Tuesday, 20 August 2013

Re: In Re: A Follow-Up To Travis's August 20th, 2013 Post Captioned: "Child Rapists and Other Well-Meaning Liberals"

Here's the interview with the Father, John Janczewski,  (Along with pictures of both the mother and father)  who describes the emotional trials and tribulations they went through with their molested son.
 
The predator, Eric Neilson who the Teacher's Union and members of the school board were trying to portray as "The Victim"  actually threatened the kid with having his parents fired from their jobs if he told about the molestation. 
 
 
 


On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 7:16 PM, Keith In Tampa <keithintampa@gmail.com> wrote:
As I wrote earlier,  I had an opportunity to hear a portion of the Glenn Beck Radio Program this morning, where Glenn interviewed the mother of the 14 year old child rape victim.  If you are a subscriber to Glenn Beck or to the Blaze Dot Com,  then you can go to the link below and pull the interview directly up. 
 
If you are not a member (like me)  you can go to the web site that I have linked below,  and at the bottom of the page, you will see "The Glenn Beck Radio Program 8/20/2013 with the radio graph pictured.  Click on that link on the page, and then move your curser to minute "38:00"; and the interview with Ms. Janczewski.  
 
Everyone needs to hear this, and what teachers and Unions are doing in our Nation....I propose that the protests in Rose Michigan is just the tip of the iceberg:
 
 
Here also is a link to a follow-up article after this morning's show, from Beck:
 

--
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

In Re: A Follow-Up To Travis's August 20th, 2013 Post Captioned: "Child Rapists and Other Well-Meaning Liberals"

As I wrote earlier,  I had an opportunity to hear a portion of the Glenn Beck Radio Program this morning, where Glenn interviewed the mother of the 14 year old child rape victim.  If you are a subscriber to Glenn Beck or to the Blaze Dot Com,  then you can go to the link below and pull the interview directly up. 
 
If you are not a member (like me)  you can go to the web site that I have linked below,  and at the bottom of the page, you will see "The Glenn Beck Radio Program 8/20/2013 with the radio graph pictured.  Click on that link on the page, and then move your curser to minute "38:00"; and the interview with Ms. Janczewski.  
 
Everyone needs to hear this, and what teachers and Unions are doing in our Nation....I propose that the protests in Rose Michigan is just the tip of the iceberg:
 
 
Here also is a link to a follow-up article after this morning's show, from Beck:
 

--
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

The United States of Paranoia

Jesse Walker of reason magazine will be live on C-Span 2 at 7 pm. And Politics and Prose, where he is speaking live, will put it on their website and YouTube channel tomorrow.

--
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Fwd: OBAMA MINION HENRY WAXMAN LEADS NEWEST ATTACK ON GUNS






http://www.wnd.com/2013/08/henry-waxman-leads-newest-attack-on-guns/

 

WEAPONS OF CHOICE

Henry Waxman leads newest attack on guns

Plan would ban 'virtually any part used to build a semi-automatic weapon'

A few months back, Attorney General Eric Holder and President Barack Obama had Democrats bring into Congress a long list of new gun laws, restrictions and regulations, only to see them slapped down.

You didn't think they were done with their gun-control plan, did you?

The newest move comes from Rep. Henry Waxman and several others who have introduced H.R. 2910, the "Gun Violence Prevention and Reduction Act of 2013."

It is getting attention among bloggers who monitor gun rules already, because of what they fear is going to be happening with it.

At Freedom Outpost, Tim Brown writes that the plan "would ban the sale and possession of 80 percent AR-15 receivers."

"However, the way the legislation reads, it actually bans much more than receivers. It appears to include virtually any part used to build a semi-automatic weapon."

He wrote that the ban is a little deceptive, because the part that is referenced "is one that is not considered a firearm because it still requires some basic machine work before it is ready to be used in building a firearm."

He said the possibility with an 80 percent completed lower version, versus a finished product, is that the finished product is required to have a serial number.

"There is no need for the gun to have a serial number or be registered as long as it remains in your possession for personal use," he notes.

But he notes instead of plugging a "hole in the law," Waxman aims for much more.

Specifically, the proposal makes it "unlawful" for any person "to sell, offer for sale, manufacture for sale, or import into the United for sale, to a consumer – an assault weapon parts kit."

Understand the real morality behind gun rights with "Shooting Back: The Right and Duty of Self-Defense," from the WND Superstore!

That includes "any part or combination of parts not designed and intended for repair or replacement but designed and intended to enable a consumer who possesses all such necessary parts to assemble a semiautomatic assault weapon."

"Basically, this ends up targeting any rifle part that can be used to build a firearm," he noted. "In theory, any parts on a firearm are essentially covered with this legislation."

