GET OUT THE VOTE TODAY (YOUR CIVIC & GODLY DUTY)

NOV 6, 2018 - GET OUT THE VOTE:

VOTING IS A CIVIC DUTY AND A GODLY DUTY.

IF YOU DON’T VOTE TODAY, DON’T COMPLAIN LATER.


Post Sources: MSNBC, Youtube

LE'ANDRIA JOHNSON & SNOOP DOG 2018 GOSPEL/ HIP HOP TOUR (27 CITIES) - (MY IDEA)

LE'ANDRIA JOHNSON & SNOOP DOG 2018 GOSPEL/ HIP HOP TOUR (28 CITIES)-(MY IDEA):

***** PROJECT IDEA - FULL MUSICAL TOUR OF GOSPEL/ HIP HOP ARTISTS, HEADLINED BY GOSPEL SINGER LE'ANDRIA JOHNSON & HIP HOP LEGEND SNOOP DOG.

***** DATES: AUGUST THROUGH NOVEMBER 2018

***** OBJECTIVE:

THIS 28 CITY, SOLD-OUT TOUR WILL BE USED TO INTEGRATE GOSPEL AND HIP HOP MUSIC TO REACH ALL AGES, ESPECIALLY PASSIONATE GENERATION Y POPULATION MUSIC LOVERS.

*******GET OUT THE VOTE:

THIS MULTI-CULTURAL MUSICAL TOUR WILL ALSO BE USED TO REGISTER VOTERS FOR THE 2020 NATIONAL POLITICAL ELECTIONS.

****** ELIMINATING POVERTY:

AT EACH LOCATION A CANNED FOOD DRIVE WILL BE HELD TO HELP FEED THE POOR.

CONCERT GOERS CAN BRING ONE CAN OF FOOD EACH TO DEPOSIT INTO LARGE BINS.
THOSE BINS WILL LATER BE TRANSPORTED TO FOOD BANKS IN EACH CITY.

FREE SCHOOL SUPPLIES CAN ALSO BE DONATED.

******* LOCATIONS:

ATLANTA, GA
ATHENS, GA
AUSTIN, TX
BALTIMORE, MD
BROOKLYN, NY
MANHATTAN, NY
CHARLOTTE, NC
CLEVELAND, OH
COLUMBIA, SC
COLLEGE PARK, MD
DETROIT, MI
DURHAM, NC
GREENSBORO, NC
LAS VEGAS, NV
LONG ISLAND, NY
LOS ANGELES, CA
MEMPHIS, TENN
MIAMI, FL
MINNEAPOLIS, MINN
NEW ORLEANS, LA
NEWARK, NJ
ONTARIO, CANADA
PORTLAND, OR
RALEIGH, NC
SELMA, AL
TORONTO, CANADA
TULSA, OK
WASHINGTON, DC


Post Sources: BET, Christian Post, Youtube


~ ~ ~ Le'Andria Johnson's Pastor Asks Church Not to Ostracize Gospel Star for 'Misguided Passion'


Gospel singer Le'Andria Johnson's pastor, Tim Rogers, says her irreverent criticism of the Church was "misguided passion" and he hopes Christians don't "throw her away altogether" because there is a place for her in the Kingdom.

"The Bible says if a brother be overtaken in a fault, if you're really spiritual, restore such a one in the spirit of meekness considering yourself," Rogers, a fellow gospel singer who leads The Hope Church in Blytheville, Arkansas, told The Christian Post earlier this week.

"A lot of preachers have called me to say she said things that they can't say. And they are sick of the politics of the church. Me and her did have a talk about her passion being guided because that's what I understand that it was the other day. It was misguided passion," he added.

Johnson won the hearts of Christians nationwide with her talent and candor when she won the BET gospel singing competition "Sunday Best" eight years ago.

Her turn in the spotlight has been punctuated by behavior that some Christians say is unbecoming for someone who professes to be a practicing Christian.

Johnson recently slammed the Church and Bishop Marvin Winans in a scathing expletive-laced critique. She also vented her frustrations with a Christian culture she described as hypocritical. Her outburst caused her to lose a booking for the recently concluded Essence Festival in New Orleans.

"You know what I'm tired of though? ... I'm tired of being Le'Andria Johnson that y'all know of," she said. "And Ima tell you like this: I could be on a Kirk Franklin level. I could be on a Mary level. Yolanda Adams, Marvin Sapp, Fred Hammond. All the gospel greats ... all the R&B. Beyoncé, Brandy. ... If I played the game, I could really be on that level. I could, but I'm not 'bout playin' no games, though."

It was after that outburst that Essence organizers reportedly removed Johnson from a slated tribute to Dottie Peoples. She said she wasn't going to pretend to be someone she wasn't just to become a gospel superstar and called out Church leaders for being hypocritical while dismissing the Church as a business.

Johnson apologized on Monday for her delivery but remained unrepentant about her criticism of the machinery behind Christian culture.

"You know Christianity, it's just a lot that's going on. So the way I said it, using the F-bomb, I apologize to the fans of mine that do go to church. I do apologize if I've offended you," she said.

Rogers explained that while he had not seen the videos of Johnson's rants online, he spoke with her about them and said he encouraged the apology.

"She is a member of our church. So she called me and she told me what happened. She told me what she said. She asked me did I look at it. She told me she was coming home to come to church. We had a chance to sit down. I know Le'Andria. I know her heart. A lot of people in the world they only know her by her gifting. And this is something I'm learning about the Church," he said.

"The Church will accept your gifts but they really don't want that person. That's why when the person is singing you ignore the gifts. And the gift is alright. It makes us feel good until we know who you really are. Le'Andria is a nice person. She means well. She just doesn't have a filter. And she has a lot of learning to do," he said.

"I think she is a wonderful person and I still think she has a place in the kingdom. She just doesn't fit well in a box. And you know religion has a way of boxing you in that you can only be this. You can never be anything other than that. In order to be accepted in this circle you can only be this and you can only talk like this. Well Le'Andria is not that person. But she's learning. I just hope the church doesn't throw her away altogether," Rogers said.

