ROY MOORE vs JOHN CONYERS JR- DEMOCRATS' HYPOCRISY

ROY MOORE vs JOHN CONYERS JR- DEMOCRATS' HYPOCRISY:

PELOSI WANTED TO CRUCIFY MOORE BUT DRAGS HER FEET ON CONYERS & FRANKEN.

PELOSI ONLY PUTS WOMEN FIRST OVER POLITICS WHEN ITS ABOUT ABORTION NOT SEXUAL HARASSMENT.

WHERE IS DEMOCRATS' HONOR FOR WOMEN?


Sources: The Week, Meet The Press, Youtube


***** Democrats need to find some honor and get rid of Al Franken and John Conyers


America is in the midst of a reckoning about sexual misconduct, as a steady stream of men in the public eye have resigned or been fired from their jobs over sexual harassment and assault allegations.

Politicians have been no exception, with allegations coming against Republican Alabama Senate candidate Roy Moore for allegedly harassing and assaulting teenagers — but also against Democratic members of Congress: Sen. Al Franken (Minn.) and Rep. John Conyers (Mich.).

As has become glaringly obvious, while the allegations against Moore are categorically worse than anything Franken or Conyers is accused of, harassment has no particular political affiliation.
Democrats need to find some honor and address their side of the sexual harassment problem, by forcing out Conyers and Franken. Not only do harassment victims deserve a measure of justice, Democrats' political reputation is on the line. These two — and I would guess probably a few others — need to go.

So far Democrats are only beginning to find their spines on this. When the first Franken allegations came out — from radio host Leeann Tweeden, that he had harassed, forcibly kissed, and then taken a shocking picture groping or nearly groping her while she was sleeping — Democratic Party hacks like Kate Harding wrote that he should not resignbecause Democrats are better on women's issues than Republicans. (Garrison Keillor said the idea of firing Franken was "absurd" before being firedover his own sexual harassment allegation.)

But as has also become very clear over the past few weeks, where there is one allegation, there are generally many. Some six different women in total have since come out with stories about Franken harassing, kissing, or groping them — most recently allegations of groping a veteran's breast in a photo-op, and a former elected official in New Hampshire who said he tried to give her an unwanted "wet, open-mouthed kiss."

When the allegations against Conyers came out (that he had exposed himself to his staff, as well as harassed, groped, and verbally abused them), House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi first hemmed and hawed, suggesting on Meet the Press that because he is an "icon," he would do the "right thing" — not saying what that would be. Later, she finally joined several of her colleagues in saying he should resign. This might be because Conyers is 88 years old, and was recently hospitalized reportedly due to stress over the story. It seems likely he'll be gone soon in any case — though his lawyer recently said that "Nancy Pelosi did not elect the congressman, and she sure as hell won't be the one that tells the congressman to leave."

But as yet, there has been no sustained pressure from the rest of the Democratic caucus to actually force him out, and almost no pressure of any kind for Franken to leave.

The first and most important reason for these two men to go is that sexually harassing and assaulting women is a grotesque crime and anyone who does it is unfit to hold high office (or any office). As Justin Charity argues, even a new partial standard that senators are not allowed to get away with it would be a large political victory in itself against sexism and harassment. Arguing that the occasional sexual assault is simply the price to pay to keep Democrats in power (so they can pass stuff like 12 weeks of unpaid maternity leave for some employees, I guess?) overlooks this enormous benefit.

Furthermore, axing these two would probably help Democrats politically, on net. They had the moral high ground against Roy Moore at first, but Franken and Conyers failing to resign make Democrats look like hypocrites, because they are. It muddles the case against Moore, and allows Republicans to excuse themselves for voting for him. Moore's Democratic opponent Doug Jones might well lose because of this cowardice.

Indeed, defending them is almost certainly not even the smart move in the narrowly cynical political sense. Minnesota has a Democratic governor, and so a replacement senator to serve out Franken's term would be of the same party. Conyers won his most recent election by over 60 points, so any replacement would certainly be a Democrat.