He noted it's now in committee, with only Democrat sponsors.

The bill itself proposes that it is "to protect American children and their families from the epidemic of gun violence by banning access to certain weapons…"

In a recent commentary from WND CEO Joseph Farah, he cited a video that reveals Holder's own plans for weapons in America:

And it recently was discovered that Democratic strategists have drafted a how-to manual on manipulating the public's emotions toward gun control in the aftermath of a major shooting.

"A high-profile gun-violence incident temporarily draws more people into the conversation about gun violence," asserts the guide. "We should rely on emotionally powerful language, feelings and images to bring home the terrible impact of gun violence."

The 80-page document titled "Preventing Gun Violence Through Effective Messaging," also urges gun-control advocates to use images of frightening-looking guns and shooting scenes to make their point.

"The most powerful time to communicate is when concern and emotions are running at their peak," the guide insists. "The debate over gun violence in America is periodically punctuated by high-profile gun violence incidents including Columbine, Virginia Tech, Tucson, the Trayvon Martin killing, Aurora and Oak Creek. When an incident such as these attracts sustained media attention, it creates a unique climate for our communications efforts."

The manual offers a step-by-step guide on how to stir up sympathy for victims, arrest the "moral authority" from opposing groups like the National Rifle Association and keep the debate emotional instead of allowing facts to interfere.

"Essentially it's a how-to book on inciting a moral panic," comments James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal.

The guidebook, discovered by the Second Amendment Foundation and reported by Paul Bedard of the Washington Examiner, was prepared by four strategists including Al Quinlan of Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research, which touts it is "committed to progressive goals," and includes among its clients the American Civil Liberties Union, Planned Parenthood and Mayors Against Illegal Guns, among dozens of other left-leaning organizations.

Jeff Knox, director of the Firearms Coalition, warns gun-control campaigns like this specifically direct advocates to shy away from facts because they're based on trying to fool the public.

"That gun-control playbook is full of lies," Knox told WND, "with the biggest one being in the opening statement that they have the facts and logic on their side, but that we use emotion and money to advance our cause.

"The opposite is true and demonstrated by the suggestions in the book," he continued. "They depend on emotion and fear, because reality does not support their position. Gun control doesn't work. It never has. If it did, there would be ample evidence, but the only evidence they have is so weak and suspect, even anti-gun panels for the Centers for Disease Control and the Science Foundation couldn't find any strong evidence of gun-control efficacy."

Now read the single most definitive book on duping the masses – straight from the files of the KGB – in "Disinformation" and its companion documentary, "Disinformation: The Secret Strategies to Destroy the West," from the WND Superstore!

 



__._,_.___





   
__,_._,___


--
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Fwd: Starry-eyed Liberal Meets the Reality of Medicaid Patients






August 20, 2013

Starry-eyed Liberal Meets the Reality of Medicaid Patients

By M. Catharine Evans

President Obama addressed health rights in his August 17 radio address, but he didn't mention what happens inside an inner city emergency room. Wait until his lemmings find out what having a "right" to healthcare means according to the single-payer collectivists. If the dulled masses, schooled in the evils of capitalism these last forty years, don't wake up in time to the connection between free market principles and the genius of American medicine, the progressives' long yearned for single-payer system, already in the works, will become a reality.

Those of us in the healthcare field have seen up close what government programs like Medicaid mean in terms of a "right" to medical care. Our emergency room happens to be in a major southern urban area. If any one of the 20-somethings who voted for Obama would be willing to volunteer for at least a month at our facility, I can almost guarantee these same hoodwinked young people would be singing the praises of capitalism, warts and all.


Just ask Samantha (name changed to protect identity). With so many college graduates looking for work, we recently hired the 24-year old at our registration desk. Samantha is a die-hard liberal, but it just so happens her boyfriend is a 28-year-old conservative-minded accountant. When first hired about three months ago, she talked a great deal about their political differences.

Samantha was very sympathetic to the plight of the poor and their need for assistance. Moreover, she felt her boyfriend didn't understand the situation with this segment of the population which would be unable to survive without help from the government.

After one month of doing her job registering 45 ER Medicaid patients daily for various reasons like STD's, painkillers, child abuse, infected fingernails from having their nails done, old gunshot wounds, and pregnancy tests for as young as 12 years old, Samantha was visibly on the verge of a breakdown or a breakthrough, I couldn't tell which.

By the end of 90 days, Samantha told me what really affected her was the cold reality that most of the Medicaid patients treated her like dirt. They showed no gratitude for the fact that Samantha's taxes were going to help them. On top of their sense of entitlement, Samantha noticed many welfare mothers and fathers mistreated their children while the kids were the ones waiting to be seen!

