STACEY DASH TOO OLD FOR FOX NEWS OR WAS IT HER COMMENTARY?

WAS STACEY DASH TOO OLD FOR FOX NEWS OR WAS IT HER COMMENTARY?

BLACK DEMOCRATS WHO PRAISED OBAMA'S APATHY NOW CELEBRATE STACEY'S FIRING.

WHY IS THERE SO MUCH HATERADE TOWARDS BLACK REPUBLICANS?


Sources: NY Daily News, Fox News, YouTube


***** Stacey Dash fired from Fox News


Fox News has decided to part ways with the controversial Stacey Dash.

Dash has been a contributor for the network since 2014, but hasn't been seen on the air since last September. According to The Hollywood reporter,

Fox News made the decision not to renew Dash's contract last fall.
The "Clueless" actress has yet to comment on her departure, and her Twitter page still lists that she's a contributor for the network.


During Dash's time at Fox News, the 50-year-old often made headlines for her controversial remarks. In December 2015, she was temporarily suspended after she cursed on-air while sharing her thoughts on then President Barack Obama's speech on terrorism.

"I didn't feel any passion from him," she said. "I feel like he could give a s---, excuse me, he could care less."

Fox News' senior executive vice president Bill Shine said in a statement to Entertainment Tonight that Dash was suspended for two weeks for making comments deemed "completely inappropriate and unacceptable for our air."


Dash was completely unapologetic, tweeting after her suspension that she would "gladly" accept the consequences.

The actress also caused an outrage in January 2016 when she appeared on "Fox & Friends" and said we should not have channels geared towards African-Americans if we don't want segregation.


"We have to make up our minds," she said. "Either we want to have segregation or integration. And if we don't want segregation, then we need to rid of channels like BET and the BET Awards and the (NAACP) Image Awards where you're only awarded if you're black. If it were the other way around, we would be up in arms. It's a double standard."


During her spiel, Dash also suggested getting rid of Black History Month because "we're Americans. Period. That's it."

YVETTE CARNELL OF "BREAKING BROWN" YOU ARE ONE OF MY HEROS

YVETTE CARNELL OF "BREAKING BROWN" YOU ARE ONE OF MY HEROS

BLACK FEMALE POLITICAL POWERHOUSE & SUCCESSFUL BUSINESSWOMAN.

Sources: BreakingBrown, Boyce Watkins, YouTube

Yvette is a BLACK female, extremely intellectual political powerhouse and Businesswoman who should be on national mainstream television, just as Melissa Harris-Perry once was.

This Howard University alumni adds a wealth of flavour and logic to Dr Boyce Watkins' social media platform.

****** About Yvette Carnell

Yvette Carnell writes about politics, international and cultural issues for Your Black World and is the founder of BreakingBrown.

Before embarking on a career in new media, she served as a Congressional aide, first to Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), and later to former Congressman Marion Berry (D-AR).

In her time on the Hill, she also worked as Regional Field Director for America’s Families United (AFU), one of the largest non-profit Get Out the Vote (GOTV) campaigns active during the 2004 election cycle.

In the broader Democratic Party, she served as assistant to the Director of the Women’s Vote Center at the Democratic National Committee (DNC). She has since distanced herself from the Democratic Party and considers herself an independent.

Her articles have been featured in the Huffington Post and YourBlackWorld. She has been featured by national news outlets including, but not limited to; The Nation, The Guardian, Politico and NPR.

She received a B.A. in Political Science from Howard University.

Contact her HERE.  Or email editor@breakingbrown.com for speaking engagements or media appearances.

NY Post Columnist Regrets He Voted For Barack Obama..."Kleptocrats"

Dreading Our Future


I am a Baby Boomer, which is to say my life has coincided with turbulent and awesome times. From the Cold War to Vietnam, from Watergate to "Monicagate", through the horrors of 9/11 and the stunning lifestyle advances, my generation's era has been historic and exciting.

Yet for all the drama and change, the years only occasionally instilled in me the sensation I feel almost constantly now. I am afraid for my country.