On the other hand, if these abusive men try to hang on to their seats, then they might well lose them in their upcoming elections. Conyers has so far promised not to run for re-election, but Hillary Clinton only won Minnesota by less than 2 points. Since the allegations, Franken's popularity has collapsed, falling from 53 percent to 36 percent. The opening for a Republican to win in 2020 would be a large one. The smartest move from a purely tactical standpoint would be for Franken to step aside and allow, say, Keith Ellison to step up. That way the incumbent can be a popular Democrat, and the party avoids a bitter primary battle.

One of the biggest problems with American politics is the distrust the population holds for elite politicians — perceiving them as a pack of amoral, dishonest, wagon-circling, featherbedding, logrolling, favor-trading, corrupt scumbags. This distrust is, to a great extent, deserved. One absolute necessity in rebuilding a measure of trust is for Democrats to behave honorably, and hold themselves to the standards they espouse. They can start by getting rid of the sexual predators in their midst.

HAWAII VOTES: TRUMP OR CLINTON??

HAWAII VOTES: TRUMP OR CLINTON?

Sources: Hawaii News Now, Daily Kos, Youtube

Current U.S. Pres Barack Obama Jr carried the beautiful state of Hawaii in 2008 and 2012.

Fast forward to the year 2016. Which candidate will carry this tropical Paradise for Tourists during one of the most crucial general elections in history?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Why do evangelicals prefer Donald Trump to Hillary Clinton?

Cracks have appeared in evangelical support for Donald Trump over the video of his sexually predatory comments about women.

But backing from some of his most high-profile conservative Christian endorsers, such as Liberty University president Jerry Falwell Jr., is holding.

Among those reversing course was well-known theologian Wayne Grudem, whose endorsement was widely cited by other Christians backing the Republican presidential nominee.

The prominent evangelical magazine, Christianity Today, on Monday said Trump was "the very embodiment of what the Bible calls a fool." James MacDonald, of Harvest Bible Church in Illinois and a member of Trump's evangelical advisory board, called the candidate's remarks "misogynistic trash." The pastor told the magazine he would no longer work with the campaign unless Trump repents.

Popular evangelist and author Beth Moore tweeted that she was among many women who had been sexually abused or harassed, and "we're tired of it." That behavior, she warned, becomes more acceptable "when some Christian leaders don't think it's that big a deal."

Katelyn Beaty, author of "A Woman's Place," and a former managing editor at Christianity Today magazine, said Moore's comments indicate evangelical women are becoming more wary of Trump, "especially as it relates to the ways he consistently talks about and treats women."

But James Dobson, of Family Talk radio, condemned Trump's comments, but called Clinton's support for abortion rights "criminal."

"Mr. Trump promises to support religious liberty and the dignity of the unborn. Mrs. Clinton promises she will not," Dobson said in a statement Monday.

Falwell Jr., an early endorser of the real estate magnate, said Trump's remarks were "reprehensible." Still, Falwell said, "we're never going to have a perfect candidate," and suggested the video leak was engineered by Trump's enemies in his own party.

"I think it was timed," Falwell told WABC-AM radio in New York. "I think it might have even been a conspiracy, you know, among the establishment Republicans who've known about it for weeks and who tried to time it to do the maximum damage."

Others who stood by Trump were Ralph Reed, a member of the campaign's evangelical advisory board and founder of the Faith & Freedom Coalition, which aims to mobilize conservative Christian voters. Televangelist Pat Robertson dismissed Trump's remarks as an attempt by the candidate "to look like he's macho."

On the video released Friday, Trump is heard describing attempts to have sex with a married woman and bragging that women let him grab their genitals because he is famous. Responding to the leak, Trump said, "I was wrong," to make those comments, but dismissed them as "locker room talk."

