Jackson Free Press

In the GOP's continued saga of internecine warfare, there's another front opening in the Battle of Mississippi with a shot coming from... Missouri?

The chairman of the Missouri GOP wants the campaign investigated by the Republican National Committee, according to the Washington Post. The Missouri GOP chair wants the RNC to investigate racially-charged robocalls and ads that appear to have been placed in Canton, Miss., and elsewhere in support of Cochran's run-off bid.

The head of the Missouri Republican Party on Tuesday asked Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus to appoint a task force to investigate what he called “racially divisive ads and robocalls” critical of state Sen. Chris McDaniel in the Republican runoff for U.S. Senate in Mississippi.

Ed Martin, the GOP chair in Missouri, is apparently concerned that Henry Barbour, nephew of former Governor Haley Barbour, may be behind a radio ad that was reported by Britain's Daily Mail.

The Daily Mail story, which offers an in-depth investigation to determine who placed the ads and how, notes that the ads were tagged "paid for by Citizens for Progress," a group that isn't registered with the FEC.

According to the Daily Mail, this same group name had been used previously by Mitzi Bickers, an Atlanta pastor, who, coincidentally, was being paid by Mississippi Conservatives -- a "super PAC" created by Haley Barbour and run by his nephew, Henry Barbour.

The younger Barbour told the Daily Mail he didn't know about the radio ads, although he acknowledged hiring Bickers to run a robocall campaign in the Cochran-McDaniel runoff.

In the radio ad, McDaniel is linked to an "ally" of the KKK, and listeners are warned that a McDaniel victory could mean a loss of government benefits such as food stamps, lunch programs and disaster assistance.

In an occasional blog series I'm inaugurating here, I'd like to pull forward some debate that's happening in the comments and examine a variety of the myths and legends that surround the South's participation in the civil war.

From the comments section came this one from Claude Shannon:

The war was fought over money and power. In 1860, 80% of all federal taxes were paid for by the south. 95% of that money was spent on improving the north.

Now I'm not a history scholar, but I do get curious when things just kinda sound wrong.

First... even if we assume that's true (which, as you'll see later, I can't) I think the construct is disingenuous, as it suggests that "the South" had very little say in the matter and no recourse but secession given the rapacious chokehold that the North apparently had on the South in terms of political power and usurious taxation.

It's a dramatic picture, but there are a few caveats:

1.) Democrats (the party that included most all Southern politicians) controlled Congress leading up to the Civil War (they lost the House in 1859) and had a Democratic president in the "doughface" Buchanan. (The term being one that suggests a Northern with Southern sympathies.)

2.) The Tariff of 1857 was authored and supported by Southern legislators (the primary author was Virginia Senator Robert Mercer Taliaferro Hunter, who would later be pictured on the Confederate $10 bill) and it lowered tariffs to a level they hadn't hit in 50 years.

http://jacksonfreepress.com/users/photos/2015/jul/10/22076/

Remember that through most of 1800-1860 there was no income tax on individuals and businesses or other taxes (sales, property) as we define them today -- Federal taxes were almost exclusively tariffs on imports. (The Nullification Crisis had come when tariffs were considerably higher in order to pay down debts from the War of 1812.)

So, "taxes" were considerably lower leading up to the war.

But then... if there's evidence that "The South" paid "80 percent" of those tariffs they'd managed to lower, I can't find it.

As noted here, about 63% of Federal revenue was collected as tariffs on shipments that went through just the Port of New York alone. And those tariffs were collected from the merchants who imported them.

Aside from New York, there were certainly other ports in the North; so an argument that "The South" paid 80% of tariffs -- e.g. that 80% of imported and taxed goods went through Southern ports where the taxes were paid by Southern importers -- isn't correct.

(The tariffs were also protectionist in nature, and likely benefitted both the North and South as they made locally produced goods more attractive.)

If there's a more esoteric argument that says somehow the South ultimately bought 80% of those goods and therefore experienced the markup that came from them being taxes, I haven't seen it, but it would be interesting to read and parse.

One other point to make on tariffs -- the Southern states …

A resident in Fondren sent us this voicemail message, which is an apparent robocall trying to suggest that Margaret Barrett-Simon's campaign is designed to help Tony Yarber.

Link: Robocall Audio

Barrett-Simon responded to the call on her Facebook page last week: "I want to be clear that, should I decide to enter the Jackson mayoral race, my campaign will not engage in these or similar tactics. I would also like to call all of those who decide to enter the campaign to renounce the use of 'robocalls' and similar anonymous 'hit and run' methods."

