they are clever saying “YOU HAVE TO ADMIT, IT’S TRUE” or the douchebags you went to High School with 30 years ago who just friended you on Facebook and post nonsense like this:

And when you point out this is all nonsense to those people who push that garbage, they’ll get mad at you and call you shrill or deny the facts and point to some anecdote somewhere about someone on welfare who cheated the system- as if that story overcomes the undeniable data you’ve just presented them. Colbert nailed it- the modern right and their followers don’t care about facts, they care about truthiness. They know what they know, and it comes from the gut.

This was never about money. This was about shaming people, humiliating people, making being poor worse than it already was, and giving the soulless goons like the types I mentioned above an opportunity to feel smug and good about themselves at the expense of others.

So I fully expect that every southern state with a Republican legislature will pass a bill like this in the next year or so.

▲

Always Blame the Gays

Tony Perkins:

Perkins: Yeah, you know that’s a great point. Just for a moment step back and look at the implications of this, over the weekend we saw the news of the President’s Secret Service detail in Colombia and the issue of them hiring prostitutes and now the White House is outraged about that. Actually in a meeting this morning my staff asked, ‘why should the President be upset’? It was actually legal; it was legal there to do that, so why should we be upset? Well, the fact is we intuitively know it’s wrong, there’s a moral law against that.

The same is true for what the President has done to the military enforcing open homosexuality in our military. You can change the law but you can’t change the moral law that’s behind it. You can change the positive law, the law that is created by man, but you can’t change the moral law, it’s wrong. So what you have is you have a total breakdown and you can’t pick and choose. Morality is not a smorgasbord; you can’t pick what you want. I think you’re absolutely right, this is a fundamental issue going forward because if we say ‘let them do what we want,’ what’s next? You cannot maintain moral order if you are willing to allow a few things to slide.

Because gays can openly serve in the military, our morals are now so bad that we are even engaging in prostitution! No one please tell the poor dear that prostitution is “the oldest profession.”

I expect for these religious nutters like Perkins, everything they dislike for the next decade will be alternately blamed on gays in the military or Obama or both.

▲

Here’s An Example Of Their Priorities

Fresh off their vote to defeat taxing multimillionaires, the Republicans have found a place to look for some cuts:

Republicans controlling the House are eying big cuts to food stamps and would make it more difficult for illegal immigrants to claim child tax credits as they piece together legislation to cut $261 billion in the coming decade.

It’s the first step in a GOP exercise aimed at cutting domestic programs to forestall big Pentagon budget cuts next year.

The cuts to food stamps would reduce the monthly benefit for a family of four by almost $60 and would force up to 3 million people off the program altogether by tightening eligibility.

Anything to avoid cutting those lucrative defense contracts or requiring millionaires to pay their fair share.

▲

Congratulations, Arizona Women- Every Single One of You Is Now Officially Pregnant

According to Jan Brewer and the deep thinkers in the Arizona legislature:

Life starts earliest in Arizona, which now defines gestational age as beginning on the first day of a woman’s last period, rather than at fertilization. In practice, that means the state has banned abortions after about 18 weeks (20 weeks from the last menstruation) except in the case of medical emergencies. While that provision has been much discussed, abortions after that point account for only about 1 percent of the procedures currently performed.

The stipulation likely to be most widely felt is what experts are calling an effective shutdown of medication abortions. These nonsurgical abortions are usually performed within the first nine weeks of pregnancy, and account for between 17 and 20 percent of all abortions, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a reproductive-rights advocacy group. While women often take the pills at clinics and in their homes, the bill now mandates that a medical provider must have hospital privileges within 30 miles of where the procedure takes place. Many times clinics or homes are not within 30 miles of hospitals, and the distance prevents providers from other cities or even states from caring for women, says Elizabeth Nash of the Guttmacher Institute. Another factor that could contribute to what Nash called a “shutdown” of medication abortions is that the law requires abortion pills to be administered using outdated protocols, confusing providers and obscuring proper use of the drugs.

Now that Arizona has decided to separate being pregnant from when you actually become pregnant, every single woman is, according to the law, pregnant the moment they begin their last period, and will remain officially pregnant until the beginning of your very next period. There will apparently be a 1 day window in between these two events in which you are not officially pregnant.

Down the rabbit hole we go.

▲

Apparently, Real Catholics Hate Adoption Now

Everything that comes out of this man’s mouth is pure bile:

This morning, the Catholic League, headed by the virulently homophobic Bill Donohue (right), said via Twitter, “Lesbian Dem Hilary Rosen tells Ann Romney she never worked a day in her life. Unlike Rosen, who had to adopt kids, Ann raised 5 of her own.”

Get that one-two-three punch? Gotta give Donohue credit: He belittled lesbians, Democrats, and adoption all in less than 140 characters.

He’s like Rush Limbaugh without the wit and charm and good looks. Why is he still accepted in polite company? Just a few weeks ago, he was coordinating attacks on the victims of molestation. Now this?