She witnessed many, many Medicaid patients slap, spank, push, pull and yell obscenities at their children as young as 2. If that's not egregious enough, the mostly black perpetrators had no problem yelling at Samantha. They called her "stupid," and told her repeatedly "you don't know what the hell you're doin'."

One afternoon I came in and she was in tears. She told me that some irate friend of a patient had demanded to see the doctor. Samantha relayed the message from the nurse that the physician was busy. The guy called her a "heifer'. She had to finally call security when he wouldn't get off her case. I tried to cheer her up by telling her that one day a woman patient said I looked like "one of those tea party b-ches. "

Samantha no longer thinks everyone has a right to healthcare. She thinks we have an obligation to help those with chronic, genetic conditions and those struggling mothers and fathers truly interested in the welfare of their children. Like most people brought up with loving parents, Samantha cringes when she hears mothers telling their kids to "shut up, or I'll give you something to cry about," or "I'll take you into the bathroom and whip your ass." This goes on throughout her shift and it's getting to be too much for her, I can tell.

Recently she brought reading material, coloring books and crayons for the kids because she never sees the caretakers bring little toys for their children to play with during the long ER visit.

Instances of insanity occur often.

When security or Child Protective Services is called because a child has been hit, and it's on camera, the parent becomes irate instead of admitting fault.

In one incident, a white nurse approached a teenage black mother because another patient in the waiting room reported she heard the child screaming in the bathroom. The teenage mother told the nurse, "that's what's wrong with you white people, you never hit your kids, you think you're all that."

Samantha appears to be coming undone from this day-to-day contact with real, generational hardcore government addicts. She would love to quit this job tomorrow, but she needs the money. I try to ease her mounting frustration by telling her she might be here for a reason. I even attempted some oral history to let her know she's not alone.

I related something my Depression-era father once told me. He had to quit school to help the family when he was still a teenager. Later on, after he was able to earn a degree and get a decent paying job he said he was actually grateful for the experience. He had learned many life lessons being in the real world at such a young age, especially during one of the worst periods in the country's economic history.

My father said there are two kinds of education -- the kind you get between the ears and the kind you get between a rock and a hard place. Both are valuable. Samantha's getting the second kind now. Unfortunately, she says, the first kind didn't prepare her for this job, or the fact that she's helping to subsidize the kind of craziness she sees every day. She says the DC politicians that have made her complicit in this madness sometimes make her angrier than the patients do.

Since she's open to real conversation, I'm trying to fill in the historical blanks for Samantha. I tell her, for example, that when a progressive/Democrat/so-called liberal says the word "right" they are not talking about the kind of rights our founding fathers had in mind. It's the pursuit of happiness we have a right to, not happiness.

All the free cell phones, subsidized housing, phony mortgage loans, education programs, ADC payments and trillion dollar healthcare plans have made most people more broke and miserable, not happier. She now agrees.

There may be some bad fat cats out there, sure, but the ruling class of government planners have eaten up more of our financial resources, through redistribution to corrupt companies, NGO's, Baby Mamas and non-profits than any greedy capitalists.

I discovered Samantha and most of her contemporaries have no clue how long this sore has been festering. I explain to her that part of Lyndon Johnson's War on Poverty program was the signing of Medicare and Medicaid into law in 1965 as a way to not only extend health insurance benefits to the poor and elderly, but to calm the stormy waters of racial division.

Some civil rights leaders may have been giving speeches about the content of one's character, but legislation being passed was all about color. The shakedown by various leftist civil rights organizations in the 60's gave birth to the massive welfare state and the mess we have in the inner cities today.

At this point in our discussion, Samantha made an astute observation. She said, "Nobody seems to care about all of this, how some things begin, until it gets so bad, and then it's too late."

Well, it's been almost four months since Samantha began her employment with the hospital. The young woman who started out a typical, idealistic, middle-class, white liberal railing against those mean, cold, dispassionate conservatives unmoved by the poorest of the poor in America's inner cities, has started to see the light.

Like the reality show, Scared Straight, where delinquents are forced to sit around listening to hardened criminals talk about prison life, Samantha has experienced firsthand what people become when the Collectivist State takes over and gives us 'rights.'


Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/../2013/08/starry-eyed_liberal_meets_the_reality_of_medicaid_patients.html at August 20, 2013 - 03:08:07 PM CDT



__._,_.





   
__,_._,___


--
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Fwd: A very weak Obama: Bracketed by Harper to the north & Pena-Nieto to the south






August 19, 2013

A very weak Obama: Bracketed by Harper to the north & Pena-Nieto to the south

Silvio Canto, Jr.

 

Who would have ever believed this? We have a very unusual situation where the president of the US is the weak party in the North American political landscape.