As one might expect, the call doesn't identify the party paying for it; it does appear to originate from a Washington State area code. When we called the Caller ID number in the message, we reached an automated attendant willing to put us on a no-call list.

If you receive robocalls that you can record or that reach voicemail, please email them to reporter R.L. Nave (rlnave at jacksonfreepress dot com).

President Obama is expected to address the "fiscal cliff" this afternoon in the aftermath of the House's failure to pass the GOP "Plan B" proposal. The House has adjourned for the Christmas holiday.

So you know that conventional wisdom that says the people are safer with a lot of guns around?

Turns out maybe not so much.

"The totality of the evidence based on educated judgments about the best statistical models suggests that right-to-carry laws are associated with substantially higher rates" of aggravated assault, rape, robbery and murder, said Donohue.

Earlier studies (including the frequently debated and arguably debunked work of John Lott) suggested that carry laws were correlating with lower incidents of violent crime; by extending the amount of time studied, however, the National Research Council poured cold water on the Lott theory, and now Stanford's new study sees things trending even further in the direction that kinda makes more sense -- more guns equals more violent crime, particularly assaults with a deadly weapon.

Of course, how much is open to interpretation, but the notion that more guns equals less violent crime seems to be put to bed by its own number crunching.

The American Family Association's president, Tim Wildmon, sent out an "AFA ActionAlert" this morning to let us know that our worst fears are, indeed, coming true. Thanks to an "activist" Federal judge in Utah, "...polygamy is now essentially legal in the United States."

Whoa! I tell you, those activist judges are out. of. control.

Of course, Wildmon had tried to tell us...

We warned from the beginning that once the biblical standard of man-woman marriage was breached, there would be no logical place to stop.

The AFA ActionAlert somewhat surprisingly links to this USA Today story about the ruling—I say surprisingly because, presumably, we're not actually supposed to read the USA Today story, since it only barely says anything like what Wildmon's ActionAlert says.

There is a judge, and a lawsuit—one brought by the reality TV stars of "Sister Wives," a show which focuses on a polygamist family formerly of Utah—now in Vegas.

From USA Today:

U.S. District Court Judge Clark Waddoups said in the ruling that the phrase in Utah law that forbids cohabitation with another person was a violation of the First Amendment.

Utah, it seems, has the most limiting polygamy law on the books—while 49 other states have laws against polygamy (being legally married to more than one person at a time), Utah's law "makes it illegal to even purport to be married to multiple partners or live together."

In other words, it's illegal in Utah to pretend to be married to more than one person at a time; in every other state it's only illegal to actually be married to more than one person at a time.

Back to Wildmon:

Though we have been accused of exaggerating and scare-mongering, this ruling shows that we were right all along to sound the alarm. Bans against incest are now at risk of being overturned.

Ahhh. Well, I guess we could see that one coming. Feels like a bit of a stretch… unless those rumors I've been hearing about a new show being cast in Appalachia called "Cousin Wives," prove to be true…

Verbatim from the Attorney General's office:

A classic scam is now targeting Apple users. The very common “phishing” scam is constantly being revised by con artists to target a larger pool of potential victims. Currently, scammers are using emails to target Apple users by falsely claiming that your Apple ID, iCloud or iTunes account has been comprised. You are then asked to provide personal information to rectify the problem.

“Because there is a large percentage of Apple users, these cons are using the Apple name to cast a wide net to phish for potential victims,” said Attorney General Hood. “That’s why it is important to think twice about any action you take online asking you to provide personal information. Legitimate companies like Apple never ask you to provide such information to them through an email.”

The danger for most people using iCloud is that they often back their cellular devices up to it. In the event this account is compromised, the attacker could gain access to very sensitive and personal information stored on those backups. These phishing websites can look similar to the legitimate ones. Very often, the scam comes in the form of a fake email (see example below) which will prompt you to click on a link and visit one of these phishing websites to “update your account information.”

To avoid this scam make sure you are in the iTunes application directly, not through a web browser. If you are asked to update your account information, make sure that you do so only in iTunes or on a legitimate page on Apple.com, such as the online Apple Store.

If you suspect your Apple ID, iCloud or iTunes account has been compromised, change the password immediately and/or contact Apple and advise them your account’s security has been compromised. If you have received a suspicious email, please notify iTunes Customer Support by visiting www.apple.com/support/itunes/store. ‘

Sample of phishing email:

> iCloud ID – xxxx This is the final message to inform you as of 22 – February – 2015 that you have not yet updated your Apple ID details. Under “Know your Customer” legislation Apple Inc is required to carry out a verification of your information, failure to complete this validation will result in deletion of your iCloud within the next three days. Please click below to » Login to your Apple/iCloud ID To cancel the deletion of your Apple & iCloud ID please proceed to your Apple ID information before the deadline. Resolution Validation Request: #L8FHI20121711925 Sincerely, iGenius Helpteam

http://www.ago.state.ms.us/phishing-scam-targets-apple-users/

I came out of Game 3 against the Carolina Panthers with some optimism for the team—along with a resigned sense that 2015 is looking more and more like a rebuilding year for the New Orleans Saints.

