WHY MSNBC is carrying ads for pornographic books? When I saw these ads a few days back, I thought it had been inadvertently inserted and anyone like me, who was shocked, would have brought it to your notice. But I find it is still continuing. Should I assume that anything is OK as long as MSNBC makes money? If so, what is the difference between you and Mitt? Don't tell me that you do not have control over ads in your program.I can understand if you allow ads by Clean Coal and Exxon, BP, etc. because by stretching somewhat, I can see freedom of speech working. But pornography? Do you also subscribe to the view that it should find a place in your website? If I find these ads one week from now, you can see me posting everywhere about this email and it having got no positive response from you.

Dear Rachel, I am not that computer savvy, so I don't know where to say what I have to say.

Sorry. But I feel I must chime in. You mentioned coat hangers as an abortion alternative. I am old enough to be an alternative woman in the 70"s, The 70"s was a decade, where midwives where persecuted and jailed. Women of an alternative bent, formed groups. We educated ourselves. We learned how to do pelvic exams. We did them in our groups. We searched the information flow, and learned how to build extraction pumps--if you get my drift. We learned how to use the pumps. We were not helpless. We took our lives in our hands and used the best information we could get. It was not coat hangers!. I have done considerable research about the flow of power between men and women vis a vis woman"s bodies. I am convinced that in time of repression, women band together to support themselves and their bodies.

Thank you for being you!

Regard,

Thea

theamuse@mac.com

Dear Rachel,

3 things for you.

First, I have not heard from anyone about the 4.5 TRILLION dollar surplus under OBAMA. IE: 2.5 Trillion of Obama's 5 Trillion dollar debt was carry-over war debt from Bush. Bush also lost 7 Trillion in wealth in the 2008 crash. Obama brought all that wealth (peoples 401k's) back.

Second, My wife suggests that you contact the women of the 99% and have them show up at Romney events wearing Burkas.

Third, I disagree with the 4.2 social security tax break. Obama should not defund SS, instead he should remove the $110,000 cap. Some people don't realize that after the first 110k that one earns in a year we stop paying into SS. I would rather keep paying my 6.2 to fund SS so that it will be there when I need it.

Keep up the fight and thank you for your hard work

Robert

I tried to Tweet some of what I am going to say but there is a lot I still need to learn about Twitter.

I listened from a different source to a clip of Cory indicating that he did not have a problem with Private Equity firms like Bain Capital and that it was negative to criticize them. I think Cory does not know what a Private Equity firm is. Robert Reich has a great explanation on Private Equity firms on YouTube. I would like to see that clip or Robert Reich himself on the Rachel Maddow show as a response to Cory. I am glad Rachel had Cory on but he was not pressed to explain what Private Equity firms really do. Left with Cory"s last interview on Rachel Maddow, I am afraid that Progressives will not really know how toxic Private Equity Firms are. They are more toxic than the assets Wall Street tries to label as toxic: the sub prime mortgages that they decided to sell to unwitting customers. Rachel, please counter Cory's appearance with Robert Reich's appearance. Homework: Oliver Stone's Wall Street.

Re: Obama's leading national view on foreign policy evolution of our present military complex state, was a page well worth turning, and worthy of a cocktail last night.

Hello Rachel,

I know that many in Conservative politics like to base their push on enshrining Christian morality into the national political spectrum based on their belief in the 'fact' that the US was founded as a Christian nation. Putting all the arguments aside about the religion of each of the Founding fathers and there are many, here is an interesting bit of American History - well documented - I refer to the Treaty of Peace and Friendship, Signed at Tripoli November 4, 1796 that settled one of our early wars. (Referenced in the the Marine Hymn, "...to the shores of Tripoli"):

"ARTICLE 11.

As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries. "

Official records show that after President John Adams sent the treaty to the Senate for ratification in May 1797, the entire treaty was read aloud on the Senate floor, and copies were printed for every Senator. A committee considered the treaty and recommended ratification. Twenty-three of the thirty-two sitting Senators were present for the June 7 vote which unanimously approved the ratification recommendation.

It seems that the sitting government of the United States just ten (10) years after the Constitution was adopted and eight (8) years after it went into effect, specifically stating that the US was "NOT in any sense founded on the Christain religion" holds a lot of impact in any discussion as to the mind set of the Founding Fathers.

In fact there is no reference to religion, God, Jesus, etc. in the Constitution - with the exception of stating the year that the Convention created the document as "the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven." And with the first part of the first sentence in the First Amentment reads "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, ..." there is a lot of 'food for thought' and facts to counter arguments when laws are based on Jewish, Muslim or Christian religious texts.

I hope that this will make it to your attention.

David from Toronto

Unlike ·

There was a factual error in the segment on the MN GOP convention. Michelle Bachmann didn't get a delegate. She became a delegate, getting a spot only because someone on the winning Ron Paul slate stepped aside for her. She "won" as a Romney delegate.

Good posting! I am really impressed!

Please visit http://chriscrosby.net/blog/2012/03/16/americas-gas-pains/