(via)

▲

chipping away

I think the terrible piece that Zandar and ABL discussed is a picture perfect example of what I’ve been talking about: a concerted effort to normalize racist sentiment. Specifically, by presenting that sentiment as a kind of “daring” in the way DougJ describes, racism as an act of intellectual courage or some such self-aggrandizing narrative. Meanwhile, those who engage in that sort of thing will be defended by the notion that criticism is a kind of leftist censoring. Take it away, Mark Steyn:

The Left is pretty clear about its objectives on everything from climate change to immigration to gay marriage: Rather than win the debate, they’d just as soon shut it down. They’ve had great success in shrinking the bounds of public discourse, and rendering whole areas of public policy all but undiscussable. In such a climate, my default position is that I’d rather put up with whatever racist/sexist/homophobic/Islamophobic/whateverphobic excess everybody’s got the vapors about this week than accept ever tighter constraints on “acceptable” opinion.

It writes itself, if you’re trying to erode our fragile consensus on the equal dignity of black people. (There’s all kinds of racism, but let’s be real: they’re talking about black people.) Note that the idea of scandal exhaustion helps here; it’s far less likely that Mark Judge will be fired than John Derbyshire, and were he to be, the next conservative who said racist shit would be in even better shape. Every instance of bad behavior that provokes a righteously critical reaction simply feeds into the conspiracy mongering and grievance that animates the conservative project.

I fully expect that, in the near future—the next several years, and likely specifically as a reaction against another term for Obama, or a racialized controversy like the Trayvon Martin case—some fairly prominent conservative will write a post about “coming out of the race realist closet.” It will deny that any animosity is intended, again defining racism as a kind of lack of civility rather than as the belief in the inherent superiority and inferiority of different races. It will at once make broad claims about the lower intelligence and tendency to violence in black people, while expressing that position in an idiom designed to seem anodyne and academic. It will repeatedly assert that the writer is terribly hurt to have to make this argument, and insist that he (it will be a he) wishes it weren’t so, but as his job is to tell the whole truth, he will bear the pains and risk his career. Despite this meticulously curated “more in sorrow than in anger” pose, the piece will assert the fundamental dishonesty of those who disagree.

Now, maybe this first post won’t change things itself. The person who writers it will take heat. But it will come in a more prominent publication than Taki, and whoever voices it will likely be able to keep a job in the conservative media. And objections will spawn accusations of liberal groupthink, and the center will be moved, and then you’ll have the cable news networks at least talking about the idea—because “it’s out there now”—and even if they hold their nose and create distance, the idea just gets more and more mainstream. Then more dominoes fall, until the idea that any suitably large group of black people is statistically certain to be majority stupid is the sort of opinion a US Congressman can hold.

It isn’t gonna come from some bold break. It’ll come drip-drip-drip, first with your fringe figures like Derbyshire, than a little more mainstream, and a little more, and a little more, until….

▲

Another Rising Republican Star with a Truth Deficit

Liar, liar:

Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey exaggerated when he declared that unforeseen costs to the state were forcing him to cancel the new train tunnel planned to relieve congested routes across the Hudson River, according to a long-awaited report by independent Congressional investigators.

The report by the Government Accountability Office, to be released this week, found that while Mr. Christie said that state transportation officials had revised cost estimates for the tunnel to at least $11 billion and potentially more than $14 billion, the range of estimates had in fact remained unchanged in the two years before he announced in 2010 that he was shutting down the project. And state transportation officials, the report says, had said the cost would be no more than $10 billion.

Mr. Christie also misstated New Jersey’s share of the costs: he said the state would pay 70 percent of the project; the report found that New Jersey was paying 14.4 percent. And while the governor said that an agreement with the federal government would require the state to pay all cost overruns, the report found that there was no final agreement, and that the federal government had made several offers to share those costs.

Canceling the tunnel, then the largest public works project in the nation, helped shape Mr. Christie’s profile as a rising Republican star, an enforcer of fiscal discipline in a country drunk on debt. But the report is likely to revive criticism that his decision, which he said was about “hard choices” in tough economic times, was more about avoiding the need to raise the state’s gasoline tax, which would have violated a campaign promise. The governor subsequently steered $4 billion earmarked for the tunnel to the state’s near-bankrupt transportation trust fund, traditionally financed by the gasoline tax.

On Tuesday, in a speech at a conference on taxes and the economy in Manhattan, Mr. Christie did not mention the report, but defended his decision to cancel the project, saying, “I refuse to compromise my principles.”

Clearly, honesty is not one of his principles. Kthug puts this into perspective:

But one thing to emphasize here is that this turns Christie’s whole narrative on its head. He poses as the tough guy willing to make hard choices to secure his state’s future. Instead, he turns out to be a guy willing to eat the state’s seed corn — as one of the critics quoted in the article says, to “cannibalize” a project essential to the state’s future — so as to secure a short-term political advantage.

This fits a broader pattern: in general, the politicians who make the loudest noise about taking care of future generations, taking the long view, etc., are the ones who are in fact most irresponsible about public investments, both in infrastructure and in human issues like child health and nutrition.

He’s right.

▲

A Little Justice Served

Something good finally happened in Arizona:

Former Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas and his onetime deputy, Lisa Aubuchon, were stripped of their law licenses today as a disciplinary panel handed down the toughest sanctions possible for ethical violations in a case that attracted national interest.