STACEY ABRAMS - ANOTHER BLACK WOMAN IS POISED TO MAKE HISTORY (GEORGIA)

STACEY ABRAMS - ANOTHER BLACK WOMAN IS POISED TO MAKE HISTORY (GEORGIA):

THE WORLD OF POLITICS FINALLY RECOGNIZES BLACK WOMEN ARE POLITICAL GOLD JUST LIKE OBAMA.

BLACK MEN SHOULD NOT BE JEALOUS..........JUST SUPPORT BLACK WOMEN SO ALL OF AMERICA CAN BECOME STRONGER.

IT'S NOT ABOUT LIGHT SKIN vs DARK SKIN.

IT'S NOT ABOUT DEMS vs GOP.........IT'S ABOUT EQUALITY vs POVERTY.

IT'S NOT ABOUT DEMS vs GOP......... IT'S ABOUT PRIVILEGE vs OPPORTUNITY.

I PREDICT ABRAMS WILL BECOME GEORGIA'S FIRST BLACK WOMAN GOVERNOR.

GET OUT THE VOTE AND CONGRATS TO STACEY.


Post Sources: CNN, 11Alive, Youtube


******** Stacey Abrams wins Democratic primary in Georgia. She could become the nation's first black woman governor.


Stacey Abrams will win the Democratic primary in Georgia's gubernatorial race Tuesday, CNN projects, becoming the first black woman in the nation to hold a major party's nomination for governor.

If she wins in November, she will become the country's first Black female governor.

The former state House minority leader defeated former state Rep. Stacey Evans, who ran a campaign that tried to appeal to moderates and independent voters.

Abrams, who grew up in Gulfport, Mississippi, as one of six children, told CNN's Kyung Lah in an interview before the election she was aware that "as an African-American woman, I will be doing something no one else has done."

In the interview, Abrams also recounted a story about being rejected as a high school student at the gates of the Georgia Governor's Mansion at an event honoring the state's top students.

"In front of the most powerful place in Georgia, telling me I don't belong there, that's resonated for me for the last 20 years. The reality is having a right to be places does not always mean that you'll gain admission," she said.

Abrams' status as an African-American with strong progressive support, as well as Georgia's status as an early primary and marquee general election state, made her campaign a major draw for national Democratic figures.

Hillary Clinton and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders endorsed Abrams, and New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker and California Sen. Kamala Harris went to Georgia to campaign for her.

The Republican race, meanwhile, could be headed to a runoff, with none of the six candidates -- including Lt. Gov. Casey Cagle and secretary of state Brian Kemp -- currently holding a majority of the vote.

If no candidate tops 50%, the top two will advance to a one-on-one runoff on July 24 to decide who will take on Abrams.

BLACK WOMEN REGAIN HONOR & RESPECT AT THE POLLS (NO RACIST DRAMA)

BLACK WOMEN REGAIN HONOR & RESPECT AT THE POLLS (POWER OF BLACK VOTE):

DEMOCRATS WON ALABAMA WITH THE BLACK VOTE, MAINLY BLACK WOMEN VOTERS.

BLACK WOMEN ARE NO LONGER BEING RIDICULED OR STEREOTYPED AS DRAMA QUEENS OR WELFARE QUEENS DUE TO INSTITUTIONAL RACISM.

OBAMA WON 97% OF THE BLACK VOTE IN 2008.

BILL CLINTON WON ABOUT 90% OF THE BLACK VOTE IN 1992.

WILL DEMOCRATS TRADE BLACK VOTERS FOR LATINO VOTERS AGAIN AND LOSE AGAIN AS THEY DID IN 2016??

DEMOCRATS GAVE LATINO VOTERS EVERYTHING THEY ASKED FOR IN 2016 YET LATINO VOTERS DID NOT TURN OUT FOR DEMS AT POLLS.

WILL DEMOCRATS TRADE BLACK VOTERS FOR LATINO VOTERS AGAIN?

STAY TUNED.


Sources: The Week, Scholar Works UMB, Washington Post, Youtube


******* BLACK WOMEN ARE EAGERLY USING THE VOTES THEY FOUGHT FOR


On December 12, 2017, Black women voted overwhelmingly for Democrat Doug Jones in his Alabama Senate race against Republican candidate Roy Moore.

Black women made up 17 percent of voters compared to white women, who made up 31 percent.

While 63 percent of white women voted for Moore—a man accused of sexual abuse and harassment by numerous women during their teenage years—98 percent of black women voted for Jones, helping him to win by a slim but decisive 1.5 percent margin.

Without the support of black voters, Jones would have lost the election, and Roy Moore would have been elected to the United States Senate. This would have had a detrimental effect on the lives of black Alabamians.

In September, Moore declared that his support of Trump’s promise to “Make America Great Again” would involve a return to a time when slavery was legal and women had yet to win the franchise. Black women stopped him from winning the Senate race.

The voting power and progressive political thought of black women is an old tradition. In the United States, their history of participation in the passing of the nineteenth amendment has been lost in debates about whether the amendment helped them or was largely a victory for white women.

What these debates often leave out is the history of black participation in the suffrage movement. From the days of its inception, black women decided they would not be left out.

The historical record indicates that it was not an allegiance to white suffragists that determined whether black women participated, nor was it Republican Party loyalty.

These assertions negate the intellectual work black women did to make political choices.

Black suffragists spoke for themselves to win the vote for themselves. This was done to win freedom from racism, classism and sexism.

Black women have always pushed the country to live up to that ideal. Their standing at the intersection of the most marginalized communities in the country ensures that, as they rise economically, politically, and socially, other marginalized communities will rise as well.

In her 1998 book, African American Women in the Struggle for the Vote, 1850-1920 , historian Rosalyn Terborg-Penn points out that black women began their struggle for voting rights while enslaved as abolitionists and after Emancipation as active participants in the women’s suffrage movement.

Debates about the voting power of black women began before the nineteenth amendment, and black women in Colorado, Illinois, and California voted in local elections.