I guess that shouldn’t be a shocker — considering the high-profile trades, draft picks, and the number of rookies the Saints are starting on this team, the idea that they would go far this year was perhaps a pipe dream in the first place.

What may end up being more interesting is the groundwork they’re laying for the future.

Game 3 Recap

After watch the game tape my first impression is that this was really a decent outing for the offense—especially since backup quarterback Luke McCown ran the offense for the first time (in a game that mattered) since he put on a Saints uniform.

http://jacksonfreepress.com/users/photos/2015/oct/03/23139/

Particularly in the first half, the offense moved down the field almost at will.

McCown got the ball to many different weapons in the first quarter: Spiller, Ingram, Coleman, Snead, Robinson, Cooks, Johnson, Hill, and Watson all touched the ball in the first two series alone.

After re-watching those two drives I realized that (a.) I’m still not giving Ingram enough credit—he had some key, hard-fought rushes in that second drive in particular and (b.) this could be a very interesting offense once running back C.J. Spiller, acquired this year from Buffalo, gets more touches and is a bigger part of the gameplan.

It’s also interesting to think that the Saints will be able to field Spiller, Ingram and Cooks at the same time—and give defensive play-callers a few headaches.

On the defensive side of the ball, credit the Saints for getting pressure on quarterback Cam Newton in their first series and stopping running back Jonathan Stewart, forcing a punt. They did neither of those things the next series, allowing Carolina to reply with a TD that looked routine.

So, at 10-7, the Saints got a third look at the ball with 5 minutes left in the half; that drive went nowhere, as consecutive penalties pushed the Saints into a 2-and-25 situation that they couldn’t quite dig out of, despite a 21-yard, 3rd-down pass to Watson.

After a punt to Carolina’s 19 yard line at 2:06 in the half, cornerback Brandon Browner immediately gave up a 52-yard bomb to Carolina tight end Greg Olson, and Carolina dribbled down to the 2 yard line, but ran out of time and settled for field goal to tie the game at 10-10.

Saints linebacker H. Kikaha got his first sack of the game in Carolina's first series of the second half, a coverage sack that resulted in Carolina punting away its fourth possession. After a penalty on the Carolina punt (which Marcus Murphy had muffed and run out of bounds), the second attempt was a charm—Murphy took the ball back 74 yards with a quick, efficient punt return for a TD that showed him doing exactly …

Does Mitt Romney support Paul Ryan's approach to Medicare, which would turn it into a voucher paid toward private insurance, or is he against it? Depends on the day... and the state... and that level of incoherence reportedly has some in the GOP worried.

The Romney messaging snafus, they note, have been relentless. Just this week, the Romney campaign repeatedly alternated between embracing Paul Ryan's Medicare Plan and distancing Romney from it. The campaign issued talking points and dispatched advisers to say Romney's plan is different. But in Florida this week, when reporters asked Romney himself about Ryan's plan, he said he supports it.

Perhaps most disconcerting is Ryan's performance in a fairly safe space -- an interview with Fox News. Ryan was unable to say whether Romney's budget would balance even by 2030, and couldn't make particularly clear how Romney's budget would balance without "getting wonky."

Earlier on Tuesday, the Romney campaign intended for Ryan's first solo interview to underscore the Congressman's policy chops. But when veteran newsman Brit Hume pointedly asked for program details, Ryan couldn't deliver. In addition, Ryan said the specifics on closing tax loopholes would have to wait until after the election. Even Hume looked visibly annoyed. "It was," said a top Republican, "an unmitigated disaster."

Here's the full video; get about 3 minutes in for the budget discussion, about the 8:00 point for the discussion on whether they have specific tax loopholes they're going to cut. (After that comes the Ayn Rand discussion.) Embedded below:

While on the air with ads saying Obama has a "War on Religion" and that he's loosening the work requirements for Welfare (which has been widely debunked) he complained on the campaign trail about Obama's "campaign of division and anger..."

However, Romney has been saying the President is a "nice guy" in nearly every speech for the past three months.

Is the Romney campaign off message? Off the rails? Or are the Romney campaign messaging folks crazy like a fox?