I am afraid -- actually, certain -- we are losing the heart and soul that made America unique in human history. Yes, we have enemies, but the greatest danger comes from within.

Watching the freak show in Copenhagen last week, I was alternately furious and filled with dread. The world has gone absolutely bonkers and lunatics are in charge.

Mugabe and Chavez are treated with respect and the United Nations is serious about wanting to regulate our industry and transfer our wealth to "Kleptocrats" and genocidal maniacs.

Even more frightening, our own leaders joined the circus. Marching to the beat of international drummers, they uncoupled themselves from the will of the people they were elected to serve.

President Obama, for whom I voted because I believed he was the best choice available, is a profound disappointment. I now regard his campaign as a sly bait-and-switch operation, promising one thing and delivering another. Shame on me.

Equally surprising, he has become an insufferable bore. The grace notes and charm have vanished, with peevishness and petty spite his default emotions. His rhetorical gifts now serve his loathsome habit of fear-mongering.

"Time is running out," he says, over and again. He said it on health care, on the stimulus, in Copenhagen, on Iran.

Instead of provoking thought and inspiring ideas, the man hailed for his Ivy League nuance insists we stop thinking and do what he says. Now.

His assertion we will go bankrupt unless Congress immediately adopts the health monstrosity marks a new low. At least it did until he barged into a meeting in Copenhagen to insult the Chinese with the same do-it-now arrogance on carbon emissions.

Don't get me wrong -- it's OK to insult the Chinese, but save it for an urgent life-and-death issue. Iran qualifies, with its plans for a nuclear arsenal, yet Obama has not pushed China on that issue with the fervor of his attacks on their dirty smokestacks.

Washington has its own freak show and it also features Big Government theocrats. One of the mainstream media myths is that the Democrat-on-Democrat attacks of late pit moderates against liberals.

Horse hockey. No person of Conservative or Moderate sensibility could possibly support a Federal takeover of the massive Health Care System.

That some who profess to be Moderates have gone along, either out of fear or partisan loyalty or payoffs, only underscores the madness.

In fact, it is a myth the fight is over health care at all. It is a vulgar power dispute between liberals and extreme liberals, with health care a convenient portal for command-and-control of 17 percent of the economy.


It's Definitely Not Reform.

Notice how little Obama talks about sick people or medicine or suffering or any of the realities of illness and death. There is almost no mention of the moral dimension that supposedly animates the demand for universal coverage.

The public intuitively understands the con, which is why it prefers the flawed status quo. Voters tell pollsters by as much as 3-to-1 they think a federal takeover will cost them and the country more money and will produce more red tape instead of better care.

Yet, because Power Corrupts, and one-party rule corrupts absolutely, dissenters are considered heretics.

Until the next election.



View Larger Map


Sources: NY Post, AP, Google Maps

Congress Has Become Dangerously Dysfunctional, Voters Concerned

(NY Times Op-Ed) A Dangerous Dysfunction


Unless some Legislator pulls off a last-minute double-cross, Health Care Reform will pass the Senate this week. Count me among those who consider this an awesome achievement.

It’s a seriously flawed bill, we’ll spend years if not decades fixing it, but it’s nonetheless a huge step forward.

It was, however, a close-run thing. And the fact that it was such a close thing shows that the Senate — and, therefore, the U.S. government as a whole — has become ominously dysfunctional.

After all, Democrats won big last year, running on a platform that put health reform front and center. In any other advanced democracy this would have given them the mandate and the ability to make major changes.

But the need for 60 votes to cut off Senate debate and end a Filibuster — a requirement that appears nowhere in the Constitution, but is simply a self-imposed rule — turned what should have been a straightforward piece of legislating into a nail-biter. And it gave a handful of wavering senators extraordinary power to shape the bill.

Now consider what lies ahead. We need fundamental financial reform. We need to deal with climate change. We need to deal with our long-run budget deficit. What are the chances that we can do all that — or, I’m tempted to say, any of it — if doing anything requires 60 votes in a deeply polarized Senate?