In the 1920 presidential campaign, Warren G. Harding sought the support of black women. Lethia C. Fleming, Mary B. Talbert, and Mary Church Terrell were some of the black women involved in that campaign.

Black women were also running for political office as early as 1920. In Seattle, Washington, Mrs. W. L. Presto was a candidate for the Washington state senate.

Terborg-Penn makes a crucial point about the political thought of black women in the 1920s. Black women were already “reflecting the growing socialist movement among intellectuals and professionals of the times.” Black women were fighting for voting rights as women, black people, and progressives.

Once we understand their political strategies today, we can get closer to supporting them in their intentions to improve conditions for themselves and other women, the black community, and economically marginalized people nationally.

Black women continued to make a space for themselves in the political arena. The life and work of Fannie Lou Hamer decades after the suffrage movement demonstrates that by the mid twentieth century black women in the South were still struggling for the right to vote unharmed and unhampered.

Her speech at the 1964 Democratic National Convention shows that black women in the South were also struggling for representation in the Democratic Party.

Her brave declarations and the larger Civil Rights Movement, made up significantly of black women across the nation, pushed President Lyndon B. Johnson to sign the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

This protective legislation led to more black women voting, and in places where black people made up the majority, black women were elected to office. Hamer was a member of the first policy council of the National Women’s Political Caucus along with another black woman who was especially committed to exercising her right to run for political office: Shirley Chisholm.

Shirley Chisholm won office in New York State as an Assemblywoman in 1964. Four years later, she became the first black congresswoman in 1968 where she served for seven terms. In 1972, Chisholm became the first black woman to run for the office of President of the United States.

Historian Anastasia Curwood describes the political thought of Chisholm in her 2015 article, “Black Feminism on Capitol Hill: Shirley Chisholm and Movement Politics, 1968-1984.”

Curwood notes that Chisholm understood the unique position black women held as black, female, and for a large part of the community, working class. Chisholm referred to this position as “twin jeopardy,” a term influenced by Frances Beal.

Throughout the 1960s and 1970s black women were political thinkers and actors.

Recent elections have shown that the political activity of black women is strong. What has changed since the rebellion against the Trump Administration is a deeper understanding of how dependent the Democratic Party is on black women’s votes.

One organization, Higher Heights, is pushing the Democratic Party to recognize the strength of black women’s votes. Higher Heights is an organization that advocates for the political participation and election of black women.

In an open letter to the Democratic National Committee chair, Tom Perez, published in May 2017, Higher Heights petitioned Perez to take black women’s political contributions seriously by meeting with them to discuss their concerns.

They argued that since black women overwhelmingly support the party’s candidates, their support and representation should be increased within the party.

A day after the election of Doug Jones, Perez would declare on Twitter, “Black women are the backbone of the Democratic Party, and we can’t take that for granted. Period.”

People of color, poor people, and women account for the majority of people in this country. As black women vote and advocate for the candidates with their interests in mind, and as people trust their choices, the country will be pushed further to the political left.

So, it isn’t so much that black women “turn out” to vote. It is who they choose, their political agenda, the political party that shares their agenda, and the savvy way with which they cast their votes. It isn’t just that black women vote, it is that they choose freedom.

They choose freedom for themselves and for anyone affected by race, class, and gender in this country.

Organizations like Higher Heights are aware and calling for others to go beyond being excited to directly supporting black women.

Black women must be recognized beyond the times they turn out to vote. That recognition must extend to change.

GOP VOTES TO PASS TAX BILL WHILE DEMS PROTECT SEXUAL HARASSERS (2018 & 2020)

GOP WORKS TO PASS TAX BILL WHILE DEMS PROTECT SEXUAL HARASSERS:

IS THIS HOW THE GOP PLANS TO WIN IN 2020?


Sources: NY Times, Bloomberg Politics, Youtube


****** Senate Weighs Changes to Tax Bill on the Same Day They Could Vote


• The Senate will convene at 10 a.m. Friday to continue the debate on taxes, ahead of a possible final vote later in the day.

• Republicans seemed to be inching toward victory on Thursday and picked up the support of Senator John McCain of Arizona.

• But they faced a setback late in the day when they were left scrambling to find hundreds of billions of dollars in extra revenue to satisfy concerns about the bill’s deficit effects.

• Lawmakers are now mulling options that would result in a tax increase down the road, including a possible increase in the corporate tax rate and the revival of the alternative minimum tax on wealthy individuals and some companies.

Republican leaders ended Thursday with the same problem they started with: They still need to secure 50 votes to be able to pass their tax bill.

Their effort appeared to be gaining momentum on Thursday, with talk of a final vote later that night or early Friday.

But by the end of the day, they were contending with twin setbacks, both involving how the bill would affect federal budget deficits.

The congressional Joint Committee on Taxation said in an analysis released on Thursday afternoon that the legislation would add $1 trillion to federal budget deficits over a decade, even after accounting for economic growth.

In addition, a provision meant to prevent ballooning deficits ran into parliamentary problems. The provision would have increased taxes if economic growth fell short of expectations, but it was deemed by the Senate parliamentarian to run afoul of budget rules that must be followed if the bill is to be shielded from a Democratic filibuster.

Without the so-called trigger, the votes of a handful of Republicans, including Senator Bob Corker of Tennessee, appeared at risk.

“Senator Corker has been pretty clear he doesn’t want any deficit spending,” Senator John Cornyn, Republican of Texas, said on Thursday, adding that he did not agree with the Joint Committee on Taxation’s assessment.

To pass the tax bill in the Senate, Republican leaders can lose only two of their members, assuming Democrats are unified against the measure.

The Senate will convene on Friday morning and the debate on taxes will continue. At some point, the Senate will undertake a marathon of amendment votes known as a vote-a-rama. Eventually, there would be a final vote on the legislation.

But in the meantime, Republicans need to decide how they want to change their bill. To satisfy Mr. Corker, for example, Republicans were discussing putting in place tax increases that would take effect some years from now, a step that would soften the deficit effects of the legislation.

Will they decide to raise taxes?