Conservative Christian support for Trump has confounded those inside and outside evangelicalism. Trump is a casino mogul who was married three times, said he didn't need to ask God for forgiveness, mocked a disabled reporter and alluded to his penis size during a debate. Early on, prominent evangelicals, including Russell Moore of the Southern Baptist Convention, and Christian author Max Lucado, warned evangelicals against Trump.

Still, as the year progressed and the large pool of GOP primary contenders dwindled, it became clear that white conservative Christians were coalescing behind the candidate. Recent polls show the GOP presidential nominee drawing about 70 percent of the white evangelical vote.

Although some evangelicals defended Trump's character, many couched their endorsements in pragmatic terms, focused on Trump's promise that he will appoint conservative justices to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Laura Olson, a Clemson University political scientist, said this support can be seen in part as payback for evangelical losses in the so-called culture wars. Many conservative Christians see the roots of their failure in the policies of President Bill Clinton. In 1993, days into his first term in the White House and on the 20th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, Clinton signed an executive order abolishing some restrictions on abortion.

Younger evangelicals likely don't remember that far back. But for others, the Clintons "come as a package deal in so many people's minds," Olson said.

In a recent Pew Research Center survey, more than three-quarters of white evangelicals cited dislike for Clinton as a major reason they prefer Trump.

"A perception grew, even while (Clinton) was first lady, that she was the extremely liberal one, that Bill Clinton was a moderate, a pragmatist

TRUMP vs HILLARY: WOMEN VOTERS ARE NOT MONOLITHIC (MEDIA LIES)

TRUMP vs HILLARY: WOMEN VOTERS ARE NOT MONOLITHIC

MOST 21st CENTURY MILLENNIAL WOMEN

VOTERS DON'T TRUST HILLARY.

THAT'S WHY DEMOCRATS NEED BERNIE SANDERS.

Sources: Cosmopolitan Magazine, Washington Free Beacon, Newsweek, TIME, WLS, YouTube

~ Story Highlights:

Despite propaganda coming from the Gov't-controlled Mainstream media, Women voters in America are not Monolithic on Political issues regardless of their age, education, 

faith, nationality, race or where they live.

Women are Not Stupid!

No two Women voters possess the same views or same perspective on anything.

This includes issues such as Abortion, Same-sex marriage, LGBT rights vs Civil Rights, CRIME, Religious Freedom and Business (Trade).

In fact most 2016 Millennial Women voters don't trust Hillary due to her issues with Benghazi, her email situation and how she protected her husband Bill during the Monica Lewinsky sex scandal.

That's exactly why the Democrat party's key leaders need Bernie Sanders.

Many Millennial Women voters trust Bernie Sanders and are attracted to his Political Revolution platform.

Trump's bold monumental success in the Business world also makes him attractive to Women voters as a viable candidate.

Why?

Because Women have BRAINS not just Uteruses and we want to be Successful business owners and Job creators too!

However just as Obama did in 2012, the Mainstream media wants to once again divide Women voters based on Age, Education and Faith for the sole purpose of Politics.

For the 2016 election, with help from Women Journalists like Megyn Kelly and Michelle Fields, the Media wants everyone to believe that Hillary's Gender would make her a better president for Women than Donald Trump.

And while we are on the subject of Women........

Can someone please explain why Ted Cruz who is a Lawyer and a US Senator, has yet to file a Slander or Libel lawsuit against the National Enquirer for publishing a bombshell story about him being a huge Womanizer and Adulterer allegedly??

Does it matter to Women voters, GOP establishment leaders and the state of Wisconsin if Ted Cruz is a Womanizer and Adulterer, allegedly??

Does it matter to Women voters, GOP establishment leaders and the state of Wisconsin if Ted Cruz is an extremely Vindictive man who loves to DESTROY people who get in his way, allegedly??

I repeat.

Despite propaganda coming from the Gov't-controlled Mainstream media, Women voters in America are not Monolithic on Political issues regardless of their age, education, 

faith, nationality, race or where they live.