Some people will say that it has always been this way, and that we’ve managed so far. But it wasn’t always like this. Yes, there were filibusters in the past — most notably by segregationists trying to block civil rights legislation. But the modern system, in which the minority party uses the threat of a filibuster to block every bill it doesn’t like, is a recent creation.

The political scientist Barbara Sinclair has done the math. In the 1960s, she finds, “extended-debate-related problems” — threatened or actual filibusters — affected only 8 percent of major legislation. By the 1980s, that had risen to 27 percent. But after Democrats retook control of Congress in 2006 and Republicans found themselves in the minority, it soared to 70 percent.

Some conservatives argue that the Senate’s rules didn’t stop former President George W. Bush from getting things done. But this is misleading, on two levels.

First, Bush-era Democrats weren’t nearly as determined to frustrate the majority party, at any cost, as Obama-era Republicans. Certainly, Democrats never did anything like what Republicans did last week: G.O.P. senators held up spending for the Defense Department — which was on the verge of running out of money — in an attempt to delay action on health care.

More important, however, Mr. Bush was a buy-now-pay-later president. He pushed through big tax cuts, but never tried to pass spending cuts to make up for the revenue loss. He rushed the nation into war, but never asked Congress to pay for it. He added an expensive drug benefit to Medicare, but left it completely unfunded. Yes, he had legislative victories; but he didn’t show that Congress can make hard choices and act responsibly, because he never asked it to.

So now that hard choices must be made, how can we reform the Senate to make such choices possible?

Back in the mid-1990s two senators — Tom Harkin and, believe it or not, Joe Lieberman — introduced a bill to reform Senate procedures. (Management wants me to make it clear that in my last column I wasn’t endorsing inappropriate threats against Mr. Lieberman.) Sixty votes would still be needed to end a filibuster at the beginning of debate, but if that vote failed, another vote could be held a couple of days later requiring only 57 senators, then another, and eventually a simple majority could end debate. Mr. Harkin says that he’s considering reintroducing that proposal, and he should.

But if such legislation is itself blocked by a filibuster — which it almost surely would be — reformers should turn to other options. Remember, the Constitution sets up the Senate as a body with majority — not supermajority — rule.

So the rule of 60 can be changed. A Congressional Research Service report from 2005, when a Republican majority was threatening to abolish the filibuster so it could push through Bush judicial nominees, suggests several ways this could happen — for example, through a majority vote changing Senate rules on the first day of a new session.

Nobody should meddle lightly with long-established Parliamentary procedure. But our current situation is unprecedented: America is caught between severe problems that must be addressed and a minority party determined to block action on every front. Doing nothing is not an option — not unless you want the nation to sit motionless, with an effectively paralyzed government, waiting for financial, environmental and fiscal crises to strike.


Sources: NY Times, MSNBC

Democrats Need To Start Circling Their Wagons

Democrats Need To Start Circling Their Wagons

(Political Commentary By Guy-Uriel E. Charles; Duke University Law Professor)




The Democrats need to start circling the wagons; otherwise, they risk losing the house in 2010.

They need to come together, led by President Obama, and start explaining to the American people for example why this health care legislation is good for the country, why financial regulatory reform is necessary, what they're doing with respect to jobs, and that they're concerned about the deficit.

Democratic Activists may not be happy with everything that the White House is doing and what is going in a Senate and House that they control, but surely they know it is better to dictate the terms of the compromise than to have policy handed to you as a Fait Accompli.



View Larger Map


Sources: Politico, Duke Law School, Google Maps

Arianna Huffington Tauts A New Brand of Journalism....She Discourages Biased Reporting

Arianna Huffington, co-founder of the WONDERFUL Huffington Post blog (I absolutely adore her site), recently appeared as a guest on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" (my favorite AM Political show) to discuss web 2.0 Journalism.

The "Queen of Web 2.0 Journalism"/ Political Commentator who launched her highly regarded site in 2005, wasn't bashing regular newspapers instead Arianna shared how newspaper organizations should focus less on Advertising and return to their true Investigative roots.