The options under discussion to satisfy the deficit hawks could essentially result in a tax increase down the road. Lawmakers have talked about raising the corporate tax rate above 20 percent after a period of years. There’s also discussion about reviving the alternative minimum tax, or A.M.T., on high-net individuals and some companies.

Both of those ideas are unlikely to sit well with some Republicans, including those in the House, who could be criticized for essentially voting to increase taxes.

Lawmakers may decide that’s a risk worth taking or they could ultimately decide to jettison the deficit hawks’ concerns and lose their votes.

Several senators are worth watching.

As Republicans mull changes to their tax plan, the spotlight will focus on several senators with varying concerns.

Republican leaders do not need to win over all of these lawmakers. In fact, they could decide that some demands are simply not worth meeting — assuming they can satisfy other Republicans and therefore get the 50 votes they need. Vice President Mike Pence can also provide a tiebreaking vote.

At least a handful of senators have expressed concerns about the deficit, including Mr. Corker and Senators Jeff Flake of Arizona and James Lankford of Oklahoma. Now that the trigger is dead, Republicans may need to come up with another idea to protect against piling up debt as a result of the tax overhaul.

Two Republicans, Ron Johnson of Wisconsin and Steve Daines of Montana, have objected to how the bill treats pass-through businesses, whose profits are distributed to owners and taxed at individual rates. In light of their concerns, Republicans plan to sweeten the tax treatment of these businesses.

Finally, there is Susan Collins of Maine, a moderate Republican who has her own concerns about the tax overhaul. She wants the bill to allow individuals to deduct up to $10,000 in property taxes, and adding that provision could help win her over.

HEALTH CARE BILL CUTS MANAGES MEDICAID SPENDING BUT DOESN'T KILL IT

HEALTH CARE BILL REDUCES MEDICAID SPENDING BUT DOESN'T KILL IT:

QUALITY CARE NOT WASTE AND ABUSE.

PROVIDES MORE HEALTHCARE JOBS & TRAINING.

GOP LEADERS MUST WORK TOGETHER FOR THE PEOPLE WHO ELECTED THEM.


Sources: Fox Business, Washington Times, Youtube


**** GOP Senator on Health Care Bill: Medicaid Spending Will Increase


Sen. John Thune, (R-SD), one of the senators who worked behind closed doors on the GOP health care bill, said that Medicaid spending will increase under the new bill.

"It will increase every year at the rate of inflation," Thune stated. He added that the bill aims to build upon the success of innovation already happening with respect to Medicaid.

Sen. John Thune, (R-SD), one of the senators who worked behind closed doors on the GOP health care bill, said that Medicaid spending will increase under the new bill.

"It will increase every year at the rate of inflation," Thune stated. He added that the bill aims to build upon the success of innovation already happening with respect to Medicaid.

House Speaker Paul Ryan also downplayed concerns, saying the bill must be written before it is presented.

"This shifts power, distributes power back to the states," Thune said.

The GOP bill will allow for more choices and competition, the South Dakota congressman promised.

"Too often these programs are driven out of Washington, D.C. in a one size fits all approach," Thune concluded.

Later on in the show, Sen. Ben Cardin (D-MD) pushed back on Thune's claims, saying the Medicaid cuts are deeper than in the House version.

He said the bill "shifts the burden" for covering Medicaid to states, rather than providing more money for the program.

BREXIT VOTE STOPS THE NEW WORLD ORDER (TEMPORARILY)

BREXIT VOTE STOPS THE NEW WORLD ORDER (TEMPORARILY)

THE ELITE LOSE THEIR GRIP ON COMMON CITIZENS.

IS IT TOO LATE TO RESTORE THE MIDDLE CLASS?

Sources: Alex Jones, The Nation, Breitbart, USA Today, Youtube

Video Highlights:

The European Union was formed February 7, 1992 when 12 European countries signed a Treaty to become one and submit to the Windsor family.

All 12 countries agreed to convert their original Currency to the EURO Monetary system, which places more money into the hands of Elite, already Wealthy citizens.

After the European Union was formed, the Middle Class was basically wiped out and Poor citizens became more financially destitute.

After the European Union was formed, extreme TAXATION disguised as REGULATIONS increased.

Leaders of the European Union were not chosen by common people, instead they were appointed by other Elite leaders from within the European Union.

Only the Elite benefitted from such an Oppressive system.

Soon the true purpose for establishing a European Union became quite apparent, thus the New World Order agenda was revealed.

Despite these facts,  pressure from the common people of Britain (UK) to allow a public vote to exit the European Union became too strong for its Elite leaders to ignore.

Fast forward to June 24, 2016.

The common people of Britain (UK) were finally allowed to visit the Polls to cast a ballot agreeing to remain or leave the European Union.

Via a BREXIT vote of 51-48% the voice of Britain's common people was heard around the world as they regained their INDEPENDENCE.

So did this BREXIT vote cancel out the New World Order agenda?

Only temporarily.

**** Relax! Brexit isn’t the end of new world order: 

There's no denying it: this past week's vote in the United Kingdom to leave the European Union is very big news.

 It reveals huge frustration among British voters with economic globalization, immigration, national self-identity and the whole "European project." And there will be costs. 

Trade between Britain and continental Europe could be notched back a bit as tariffs return; 

London's role as a financial capital of the world may be compromised somewhat.

But after acknowledging such real, if finite, concerns, we should take a deep breath and relax. 

Silly headlines like that appearing in the June 25 NY Times about a looming end to the post-World War II order are not only premature, they are basically wrong.

Start with that order. 

The United States and United Kingdom worked together to win World War II, of course, without the UK being part of any European Union or even a European Community. 

(The European Community or EC was organized for European economic cooperation that began in the 1970s; it did not create open borders within Europe the way the European Union later did.) 

Indeed, we collectively won the Cold War without the European Union, which was not created until 1993. 

Western Europe had already re-established itself as a modern economic powerhouse before the creation of the EU, recovering spectacularly from the unbelievable wartime devastation that occurred in the 1940s. 

The United States helped a great deal with that process through the Marshall Planand other mechanisms—none of which depended on EU bureaucracies or open borders.