 

We mentioned President Pena-Nieto of Mexico a few days ago. He is not perfect but is pushing "market-oriented" reforms in the energy and public education sectors. President Pena-Nieto is coming to terms with the reality that Mexico can not prosper unless it blows up the PEMEX monopoly and makes the public schools better.

 

Prime Minister Harper has made Canada a very attractive place to invest and do business. He has also been an outspoken defender of freedom and a supporter of the US in Afghanistan.

 

Where is President Obama in this trio? He is the one giving speeches rather governing.

 

He won't take political risks like President Pena-Nieto.

 

He won't promote business, an oil pipeline and reduce taxes like PM Harper.

 

I'm sure that PM Harper & President Pena-Nieto have their local critics and we are not suggesting that they are perfect.

 

I am simply saying that they are making decisions and governing - a rather refreshing conrast to meaningless "hope and change" or speeches before "yes we can" screamers who are programmed to clap after every 5th line.

 

The president of the US used to be the leader of the free world. He is now a bystander, watching rather than leading. He gives speeches rather than governs. He promotes "class envy" and plays "the race card" to generate minority turnout in the next election.

 

Can we make a trade? Can we send President Obama to Mexico or Canada? Can we put President Obama on waivers and hope that someone will pick him up?


Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2013/08/a_very_weak_obama_bracketed_by_harper_to_the_north_pena-nieto_to_the_south.html at August 20, 2013 - 03:12:37 PM CDT



__._,_.___





   
__,_._,___


--
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Fwd: Obama's Strange Love Affair






Obama's Strange Love Affair with the Muslim Brotherhood

Posted By Roger L Simon On August 19, 2013

It's hard to fathom how or why our administration ever thought the Muslim Brotherhood saw democracy as other than a means to an end — and a particularly repellent one at that — in the first place.

It's not as if the MB is subtle. They have proclaimed who they are since their founding by Hasan al Banna in 1928 and have not wavered in any significant way since in their global jihadist goals. They have also been unstinting in their massive misogyny, homophobia and rigid support of Shariah law über alles (quite literally über alles, since the Brotherhood were — virtually the last still unrepentant — allies of Hitler in WWII [1]).

You know, liberal stuff.

Democracy, as their kissing cousin Turkey's Erdogan so blithely explained [2], is "like a streetcar. When you come to your stop, you get off." Or, as one of the Brotherhood's own internal documents put it in that oh-so-distant year of 2007, they (the MB) are dedicated to "eliminating and destroying Western civilization from within and sabotaging its miserable house." [3]

That's from the Muslim Brotherhood's "General Strategic Goal" for North America. The "miserable house" of Western civilization of course includes all the tenets of classical liberalism and most of those laterally paid lip service by today's soi-disant "liberals" (rights of women, rights of homosexuals, freedom of expression, ad tedium, ad hypocrisia).

And yet those same liberals — not to mention the increasingly addle-brained John McCain who seemingly can't tell an al-Qaeda operative from Paul Revere — are suddenly pounding Saharan sand in outrage at the extreme treatment of the Brotherhood at the hands of the mean Egyptian military.

Give me the proverbial break!

The only hope for democracy in Egypt — and it's a mighty slim one, maybe the size of a third of an M&M crushed under a camel — is the military. At least they're not insane.

Nevertheless, the president of the United States is not amused. We read our government is secretly "reviewing" our support of Egypt. They are urging the Egyptian military to negotiate with the Brotherhood, the same religious fanatics who evidently just told 24 Egyptian policemen to lie face down in the Sinai desert and summarily executed them, the same madmen who are running all over Egypt burning down Christian churches.

What is the explanation for this absolutely self-destructive, even idiotic, policy on our part?

There can be only one — the president of the United States is actually psychologically disturbed. He does not react in a normal manner. I know that's a vicious and importunate thing to say, but the reaction to Egypt (and to Benghazi, for that matter) is not one of a psychologically healthy human being.

It's more than the narcissism of which he is often accused, as bad as that is. It's a form of extreme neurotic attraction to (notably Islamic) religious fascism. Obama is not a Muslim, but he has these deep feelings about it (some of them related to imperialism, others to his absent father, no doubt) that allow him to overlook, or rationalize, all that hideous misogyny, homophobia, and jihadist fanaticism, that loathing of democracy and freedom, even when it could not be more obvious. To Obama, those abhorrent — monumentally illiberal — behaviors and ideologies almost seem irrelevant. But they are the most relevant of all.

The Egyptian military are at least modern. The Brotherhood are decidedly anti-modern, determined to take Egypt, and the world, back to the Middle Ages. (Obama was also, many of us remember, oddly unsympathetic to the cause of the Green Movement in Iran — his silence setting him apart from virtually every Western leader.)

As I have written before (way back in 2010), Obama is a real weirdo [4].