What's wrong with the American Economy? Income inequality, due, in part, to an over-emphasis on shareholder value as our prevailing metric for corporate success.

In a 4-3 vote today the Supreme Court upheld the University of Texas' admissions policy that takes into account the race or ethnicity of applicants who aren't automatically admitted under the school's "10 Percent" rule. (The top percentage of all Texas high school graduates are automatically qualified for admittance; it's not always 10 percent, but that's that's the name it's given.)

The case was brought by Abigail Fischer a white woman who claimed that, although she wasn't in the top 10 percent of her college class, she was denied admissions because she is white. She has since graduated from Louisiana State University.

Read more here.

The National Security Administration isn't big on public statements, so this one by Admiral Michael Rogers, the NSA's current chief, is raising some eyebrows.

Frank, a Special Olympian, offers a reasonable and considerate response to Ann Coulter's ridiculous statement after the third Presidential debate.

This past week I wrote a Publisher's Note called "AFA Bearing False Witness Against Businesses?" about the American Family Association's "action alert" wherein they called the "We Don't Discriminate" campaign discriminatory, despite the very basic tautological problems with their argument. (It seemed to me they were going to have to define "don't" as "do" in order to make their argument make any sense.)

So I was intrigued this week to see the AFA has now edited that exact same alert from its original headline of "A List of Businesses Displaying Hatred Toward Religious Freedom" to the new headline "Businesses Suckered By Homosexual Reaction to MS Religious Freedom Restoration Act."

The alert is otherwise dated the same (suggesting, falsely, that they wrote the current text on May 9, 2014, when it actually sometime between May 16th and 19th), it has the same URL and it still has the title "A List of Businesses Displaying Hatred Toward Religious Freedom" at the top of the window.

Here's a screenshot of the original:

http://jacksonfreepress.com/users/photos/2014/may/20/17455/

Here's the new one:

http://jacksonfreepress.com/users/photos/2014/may/20/17456/

Aside from the fact that replacing their earlier statements and pretending they wrote them 10 days ago once again calls into question this self-proclaimed Christian organization's relationship with the Ninth Commandment, it's also instructive to note where they now pretend their argument has been the whole time -- gays are apparently suckering businesses into putting the sticker in their window.

Again, a reminder: The campaign is a reaction to a law signed recently in Mississippi that may allow businesses to discriminate against other based on their religious beliefs. The sticker proclaims a given business' desire to work with all customers despite that law.

Given that the law -- which AFA, partner organizations and Governor Bryant wanted -- is now in existence, the sticker can help people at risk of being discriminated against know that a business won't discriminate against them.

The sticker doesn't say a darned thing about other people or businesses who don't have the sticker.

That said, this is, at least, a slightly better tactic on the part of the AFA for its own sake, since the original plan (still evident) was to simply castigate the businesses for proclaiming their anti-discriminatory stance.

Blaming the businesses, in hindsight, was pretty stupid, as the businesses have a clear right (a.) not to discriminate against their customers and (b.) to tell people about it.

(Pretending that The Gays are using their convince-o-tron on hapless business owners is, at least, a slightly less stupid tactic. Progress!)

Now, the new text calls on those who read the alert to further the AFA's agenda by asking the business owner if they aware the sticker is "part of a plan to bully, intimidate and demean Christians."

Since it's not, then that's false witness, but the AFA seems to operate with a special exemption from the 9th.

Maybe re-reading Proverbs 6:16-19 would help?

Nate Silver at Five Thirty Eight gives Obama a 91% chance of winning tonight; PPP, a left-leaning pollster, predicts over 300 electoral votes for Obama.

But others show the race closer, and the Electoral College race could be nail-biter, based on all sorts of factor such as weather, long lines, voter ID, GOTV efforts and some election officials in swing states who seem to be hell-bent on confusing folks on their way to the polls.

So here's a quick guide to watching the results tonight and getting a sense of how things are going for either side.

First, a summary: You've got to get 270 electoral votes to win the Electoral College; 269-269 is a tie (which would be decided in the U.S. House of Representatives, probably in Romney's favor).

The New York Times' Electoral Map suggests that Obama has 243 electoral votes that are totally safe or lean toward him; Romney has 206. That means Obama needs to hold those states and get just 27 more electoral votes to win; Romney needs to hold his and win 64 more electoral votes.

The Swing States in this math are New Hampshire, Ohio, Virginia, Florida, Wisconsin, Iowa and Colorado. (Others that lean Obama that Romney might pick off are Pennsylvania, Michigan, Minnesota and New Mexico. States that Obama could pick up from leaning Romney are North Carolina and Arizona.)

Now, the timeline... all times are Central.