Look at it another way. The UK is an important country. But with 1% of world population and 3% of world GDP, it does not drive the modern global economy. The stakes here are real, but again, they are finite.

Moreover, the tanking of shocked stock markets right after the Brexit vote should not confuse us about the state of economic fundamentals. 

To be sure, lots of people will have to work hard to negotiate new terms for Britain's future association with Europe. 

But the UK and the European Union's remaining 27 members will have powerful incentives to keep trade relatively free and financial markets quite integrated. 

Think of the models of Norway and Switzerland—also not EU members, but important and interlocking parts of the continent's economy. 

The UK is likely to wind up with a similar role in Europe's future.

Some people will worry about whether Brexit will weaken the EU's ability to stand up to Vladimir Putin as he causes unrest in eastern Europe. 

That is doubtful. The EU just last week renewed sanctions, with Germany and other continental countries leading the way. 

Britain's voice on such matters is important, but no more so than Germany's or France's, and it can remain important on the outside.

What about the US-UK "special relationship?"

Again, I do not anticipate major problems. 

It is called a special relationship for a reason. 

We have been close allies for a century or more, and much of our best work together has happened bilaterally rather than through any EU, EC, UN, or other such multilateral mechanisms. 

That can continue.

The UK will remain in NATO, moreover — and NATO is, by far, the more important organization for global security, because it includes the United States while the European Union naturally does not.

 It is NATO, for example, that intervened in the Balkans warsin the 1990s and NATO that leads the Afghanistan mission even today.

 It is NATO that is sending battalions into eastern Europe today to stand up militarily to Putin.

On other issues, Britain has maintained its own prerogatives even while in the EU. 

In the Iran nuclear talks that led to last year's accord, for example, Britain had its own, independent role and voice. 

That won't change for similar situations in the future.

Even if, in coming years, Scotland secedes from the UK in order to rejoin the EU, that will cost the United Kingdom only 8% of its population (even if a higher percent of its castles, Loch Ness monsters, and men in skirts). 

Admittedly, the UK's ability to sustain nuclear forces could be challenged without access to Scottish ports—but those nuclear weapons, with all due respect to British friends, aren't really crucial pillars of today's global order in any event. 

Maybe Scottish secession would even persuade Britain to stop maintaining an unnecessary and costly nuclear deterrent.

To be sure, one can always find some hypothetical scenario in which having the UK outside of the European Union complicates life.

 To be sure, pulling out will make life temporarily harder for British and European diplomats and bureaucrats as they fashion a revised European order. 

And most of all, it is true that we need to take seriously the skepticism about globalization that UK voters have just voiced in a powerful and emphatic way. 

But the postwar global order is hardly falling apart.

DAVID CAMERON RESIGNS AS PM AFTER BREXIT VOTE (REVOLUTION)

DAVID CAMERON RESIGNS AS UK PRIME MINISTER AFTER BREXIT VOTE:

THE REVOLUTION IS TELEVISED GLOBALLY.

Sources:  ITV, Telegraph, Young Turks, YouTube

***** David Cameron resigns as prime minister after Britain votes Brexit

David Cameron has resigned as prime minister after Britain voted to leave the European Union.

The prime minister said Britain required "fresh leadership" to negotiate the country's exit from the EU.

"I do not think it would be right for me to be the captain that steers our country to its next destination," he said in a statement outside Downing Street.

He promised to "steady the ship" over the coming months before stepping down in October.

Mr Cameron said the result was the "will of the British people" which was an "instruction which must be delivered".

Mr Cameron was close to tears as he announced his decision.

The referendum, called by Mr Cameron, delivered a shock victory for the Leave campaign.

The Brexit vote immediately sent the pound tumbling and sparked calls for his resignation.

Boris Johnson is the favourite to replace Mr Cameron.

SCALIA WAS MURDERED TO PREVENT ANOTHER BUSH v GORE ELECTION

SCALIA WAS MURDERED TO PREVENT ANOTHER BUSH v GORE ELECTION:

"GET OVER IT"??

HOW CAN WE GET OVER THE PREMEDITATED MURDER OF A HIGH COURT JUSTICE??

WE NEED TO PRAY & VOTE.

So do I believe several theories floating around about SCOTUS Justice Antonin Scalia being MURDERED to prevent another Bush v Gore election?

Yes!

Scalia's death was designed to Intimidate and Terrorize 2016 election voters.

American citizens need to Pray and  Vote!

Sources: ABC News, CBS News, 60 Minutes, CNN, World Net Daily, Youtube

*** Justice Scalia On The Record

This 60 Minutes segment was originally broadcast on April 27, 2008. It was updated on Sept. 12, 2008. Lesley Stahl is the correspondent. Ruth Streeter, producer.

Not many Supreme Court justices become famous, but Antonin Scalia is one of the few. Known as "Nino" to his friends and colleagues, he is one of the most brilliant and combative justices ever to sit on the court and one of the most prominent legal thinkers of his generation.

He first agreed to talk to 60 Minutes correspondent Lesley Stahl last spring about a new book he's written on how lawyers should address the court. But over the course of several conversations, our story grew into a full-fledged profile - his first major television interview - including discussions about abortion and Bush v. Gore.

At 72, Justice Scalia is still a maverick, championing a philosophy known as "orginalism," which means interpreting the Constitution based on what it originally meant to the people who ratified it over 200 years ago.

Scalia has no patience with so-called activist judges, who create rights not in the Constitution - like a right to abortion - by interpreting the Constitution as a "living document" that adapts to changing values. 

---

Asked what's wrong with the living Constitution, Scalia tells Stahl, "What's wrong with it is, it's wonderful imagery and it puts me on the defensive as defending presumably a dead Constitution."

"It is an enduring Constitution that I want to defend," he says.

"But what you're saying is, let's try to figure out the mindset of people back 200 years ago? Right?" Stahl asks.

"Well, it isn't the mindset. It's what did the words mean to the people who ratified the Bill of Rights or who ratified the Constitution," Scalia says.

"As opposed to what people today think it means," Stahl asks.

"As opposed to what people today would like," Scalia says.