The panel also suspended Rachel Alexander, another Thomas deputy, from practicing law for six months and one day for her role in filing a federal civil racketeering lawsuit against judges and county officials.

What did they do to deserve this punishment? Just about everything possible:

They were Republican Arizona’s golden boys, the plain-spoken, get-tough sheriff and his legal and political foil, Sheriff Joe Arpaio and attorney Andrew Thomas. According to a post at Talking Points Memo, Thomas “might have had a bright career in Arizona politics,” but instead is today facing disbarment, criminal charges and professional disgrace.

In his six-year reign as Maricopa County’s top prosecutor, Thomas and Sheriff Arpaio went on a legal rampage against their perceived political enemies, drumming up and pursuing criminal charges that they knew were false, charges that rarely held up under scrutiny. As a result, say investigators, Thomas “undermined the public trust and inflicted great damage to the system of justice. The only way to restore that trust and to repair the damage to the system is to disbar Thomas.”

***

An overview of the charges outlined in the case, however, makes one wonder what the lawyers have to be lighthearted about. Reportedly, shortly after being elected to office in 2004, Thomas and Arpaio became a team, often working together against individuals and institutions who defied them.

After both men were reelected to their positions in 2008, they escalated what had been a policy of ongoing political infighting and elevated it to a crusade, using the sheriff’s office to file spurious criminal charges against their political enemies, including the 14 public officials who made up the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors.

However, none of the charges stuck. Often, Arpaio and Thomas failed to provide evidence that they had promised the court. In other instances, the statutes of limitations had long expired on the alleged misdeeds.

Investigators say that Thomas and Aubuchon knew that the cases they were pursuing were bogus, but pressed ahead anyway, hoping to muddy the waters enough to permanently damage their opponents’ reputations. Investigators have labeled this practice perjury, and as such punishable by the termination of their licenses to practice law.

Arpaio really is one of the most disgusting human beings in the country. Did he make the Buffalo Beast list this year?

▲

Faith Based Budgeting

These guys never fail to amuse me:

House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), whose budget plan recently passed the House in a party-line vote, says his faith contributed in shaping the proposal, which he says is consistent with Catholic teachings.

“A person’s faith is central to how they conduct themselves in public and in private,” Ryan said in an interview released on Tuesday by the Christian Broadcasting Network. “So to me, using my Catholic faith, we call it the social magisterium, which is how do you apply the doctrine of your teaching into your everyday life as a lay person?”

The budget, which cuts about $5 trillion more than the president’s 2013 proposal and would create a “premium support” option for future Medicare recipients, sets up an election-year contrast with Democrats on spending and the debt.

So, according to Ryan, we’ve got a budget that is equal parts Ayn Rand and Jesus, with, ho doubt, some Hayek and Burke thrown in. Fabulous. Nothing could go wrong here, amirite? Except there are some people who would disagree that this budget adheres to the religious principles Ryan thinks it does:

The bishops voiced support for moves to strengthen programs that help the poor and vulnerable, such as Pell Grants and improved workforce training and development. They also opposed moves negatively impacting poor families such as increasing the minimum rent that can be charged to families receiving housing assistance and a proposal to eliminate funding for the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program. The bishops also made the case for protecting programs that help the poor internationally.

“As pastors, we see every day the human consequences of budget choices. Our Catholic community defends the unborn, feeds the hungry, shelters the homeless, educates the young, and cares for the sick, both at home and abroad. We help poor families rise above crushing poverty, resettle refugees fleeing conflict and persecution, and reach out to communities devastated by wars, natural disasters and famines,” the bishops wrote. “The moral measure of this budget debate is not which party wins or which powerful interests prevail, but rather how those who are jobless, hungry, homeless or poor are treated. Their voices are too often missing in these debates, but they have the most compelling moral claim on our consciences and our common resources.”

But, as we all know, the wingnuts only listen to the men in funny hats when it comes to their fetus fetish and any and all panty-sniffing/contraceptives ventures. When it comes to war, the death penalty, and taking care of the poor and the less fortunate, well screw all that. What the hell did Jesus know about Welfare, anyway?

▲

This, Too, Was Inevitable

No one could have predicted:

According to NBC News correspondent Mara Schiavocampo, George Zimmerman has launched a new website:

Zimmerman’s attorneys have confirmed the site is operated & authorized by him RT thinkprogress:maracamp How do you know this is authentic? 9 Apr 12

On the website — therealgeorgezimmerman.com — Zimmerman solicits donations to support his “living expenses and legal defense.” He writes: “I have created a Paypal account solely linked on this website as I would like to provide an avenue to thank my supporters personally and ensure that any funds provided are used only for living expenses and legal defense, in lieu of my forced inability to maintain employment. I will also personally, maintain accountability of all funds received.”

He also features a photo of a vandalized black cultural center at Ohio State University.

Might as well get in on the wingnut welfare gravy train, this time with the broad appeal to the Stormfront crowd. Although you will be pleased to know that Stormfront and Neo-Nazis are “civil rights groups” according to Fox.

▲