5:00 p.m. Some polls close in Indiana and Kentucky. Obama won Indiana in 2008, but it's polling strongly for Romney this cycle. Interesting to watch, though, is the race between Tea Party GOP favorite Richard Mourdock (rape pregnancy is a gift from God) and Congressman Joe Donnelly, the Democrat. Mourdock knocked off Richard Lugar in the primary, but may now lose the seat for the GOP thanks to his national renown -- and Tea Party-vs.-normal-people schisms in the Indiana state GOP.

6:00 p.m. Final polls in Indiana/Kentucky. Polls close in Virginia. (They also close in Georgia, South Carolina and Vermont.) It may not be called all that quickly but Virginia is the first toss-up state to watch closely. If Obama wins it, he's probably having a good night -- he would only need one other swing state (other than New Hampshire) to get to 270 if he holds his "leaners." If Romney wins Virginia, his path to victory could tack "Southern" and he could still win without Ohio.

6:30 p.m. Polls close in Ohio and North Carolina (and West Virginia). Ohio may still have long lines and provisional ballots to count, but it'll be one of the most important states to watch.

One particular House race to watch while the results are coming in, according to PolicyMic, is Ohio District 16, which pits "business" against "labor" in an expensive House showdown between GOP Rep. Jim Renacci and Dem. Rep. Betty Sutton. If Sutton wins, that's one sign that Obama will, too; if Renacci wins, then Ohio may be trending …

If you're driving around Jackson today, consider tuning in to Mix 98.7 for a special "telethon" program they're doing for Batson Children's Hospital.

And, when you do, listen closely to the new voice you're hearing at that remote alongside Shannon Steele -- that's Brian Stauffer, my (Todd Stauffer's) brother.

Brian's got 20+ years experience in radio, but this is the first time he and I have been in the same town doing media work. I'm excited to have him here and for Jackson to get to know him.

Wish him luck!

http://jacksonfreepress.com/users/photos/2016/dec/01/27257/

According to NewsMax (ugh) our esteemed former lobbyist/former governor/current lobbyist Haley Barbour was on Fox News this weekend complaining that President Obama isn't paying enough attention to the debt.

If there's something I feel like I've learned after years of watching the New Orleans Saints play football, it's that there really is such a thing as scoring their last points too soon.

The classic instance in their modern incarnation is the Saints-49ners NFC Championship game in 2012. In that game, quarterback Drew Brees threw a 66-yard touchdown to tight end Jimmy Graham that put the Saints into the lead with 1:37 left on the clock. The point after put the score at 32-29.

The ensuing 49er drive took 1:28, as Alex Smith moved the team methodically down the field against a porous Saints defense, with the final touchdown just seconds before the end of the game.

It was a painful loss for Saints fans who watched a second Super Bowl berth slip away in a scenario that's happened just a little too often in the Sean Payton era—the Saints scored too soon on their final drive.

I don't think you can fault Payton and his quarterbacks, whether Brees or now Luke McCown, for seeing a potential matchup and going for the jugular late in the game. That's how football is played.

But what I do feel like you can fault Payton for—and I hate to say this—is trusting that his awful defenses will be able to hold off the other team's final drive if you give the opponent any time at all.

This past Sunday, for instance, I submit that a little conservative play-calling might have won the day.

The Saints were poised to beat the Carolina Panthers late in the fourth quarter, after marching down the field in an unhurried three-minute offense led by the surprisingly unflappable McCown.

Faced with dropped passes by the usually reliable veteran receiver Marques Colston and a couple of hot grabs by slot receiver Brandin Cooks, that final 24-yard pass into the end zone to Cooks looked too good to pass up; and it was, for Carolina cornerback Josh Norman, who made a fantastic interception on a pretty good pass by McCown.

It's hindsight, yes. But clearly the pass shouldn't have been thrown.

With over a minute on the clock and with timeouts still available, the Saints had two downs to get 6 yards and at least three backs to think about using to get them. On the play that they ran for the interception, Mark Ingram was wide-open in the flat for at least 5 of those 6 yards—a quick throw to the back would might have netted a first down and, critically, an opportunity to bleed more clock. (Colston, as it turns out, was also wide-open over the middle and might have scored if thrown to.)

Crazy talk? Sure. And, of course, there's no guarantee that you score from the 15 or so yards out.

But I can't avoid asking the question... is it too much to ask an NFL coach to at least temper the desire to toss it into the end zone for the quick …

Mississippi State's Josh Robinson told ESPN he's entering the 2015 NFL draft.

Todd reviews Devil's Harvest Pale Ale, a brew by Southern Prohibition and a staple in the JFP Beer Fridge.