But speaking of strange love affairs, our liberals continue to act as if Obama is normal, at least most of them do. You see actual Western (liberal) women speaking up in defense of the Muslim Brotherhood on cable television. Are they crazy? Have they lost their minds? Have they ever been to Cairo?

Well, I have — and it's unspeakably poor and depressed. The Egyptians, as many have written, can barely feed themselves. If you cared even the slightest about the Egyptian people, you would unremittingly support the Egyptian military. They are the Egyptians' only hope for a decent life at this point.

But not if you're Barack Obama, lost in a childhood fantasy.

His supporters don't even have that excuse.

Anyway, as we all know…


Article printed from Roger L. Simon: http://pjmedia.com/rogerlsimon

URL to article: http://pjmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2013/08/19/obamas-strange-love-affair/

URLs in this post:

[1] allies of Hitler in WWII: http://thecanadiansentinel.blogspot.com/2011/02/muslim-brotherhood.html

[2] so blithely explained: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304259304576375743249011516.html

[3] eliminating and destroying Western civilization from within and sabotaging its miserable house.": http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=1235

[4] Obama is a real weirdo: http://pjmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2010/04/03/president-weirdo/

 



__._,_.___
 




   
__,_._,___


--
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Fwd: Hillary's Racist Politics




 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324139404579013144182779468.html

 

·        August 18, 2013, 6:31 p.m. ET

Hillary's Racial Politics

She makes a polarizing pitch that ignores trends in voter turnout.

Hillary Clinton began her 2016 march to the White House last week, and it wasn't a promising debut. The former first lady and Senator used her first big policy speech since leaving the State Department to portray American election laws as fundamentally racist. The speech was longer on anecdotes than statistics, so allow us to fill in some of the holes.

"In 2013, so far, more than 80 bills restricting voting rights have been introduced in 31 states," Mrs. Clinton told her political base of lawyers at the American Bar Association. She portrayed these laws as part of an effort reaching back years to "disproportionately impact African-Americans, Latino and young voters." And she threw the Supreme Court in as part of this racist conspiracy, assailing its recent decision finding the "preclearance" section of the Voting Rights Act to be unconstitutional.

Enlarge Image

Close

She claimed the High Court had "struck at the heart" of the law, though all it did was eliminate a section that had forced such states as Mississippi to meet higher legal burdens for election laws than other states with a worse current record of minority voter participation. "Now not every obstacle is related to race," Mrs. Clinton added, "but anyone who says that racial discrimination is no longer a problem in American elections must not be paying attention."

No one thinks racial discrimination has vanished from American life or the human condition. But as for minority voting, Mrs. Clinton is the one who hasn't been paying attention. In particular, she must have missed the May 2013 Census Bureau study on "The Diversifying Electorate—Voting Rates by Race and Hispanic Origin in 2012 (and Other Recent Elections)."

Related Video

Editorial board member Jason Riley on Hillary Clinton's speech to the American Bar Association, and what it portends about her possible bid for the White House. Photos: Associated Press

The study, based on data from the November 2012 Current Population Survey, shows that minority voter turnout nationwide has been rising—dramatically so. Take blacks, who as recently as 1996 had a low voter turnout rate of 53%.

As the nearby chart shows, black turnout has jumped in each of the last four presidential elections. In 2012, black turnout as a share of all eligible voters exceeded the turnout of non-Hispanic white voters—66.2% to 64.1%. Nearly five million more African-Americans voted in 2012 (17.8 million) than voted in 2000 (12.9 million). In both 2008 and 2012, black voters even exceeded their share of the eligible black voting age population. In 2012, blacks made up 12.5% of the eligible electorate but 13.4% of those voting.

Having Barack Obama at the top of the ticket no doubt helped this black voter mobilization, but the trend shows that the surge preceded his candidacy. Remember when liberals portrayed Bill Clinton as "America's first black President"? The black turnout surge accelerated after Mr. Clinton's last election. Such a large increase in black voter turnout over 16 years would seem to refute the claim by Mrs. Clinton that racial obstacles to voting are increasing.

Mrs. Clinton ignores all of this and focuses instead on anecdotes, while raising alarm about the voter ID laws that have passed in the last decade. She specifically raises fears about North and South Carolina. Yet the same Census Bureau study shows that black turnout exceeded non-Hispanic white turnout by statistically significant rates in both Carolinas, and was higher in most states east of the Mississippi River outside of New England.

Enlarge Image

Close

Associated Press

Hillary Rodham Clinton

North Carolina, she says, has this year "pushed through a bill that reads like the greatest hits of voter suppression." But that supposed horror show merely reduces early voting by a week, and bars same-day registration and extending voting hours by political whim. All of these are designed to preserve ballot integrity, which is as vital as voter access to public confidence in honest elections. Voters without an ID can get one free at the Department of Motor Vehicles and they can also cast a provisional ballot pending confirmation that they are legally registered.