During the interview she didn't fail to mention that one of the reasons newspapers are becoming extinct is due to Biased Reporting.

To that I'd say Arianna was spot on!

I've been saying for several years that Biased Reporting would eventually ruin the Newspaper Industry, especially Racially-tinged Biased reporting.

(That type of reporting has been highly practiced by the newspaper organizations in my region.)

Looks as if I were correct.

Shareholders, Editors, Reporters, Staff Writers, of large newspapers are all crying the blues about going belly up but not many of them appear to be willing to change their strategy for retaining subscribers.

The decline of American Newspapers shouldn't be blamed on Bloggers. Instead the recognition of their failure lies in a shift of how our world now communicates, receives and processes information.

This includes a supply and demand for a different kind of content. Content which screams Integrity versus a one-sided view of the world.

Who wants to spend money on Biased, lopsided, stale reporting when today's readers with a few keystrokes can enter the Blogosphere to visit such informative, extremely interesting, hot-in-demand sites as Huffington Post, Politico, Wash Po-The Fix, Daily Kos, Jack & Jill Politics, Real Clear Politics, etc., to check out real time, global updates?

Despite being falsely stereotyped as "Left-Wing Web 2.0 Ambulance-Chasers", the CEOs and Publishers of those particular sites rarely if ever practice Biased reporting.

As it relates to revenue, these "Investigative Bloggers" are business savvy enough to realize what their readers want and don't mind giving it to them in huge doses.

In return the Online Advertising on most Weblogs and Websites has proven to be very profitable. Supply & Demand, Free Market principles has found its way to Web 2.0 Journalism and Oh what a beautiful thing!

Didn't President Obama's Internet-driven campaign teach us anything about Cyberspace?

Who cares about data overload?

Today's competitive, "microwave generation" doesn't want to wait the next day for what said or what happened two minutes ago. We want it and we want it now!

While we're on the subject, who cares if President Obama is African-American?

Currently he's the hottest Media ticket in town, so who gives a darn about his ethnicity?

Let's face it the average Reporter/ Staff Writer employed at a popular paper might actually find it cool to have a Black Leader in the Oval office, however their stodgy, small-town Editor might have a problem with this recent CHANGE. Especially Editors of most Southern-based papers.

Thus those same Reporters/ Staff Writers continue to print the same old, divisive, racially-tinged, BIASED stories all the while assisting in the demise of their own livelihoods.

Sites like the HuffPost and Politico also have White House Correspondents living in DC, available to catch every morsel from the Obama Administration's table.

Unless its the Washington Post, how many large newspaper organizations are willing to invest that type of money to stay on top of their game? Very few.

Yet...Gasp! These same Journalistic Neophytes are perturbed at Blogs and News sites for "stealing" their readers.

I suggest that instead of Shareholders/ CEOs of large newspapers wasting money lobbying Congress to protect their right to keep us stuck in the past with yesterday's stories or trying desperately to destroy Bloggers, why not spend some of that hard-earned dough hiring Investigative Web Publishers/ Reporters like Arianna on a part-time basis as Consultants?

Allow people like Arianna or the folk from Politico, Jack & Jill Politics, etc., to share some secrets of their Web 2.0 Journalism Success.

After all as they say if you can't beat 'em, join 'em. I recommend the dying world of regular newspaper journalism to please join 'em.

Kudos forever to Arianna and the HuffPost!

Thank you for providing 21st Century readers with an excellent, professional, credible alternative.

(Check out more of what Arianna said on "Morning Joe" on the clip below. This woman really knows her stuff.)

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Arianna Huffington speak with "Politics Daily" before a Senate hearing on the future of journalism May 6.



View Larger Map

Sources: HuffPost, TIME, MSNBC, Morning Joe Show, Politico, The Fix, Jack & Jill Politics, Real Clear Politics, Daily Kos, Politics Daily, Newsobserver, Youtube, Google Maps, Flickr