"But you do admit that values change? We do adapt. We move," Stahl asks.

"That's fine. And so do laws change. Because values change, legislatures abolish the death penalty, permit same-sex marriage if they want, abolish laws against homosexual conduct. That's how the change in a society occurs. Society doesn't change through a Constitution," Scalia argues.

He's been on a mission as an evangelist for originalism, at home and around the world.

For example, he visited the Oxford Union in England.

"Sometimes people come up to me and inquire, 'Justice Scalia, when did you first become an originalist?' As though it's some weird affliction, you know, 'When did you start eating human flesh?'" Scalia told students, who replied with laughter.

They may be laughing, but in the U.S. Scalia is a polarizing figure who invites protestors and picketers. There haven't been many Supreme Court justices who become this much of a lightening rod.

"I'm surprised at how many people really, really hate you. These are some things we've been told: 'He's evil.' 'He's a Neanderthal.' 'He's going to drag us back to 1789.' They're threatened by what you represent and what you believe in," Stahl remarks.

"These are people that don't understand what my interpretive philosophy is. I'm not saying no progress. I'm saying we should progress democratically," Scalia says.

Back at the Oxford Union, Scalia told the students, "You think there ought to be a right to abortion? No problem. The Constitution says nothing about it. Create it the way most rights are created in a democratic society. Pass a law. And that law, unlike a Constitutional right to abortion created by a court can compromise. It can...I was going to say it can split the baby! I should not use... A Constitution is not meant to facilitate change. It is meant to impede change, to make it difficult to change."

But his critics argue that originalism is a cover for what they see as Scalia's realintention: to turn back some pivotal court decisions of the 1960s and 70s.

He's been labeled a "counterrevolutionary."

"A counterrevolutionary!" Scalia reacts. "Sounds exciting."

The critics say his aim is to undo Roe v. Wade and affirmative action, and to allow more religion in public life.

"The public sense of you is that [you] make your decisions based on your social beliefs," Stahl says, with Scalia shaking his head. "That is the perception."

"I'm a law-and-order guy. I mean, I confess I'm a social conservative, but it does not affect my views on cases," Scalia says."

His philosophy has occasionally led him to decisions he deplores, like his upholding the constitutionality of flag burning, as he told a group of students in Missouri.

"If it was up to me, I would have thrown this bearded, sandal-wearing flag burner into jail, but it was not up to me," Scalia told the students.

To Scalia, flag burning was protected by the founding fathers in the First Amendment, which is his only criterion, he says, under originalism.

"But do you respect that there is another way to look at this?" Stahl asks.

"You know the story of the Baptist preacher who was asked if he believed in total-immersion baptism? And he said, 'Believe in it? Why I've seen it done!' I have to say the same thing about your question. There must be other views because I've seen them," Scalia says.

"Yeah, but do you respect them? You don't, do you?" Stahl asks.

"I respect the people who have them, but I think those views are just flat out wrong," Scalia says.

He's talking about some of his fellow justices, like Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a liberal who is - and this never ceases to surprise people - one of Scalia's best friends, both on and off the court.

To Ginsburg, the Constitution evolves and should reflect changes in society; that going back to what was meant originally when they wrote, for instance, "We the People," makes little sense.

"Who were 'We the People' in 1787? You would not be among 'We the People.' African Americans would not be among the people," Ginsburg tells Stahl.

"Justice Ginsburg and you disagree...on lots of things. And yet you're such good friends," Stahl remarks.

"I attack ideas. I don't attack people. And some very good people have some very bad ideas," Scalia says. "And if you can't separate the two, you gotta get another day job. You don't want to be a judge. At least not a judge on a multi-member panel."

He's one of the best writers on the panel, known for a bold and colorful style. He told Stahl he has to work at it - that it doesn't come easy.

He some times quotes Cole Porter, and references Greek tragedies. Scalia says he does it because, "It makes the opinion interesting, which might induce somebody to read it."

But he can also use his pen as a sword to attack the writings of his colleagues. For instance, he once called a Breyer decision "sheer applesauce."

Ginsburg has also been the target of some of Scalia's zingers: he called one of her opinions "absurd," another "implausible speculation," and another "self-righteous."

"How about, 'This opinion is not to be taken seriously.' He wrote that about Justice O'Connor," Ginsburg points out. "He's rather mild I think in the adjectives that he uses for me. But you can take every one of those words, run his opinions and you'll see that he, all of us are implausible when we disagree with him."

Asked if she ever takes it personally, Ginsburg says, "No, I take it as a challenge. How am I going to answer this in a way that's a real put down?"

"I'm trying to figure out if there was ever real anger," Stahl says.

"I would say exasperation is the word," Ginsburg replies.

"As annoyed as you might be about his zinging dissent, he's so utterly charming, so amusing, so sometimes outrageous, you can't help but say 'I'm glad that he's my friend' or he's my colleague,'" she adds.

"What's interesting is the difference between how you appear in person and the image that you have. Because the writings are so often combative, and your friends say that you're charming and fun," Stahl tells Scalia.

"I can be charming and combative at the same time," Scalia replies. "What's contradictory between the two? I love to argue. I've always loved to argue. And I love to point out the weaknesses of the opposing arguments. It may well be that I'm something of a shin kicker. It may well be that I'm something of a contrarian."

Of all the cases that have come before him on the court, Bush v. Gore may have been the most controversial. It has been reported that he played a pivotal role in urging the other justices to end the Florida recount, thereby handing the 2000 election to George Bush. The subject came up at the Oxford Union.

"Supposing yourself as a Supreme Court justice were granted the power to appoint the next president of the United States. Who would you pick and why? And would he or she be better than your last choice?" a student asked Scalia.

"You wanna talk about Bush versus Gore. I perceive that," he replied. "I and my court owe no apology whatever for Bush versus Gore. We did the right thing. So there!"

"People say that that decision was not based on judicial philosophy but on politics," Stahl asks.

"I say nonsense," Scalia says.

Was it political?