By the way, Georgia, Indiana and Tennessee have some of the strictest voter ID laws of the more than 30 states that have such laws, yet the Census report says black turnout exceeded that of non-Hispanic whites in 2012 in all three. Where is the evidence that voter ID laws keep minorities from voting?

The disconnect between these facts and Mrs. Clinton's assertions suggests that she is the one playing racial politics. The current narrow Democratic majority is largely a coalition based on gender and racial identity. It requires big turnout among single women and non-whites. As the Obama era winds down, the fear among Democrats is that these voters won't have the same enthusiasm.

Mrs. Clinton can play the "first woman President" card, but she also needs large minority turnout. If she can't motivate that turnout based on rising economic optimism or opportunity, which is hard given the Obama economic record, she and Democrats will play to racial fears to drive it. She wants a racially polarized electorate.

This is a tragedy for the country, and Republicans like Mitt Romney share the blame for doing so little to attract minority votes. But this strategy and Mrs. Clinton's speech don't bode well for a less polarized politics as Democrats try to extend their electoral dominance.

Mrs. Clinton billed her speech last week as the first of a series addressing what she called "eroding public trust" in government. Government could use the help, though note the irony that Mrs. Clinton's party has been running the government even as its reputation sinks. In any case, stoking racial fears based on imaginary government racism won't make Americans feel better about politics or government.

 



__._,_.___





   
__,_._,___


--
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Fwd: RESOURCE: Free Online Continuing Education and Training in Forensic Sciences









__._,_.___





   
__,_._,___


--
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: ABCNews.com: Julian Assange Backs Ron and Rand Paul

How sad.   I at least thought that you would own up to your own posts, and not pull a "LilMarxistMoonbatTommyTomTomForNews" on us......
 
Here's just a few of the posts where you claimed, or posted fictitious "Justin Raimondo/Sheldon Richmond" articles claiming that Reagan raised federal income taxes;  in one of them, you actually had the audacity to say that Reagan increased the federal tax burden by 65 percent, until I posted the actual statistics and then you went into some other various and sundry backtracking chin music:
 
 
 
 
=================
 
Here, you make it quite clear that you don't have a clue what the Hell you are talking about, and damn sure never read the Supreme's Opinion which was monumental.  All you could do, is depend upon the thinking heads of Justin Raimondo and Sheldon Richmond:
 
 
 


On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 5:35 PM, MJ <michaelj@america.net> wrote:

STILL spewing fallacy -- not to mention the LIES you add to the mix.
I never claimed Reagan raised 'federal income taxes', but you KNOW that. What Robert's fantasies have to do with anything could only be known by you and YES it remains simpler to pretend something is refuted by yelling "Poopeyhead" ... it at least aids in the maintenance of that pleasing vision of yours.

Regard$,
--MJ

"Few people may remember that when Ronald Reagan took office, the federal budget was only $678 billion. During his 8-year tenure, the budget grew by 69%  on its way to today's $2.3 trillion budget.
"The annual average increase in government during Reagan's administration was 6.8%, compared with "big government" Bill Clinton's average annual increase of 3.6%.
"Reagan promised to balance the budget within his first term. Instead, the annual deficit rose from $79 billion to $212 billion in that first term -- and the Reagan years added $1.9 trillion to the federal debt.
"Reagan is known as a tax-cutter, and the term "Reaganomics" implies dramatic cuts in tax rates. But after pushing through a tax cut to be implemented over three years, he cooperated during the second year in the largest tax increase in American history up to that time. The nation's annual tax load increased by 65% during his time in office.
"The Republicans after Nixon could no longer be taken seriously as defenders of fiscal responsibility. That reputation was not deserved anyway. Bipartisan spending became a way of political life on December 8, 1941. But political rhetoric is important, and Republican rhetoric until Nixon was in favor of balanced budgets. Then came his admission of Keynesian views."  -- Gary North



At 05:23 PM 8/20/2013, you wrote:
Hah!  
 
This from a man who has consistently claimed that President Reagan raised the federal income taxes;  and who obviously never read Chief Justice Roberts' Opinion in the Supreme Court's June 2012 Patient Protection & Afordable Care Act....This, coming from an individual who thinks Justin Raimondo is the Political Guru of Foreign Policy, and Sheldon Richmond the High Priest of Fiscal Responsibility.
 
 


On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 4:56 PM, MJ <michaelj@america.net> wrote:

Yes, your endlessly fallacy spews do get old. Apparently they also fool you into believing something was refuted.

Regard$,
--MJ

"One of the painful signs of years of dumbed-down education is how many people are unable to make a coherent argument. They can vent their emotions, question other people's motives, make bold assertions, repeat slogans--anything except reason" -- Thomas Sowell.


--
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Content-Type: image/jpeg; name="JustPlainOl.Goofy.jpg"
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="JustPlainOl.Goofy.jpg"
X-Attachment-Id: f_hklma00g0

--
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

--
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: ABCNews.com: Julian Assange Backs Ron and Rand Paul


STILL spewing fallacy -- not to mention the LIES you add to the mix.
I never claimed Reagan raised 'federal income taxes', but you KNOW that. What Robert's fantasies have to do with anything could only be known by you and YES it remains simpler to pretend something is refuted by yelling "Poopeyhead" ... it at least aids in the maintenance of that pleasing vision of yours.

Regard$,
--MJ

"Few people may remember that when Ronald Reagan took office, the federal budget was only $678 billion. During his 8-year tenure, the budget grew by 69%  on its way to today's $2.3 trillion budget.
"The annual average increase in government during Reagan's administration was 6.8%, compared with "big government" Bill Clinton's average annual increase of 3.6%.
"Reagan promised to balance the budget within his first term. Instead, the annual deficit rose from $79 billion to $212 billion in that first term -- and the Reagan years added $1.9 trillion to the federal debt.
"Reagan is known as a tax-cutter, and the term "Reaganomics" implies dramatic cuts in tax rates. But after pushing through a tax cut to be implemented over three years, he cooperated during the second year in the largest tax increase in American history up to that time. The nation's annual tax load increased by 65% during his time in office.
"The Republicans after Nixon could no longer be taken seriously as defenders of fiscal responsibility. That reputation was not deserved anyway. Bipartisan spending became a way of political life on December 8, 1941. But political rhetoric is important, and Republican rhetoric until Nixon was in favor of balanced budgets. Then came his admission of Keynesian views."  -- Gary North



At 05:23 PM 8/20/2013, you wrote:
Hah!  
 
This from a man who has consistently claimed that President Reagan raised the federal income taxes;  and who obviously never read Chief Justice Roberts' Opinion in the Supreme Court's June 2012 Patient Protection & Afordable Care Act....This, coming from an individual who thinks Justin Raimondo is the Political Guru of Foreign Policy, and Sheldon Richmond the High Priest of Fiscal Responsibility.
 
 


On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 4:56 PM, MJ <michaelj@america.net> wrote:

Yes, your endlessly fallacy spews do get old. Apparently they also fool you into believing something was refuted.

Regard$,
--MJ

"One of the painful signs of years of dumbed-down education is how many people are unable to make a coherent argument. They can vent their emotions, question other people's motives, make bold assertions, repeat slogans--anything except reason" -- Thomas Sowell.


--
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Content-Type: image/jpeg; name="JustPlainOl.Goofy.jpg"
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="JustPlainOl.Goofy.jpg"
X-Attachment-Id: f_hklma00g0

Re: ABCNews.com: Julian Assange Backs Ron and Rand Paul

Hah!  
 
This from a man who has consistently claimed that President Reagan raised the federal income taxes;  and who obviously never read Chief Justice Roberts' Opinion in the Supreme Court's June 2012 Patient Protection & Afordable Care Act....This, coming from an individual who thinks Justin Raimondo is the Political Guru of Foreign Policy, and Sheldon Richmond the High Priest of Fiscal Responsibility. 
 
 


On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 4:56 PM, MJ <michaelj@america.net> wrote:

Yes, your endlessly fallacy spews do get old. Apparently they also fool you into believing something was refuted.

Regard$,
--MJ

"One of the painful signs of years of dumbed-down education is how many people are unable to make a coherent argument. They can vent their emotions, question other people's motives, make bold assertions, repeat slogans--anything except reason" -- Thomas Sowell.


--
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: ABCNews.com: Julian Assange Backs Ron and Rand Paul

NEOCONSERVATIVES TAKE DC
---
they must be removed from our government asap by any means necessary.

On Tuesday, August 20, 2013 3:33:29 PM UTC-5, MJ wrote:

WHAT DO NEOCONS BELIEVE?