"Gee, I really don't wanna get into - I mean this is - get over it. It's so old by now. The principal issue in the case, whether the scheme that the Florida Supreme Court had put together violated the federal Constitution, that wasn't even close. The vote was seven to two," Scalia says.

Moreover, he says it was not the court that made this a judicial question.

"It was Al Gore who made it a judicial question. It was he who brought it into the Florida courts. We didn't go looking for trouble. It was he who said, 'I want this to be decided by the courts.' What are we supposed to say? 'Oh, not important enough,'" Scalia jokes.

"It ended up being a political decision" Stahl points out.

"Well you say that. I don't say that," Scalia replies.

"You don't think it handed the election to George Bush?" Stahl asks.

"Well how does that make it a political decision?" Scalia asks.

"It decided the election," Stahl says.

"If that's all you mean by it, yes," Scalia says.

"That's all I mean by it," Stahl says.

"Oh, ok. I suppose it did. Although you should add to that that it would have come out the same way, no matter what," Scalia says.

Health Care Reform Vote May Be Delayed!!..Blue Dog Dems Skittish After GOP Wins

Do Conservative Dems (Blue Dogs) plan to vote NO! on the Health Care Reform bill?

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

Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, (D-Md) makes a final push for Health Care Reform.

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

Does Pelosi have enough votes? Rep. John Garamendi, D-Calif., joins msnbc’s Dylan Ratigan and a panel to examine the political arm-twisting going on just one day before the House votes on health care legislation.

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

Boehner: "PelosiCare" must be defeated. House Minority Leader John Boehner tells protesters outside the Capitol that "PelosiCare" poses the "greatest threat the freedom" he's seen since joining Congress.

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

Jon Voight on Pres. Obama's "Socialist America".

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

Hoyer: House vote may be pushed back


House Democrats acknowledged they don't yet have the votes to pass a sweeping overhaul of the nation's health care system, and signaled they may push back the vote until Sunday or early next week.

Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., told reporters in a conference call Friday that the make-or-break vote on President Barack Obama's top priority that had been set for Saturday could face delay.

The apparent problem: Democrats have yet to resolve intraparty disputes over abortion funding and illegal immigrants' access to health care.

Hoyer sought to pin the blame for any possible slippage on delaying tactics expected from Republicans, who unanimously oppose the health care remake. But he acknowledged that Democrats are still short of the 218 votes they need to pass the bill.

"There are many people who are still trying to get a comfort level that this is the right thing to do," said Hoyer. "We're very close."

While Hoyer said he still expects a vote Saturday evening, he said he has put lawmakers on notice they may be called to the House floor Sunday afternoon, or even Monday or Tuesday.

House passage of the 10-year, $1.2 trillion legislation that extends health coverage to tens of millions of uninsured Americans and puts tough new restrictions on insurance companies would be a breakthrough for Obama's agenda.

The president was set to make a personal appeal to the Democratic rank and file in a visit Friday to Capitol Hill. That was called off after the shootings at Fort Hood, Texas, and rescheduled for Saturday.

Action on health legislation was slowed as senators waited for the Congressional Budget Office to weigh in on a bill written by Majority Leader Harry Reid in consultation with the White House and key committee chairmen. Senate votes could slip until next year, but in the House Democratic leaders pressed forward.

They expressed optimism that when it came time to vote, they'd have the majority needed to prevail in the 435-seat House.

Asked Thursday if she had the votes, Speaker Nancy Pelosi replied: "We will."

Pelosi and other Democratic leaders were finalizing language to bar federal funding of abortion and resolving a flare-up over the treatment of illegal immigrants in the legislation that had Hispanic lawmakers up in arms.

Members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus object to a provision in the Senate legislation — backed by the White House — that bars illegal immigrants from buying health insurance within a proposed new marketplace, or exchange, even if they use their own money to buy from private companies.

Illegal immigrants can buy private health insurance now, so some lawmakers say the White House position goes too far.

Democrats were trying to toughen prohibitions in the bill against federal funding for abortions in a way that would satisfy enough anti-abortion Democrats. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops was involved in the talks and a resolution appeared within reach late Thursday.

The House effort picked up two major endorsements Thursday, from the powerful seniors' lobby AARP and the American Medical Association.



View Larger Map

Sources: MSNBC, Google Maps

Financial Regulatory Reform Vote: Barney Frank Decides To Get Off His Butt!

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

Sources: MSNBC, CNBC

I Just Cast My Vote For John Lassiter...Its Super Tuesday! Vote!

That's right you heard me! This Black, Female Democrat just cast her precious vote for Charlotte Mayoral Candidate Mr. John Lassiter (Republican).

Mr. Lassiter best deserves my support and my ballot.

This is a man who has a crystal clear, proven record in the areas of Integrity, Public Service, Fairness, Family, Business, etc.,

While on the other hand his opponent Anthony Foxx still has some growing to do and his Public Service record remains a mystery.

Considering the huge Jobs loss and current uncertainty of Charlotte's Economy, I don't believe its wise to vote for a candidate who will need on-the-job training as it relates to Gov't matters.

Perhaps in about two to four years Mr. Foxx will be ready but not today.

Even if Mr. Foxx does win (God help us!) while of course I'll still offer my congrats, there will be no regrets or second guessing.

Voting for John Lassiter is the right choice!

Listen people when it comes to the future of our city and our nation always Vote your values, your convictions, your heart.

NOT your race or culture!!

Since John Lassiter's convictions are more in line with my own, he earned my vote.

Its Super Tuesday Charlotte! Get out and Vote!

Peace






Lassiter takes small lead


John Lassiter leads Anthony Foxx 50-46 in PPP's final survey of the Charlotte Mayoral race.

If Lassiter does indeed end up as the winner it will be his overwhelming support among white voters that made it possible. He leads 68-29 with them, up from 63-29 a week ago. Those numbers are a good deal more lopsided even than the McCain/Obama numbers in North Carolina. Foxx is up 86-12 with African Americans.

Not a lot more to say on this- the race is still within the margin of error and it's all going to be about who turns out tomorrow.

Susan Burgess, Edwin Peacock, Patrick Cannon, and Tariq Scott Bokhari continue to lead the City Council races with David Howard moving closer.



View Larger Map

Sources: Public Policy Polling, McClatchy Newspapers, Charlotte Observer, Flickr, Google Maps

Lassiter & Foxx's Campaign Cash Donors, Who Cares??...Lassiter Still Has My Vote

(Media folks assume most people know At-Large Charlotte City Council members/ 2009 Mayoral Candidates John Lassiter (Republican) and Anthony Foxx (Democrat). Experts say that's not the case at all.)






Lassiter & Foxx: Where their campaign cash comes from


Elizabeth Martin and David Miller don't think of themselves as special interest donors. But according to Charlotte's two mayoral candidates, they are.

The subject flared during Wednesday night's televised debate between Democrat Anthony Foxx and Republican John Lassiter, putting contributions such as Martin's and Miller's in the spotlight in the campaign's waning days.

Foxx accused Lassiter of being beholden to developers. Lassiter attacked him for taking out-of-state money. It was the latest effort by both men to showcase differences in a race that once seemed to offer few.

It also shed light on who's bankrolling Charlotte's first million-dollar mayor's race.

An Observer analysis shows Lassiter has gotten at least $104,000 - 20 percent of the money he raised - from individuals, such as Miller, who listed jobs in the real estate, building and development industries. Foxx got $28,000, or 5 percent of his money, from such donors.

Foxx got more than $54,000 - or one in every $10 - from people like Martin, who live outside North Carolina. Lassiter got $11,000 from out of state, about 2percent of his money.

In a new fundraising appeal Wednesday, Lassiter said Foxx "has resorted to accepting special interest money from groups and individuals that have no affiliation with the Charlotte community.

"Their agenda is set on priorities that are not aligned with the priorities of the citizens of Charlotte," he said Thursday. "We have focused our fundraising on folks who live and work in this community."

But Foxx said, "All this conversation about the out-of-state money is to obfuscate the massive contributions by developers to (Lassiter's) campaign."

Lawyers are big givers

The Observer found both candidates tapped into some of the same groups of donors:

Foxx, a lawyer, raised at least $83,000 from fellow members of the legal profession. Lassiter, also a lawyer and a former president of the Mecklenburg County Bar, got at least $77,000 from donors so identified.

Foxx took in at least $46,000 from individuals with banking and finance interests. Lassiter raised at least $31,000 from that group.

Each candidate got $3,000 from the Bank of America political action committee and $2,500 from Wells Fargo's PAC. Each also received money from PACs representing Piedmont Natural Gas, the N.C. Home Builders and N.C. Realtors.

Some donors say they gave because they know the candidate, not for any agenda.

"I've known John for 25 years," says Lassiter donor David Miller, CEO of a commercial real estate business. "The assertion that a person who supports a political candidate has ulterior motives might be offensive to people who make contributions to any candidate."

Elizabeth Martin went to school with Foxx at West Charlotte High. She's now a lawyer in Manhattan and helped organize a Midtown fundraiser for him last month.

"We reached out to our Charlotte networks," said Martin, who said the fundraiser drew former Charlotteans and graduates of Davidson College and New York University's law school, which Foxx attended.

While the candidates tapped into many of the same professional groups, Foxx got more financial support from his party.

The only party-related contribution Lassiter reported was $250 from Republican Mayor Pat McCrory's gubernatorial campaign. (McCrory also gave him $2,000).

Foxx, on the other hand, had nearly $42,000 in party-related contributions. That includes almost $31,000 in the form of mailings paid for by the state Democratic Party. He also got $4,000 from a PAC affiliated with U.S. Rep. Mel Watt of Charlotte and $4,000 from Watt's congressional campaign committee.

Gov. Bev Perdue sent $500; former Gov. Jim Hunt sent $750. This week House Speaker Joe Hackney of Chapel Hill hosted a Durham fundraiser. Political support also has come from outside North Carolina.

Newark, N.J., Mayor Cory Booker gave Foxx $4,250. Another $250 came from U.S. Rep. Alcee Hastings, a Florida Democrat.

No apologies

In Wednesday's fundraising e-mail, Lassiter asked supporters for $70,000 "in the next 72 hours" to help "send a message to my opponent's campaign that Charlotte cannot be bought."

"I hear a lot about the supporters that I have from out of the state, most of whom are either family or friends or friends of family and friends," said Foxx. "And there's no interest other than supporting me as someone they think would be a good leader for Charlotte."

He said voters should be concerned about Lassiter's support from real estate and development interests. "If you look at the tremendous amount of money John has attracted from developers and then look at his record it's a pretty clear correlation," he said.

He cited Lassiter's votes against a bicycle master plan last year and street guidelines in 2007.

Lassiter said he's raising money to combat, among other things, a state Democratic Party mailing that began Wednesday that echoes Foxx. It says Lassiter has taken thousands of dollars from developers "and then supported their agenda of unrestrained sprawl." A party spokesman said she didn't know what the mailings cost.

Lassiter makes no apologies for his support.

"I have been working aggressively for the past six years to bring projects to this community that create jobs," he said.

"The only way a lot of things happen is by individuals and organizations that put capital at risk," he said. "That folks in the development community support my campaign is some indication that I have a reputation for getting things done."

Both men say they make independent judgments, unswayed by contributions.




2009 Charlotte Mayoral candidates agree on 1 thing: It's the Economy

They've argued over tax increases and streetcars. But the two candidates for mayor of Charlotte agree that turning around the faltering local economy in North Carolina's largest city is the priority.

Republican John Lassiter and Democrat Anthony Foxx are competing in next week's election to replace Mayor Pat McCrory, who is stepping down after 14 years.

The candidates say Charlotte has to move quickly to create and retain jobs.

With the nation's banking meltdown, Charlotte has lost thousands of financial services jobs. Bank of America, one of the nation's largest banks, is headquartered in Charlotte.

Foxx says the city should recruit more financial services companies for its experienced workers. Lassiter says the city also must diversify its Economy.



View Larger Map

Sources: McClatchy Newspapers, Charlotte Observer, News14, Huffington Post, Youtube, Google Maps