The article by Joe Sobran that I link to above describes the neocons as essentially "pragmatists" who are, at best, "muddled centrists" with "conservative leanings," and as basically lacking any coherent ideology beyond support for the New Deal's statification of American capitalism and a general feeling that they'd "had enough of liberalism." Sobran is right about their statist inclinations, but he's wrong on the essential point. The neocons may be all over the map on domestic policy, exhibiting none of the gut-level distrust of government power that defines the traditional American Right, but on the vital question of foreign policy they have been the most consistently belligerent faction in American politics. THE TRIUMPH OF SIDNEY HOOK

Indeed, warmongering is the very essence of neoconservatism: the first neocons (James Burnham, and Max Shachtman, two dissident Trotskyists who turned right staring in 1940) split with the Left over the question of World War II: Burnham went on to set the tone at National Review, and Shachtman had an influence on the slower-moving ex-lefists who became Reaganites in the 1970s and 80s. During the Vietnam era, the leading lights of the neocon movement left the Democratic party when the antiwar McGovernites took over. During the cold war, as Sobran correctly notes, the neocons were the most militant faction, and they came into policy positions during the Reagan administration, boring their way into the National Endowment for Democracy, and under the aegis of such ex-Democrats as Jeanne Kirkpatrick. This marriage of Right and ex-Left was consummated, symbolically, when President Ronald Reagan awarded the Medal of Freedom to Sidney Hook, a lifelong socialist and fervent anti-Communist.

To such forerunners of neoconservatism as Professor Hook, the heroes of the Old Right -- Senator Robert A. Taft, Joe McCarthy, and even Barry Goldwater -- were disreputable (to liberals, that is) and therefore beyond the pale. They didn't want to dismantle the Welfare-Warfare State that had grown up in the wake of the New Deal: indeed, they didn't care much about domestic policy, as most of the neocons' attention was directed abroad, at the battlefields of the cold war in Europe and Asia. With the end of the cold war, however, the necons were temporarily in a funk. What to do?

OUR HIJACKED FOREIGN POLICY
NEOCONSERVATIVES TAKE DC -- BAGHDAD IS NEXT
By: Justin Raimondo
http://www.etherzone.com/2002/raim040102.shtml



At 04:12 PM 8/20/2013, plainolamerican wrote:
fund your own charities and fight your own wars for oil and israel.
your'e either a peaceful person or on the other side.

Neoconservative foreign policy is a descendant of so-called Wilsonian idealism. Neoconservatives endorse democracy promotion by the U.S. and other democracies, based on the claim that they think that human rights belong to everyone. On domestic policy, they endorse a welfare state, like European and Canadian conservatives and unlike American conservatives.

Democracy promotion is allegedly derived from a belief that freedom is a universal human right and by opinion polls showing majority support for democracy in countries with authoritarian regimes. Democracy promotion is said to have another benefit, in that democracy and responsive government are expected to reduce the appeal ofIslamism. Neoconservatives have cited political scientists [ citation needed] who have argued that democratic regimes are less likely to start wars. Further, they argue that the lack of freedoms, lack of economic opportunities, and the lack of secular general education in authoritarian regimes promotes radicalism and extremism. Consequently, neoconservatives advocate democracy promotion to regions of the world where it currently does not prevail, notably the Arab nations, Iran, communist China and North Korea.

During July 2008 Joe Klein wrote in TIME magazine that today's neoconservatives are more interested in confronting enemies than in cultivating friends. He questioned the sincerity of neoconservative interest in exporting democracy and freedom, saying, "Neoconservatism in foreign policy is best described as unilateral bellicosity cloaked in the utopian rhetoric of freedom and democracy." [72]

During February 2009 Andrew Sullivan wrote he no longer took neoconservatism seriously because its basic tenet was defense of Israel: [73]
The closer you examine it, the clearer it is that neoconservatism, in large part, is simply about enabling the most irredentist elements in Israel and sustaining a permanent war against anyone or any country who disagrees with the Israeli right. That's the conclusion I've been forced to these last few years. And to insist that America adopt exactly the same constant-war-as-survival that Israelis have been slowly forced into... But America is not Israel. And once that distinction is made, much of the neoconservative ideology collapses.


On Tuesday, August 20, 2013 10:53:29 AM UTC-5, KeithInTampa wrote:
You can't be a compassionate human if you turn a blind eye to the atrocities going on around the world. 


On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 9:16 AM, plainolamerican <plainol...@gmail.com> wrote:
I too am a big fan of Ron and Rand Paul.
---
you can't be a Ron or Rand Paul fan and support US intervention in the middle east.

On Sunday, August 18, 2013 1:15:59 PM UTC-5, KeithInTampa wrote:
I too am a big fan of Ron and Rand Paul.   Unlike Assange,  I am an American citizen,  and do not believe in treasonous actions against my homeland.   Unlike Rand and Ron Paul,  Assange is a treacherous bastard, and both Rand and Ron Paul, even though branding both Snowden and Assange the "Messenger" or a "civil disobediant"  I would surmise also believes that in the case of Snowden, he's a traitor.


On Sun, Aug 18, 2013 at 9:27 AM, Bruce Majors <majors...@gmail.com> wrote:


----------


http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/08/julian-assange-backs-ron-and-rand-paul/


Sent from my iPad

--
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforu...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


--
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforu...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


--
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforu...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

--
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.