Women are Not Stupid!

No two Women voters possess the same views or same perspective on anything.

This includes issues such as Abortion, Same-sex marriage, LGBT rights vs Civil Rights, Religious Freedom and Business (Trade).

**** Here's Why Young Women Aren't Voting for Hillary Clinton

The former secretary of state has a shot at becoming the first woman in the White House. 

But young women say that's not their priority — ​and are going for Bernie Sanders instead.

Sen. Bernie Sanders is a 74-year-old presidential candidate who's attracting a ton of support from people in their 20s, women included. He won the New Hampshire Democratic primary by a landslide, just a week after losing in Iowa to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton by the narrowest of margins, thanks in large part to the twentysomethings who voted for him.  

In New Hampshire, CNN exit polls showed he won over 83 percent of voters between the ages of 18 and 29. Clinton only won with the over-65 set. Iowa was pretty similar — 84 percent of voters between the ages of 17 and 29 went for Sanders, according to CNN entrance polls, while Clinton only had the edge among voters 45 and older.

Those numbers may not be unique to Iowa and New Hampshire — and they're not just "Bernie bros." A USA Today/Rock the Vote poll released on Jan. 14 showed that Sanders held a 19-point lead over Clinton among Millennial women who identified as Democrats and independents. A poll conducted by Monmouth University on Jan. 19 showed that age, not gender, was a better predictor of who supports Clinton versus Sanders. 

Cosmopolitan.com talked to four college students who have been vocal supporters of Sanders on their campuses about the issues that really matter to them — and why they don't see the urgency in electing America's first woman president.  

What issues do people on your campus care about the most?

Elizabeth Lee, 21, junior at Middlebury College and head of College Students for Bernie: Student loans are probably nationally what I think get people the most excited. Environmental activism is big at Middlebury, and the idea of taking down Wall Street is appealing as well. That is the most appealing part of Bernie's campaign to me, is to take down the idea of having big institutions that control your life and limit your choices about what kind of career you want to pursue.

Isabel Youngs, 23, senior at the University of Nevada at Reno: One of the most important issues for college students right now is a federal minimum wage. It's a persistent problem for us college students. Even if [college] weren't free, raising minimum wage would change how college students live. I have a lot of friends who had to drop out of school because the extra five to six hours a week would make a difference at work. If it were $15 an hour, it wouldn't make a difference. I have friends who work in the food service and they go to work with the flu because they literally can't afford not to. I see the federal minimum wage as a big one.

What other issues matter to you personally?

Youngs: For me, one of the biggest things is health care. That might be more because I'm an LGBT student, and I've also seen my family grow up without health care. My friends and I, we often need more medical care than most of the community because of surgeries, hormone therapy, and especially mental therapy and counseling. I have friends who can't access any of that stuff. They're having horrible mental health crises, getting no help to get the health care they need.

Megan Taylor, 20, sophomore and head of University of South Carolina for Bernie: Student loans matter a lot to me because in the current economy, it's essential to have a degree. It's not really an option anymore if you want to have social and economic mobility. I don't think that we can require something of people in the job market and also ask them to pay for it no matter their circumstances. I'm also very passionate about social issues; I'm a bleeding-heart liberal. I'm interested in social welfare, food stamps, making health care accessible to people, reforming the prison system and the judicial system so that it's more equitable and produces the results. Let's think of people first and think of how to pay it later. As much as I respect moderate candidates and know that they are necessary for compromise, I'm also very liberal. My dad's Canadian and socialism is in my blood. I very much love the socialist parts of our government that do very well for us — roads, bridges, all those things that are created through the government.

What makes you support Bernie Sanders?

Lee: I support Bernie because I think that he takes very strong policy stances, which I really admire. He's unafraid to say what he thinks, and what he says is reasonable and very human-focused. He doesn't have strings attached to Wall Street and different interest groups. He speaks his mind and caters to what the actual majority wants and needs.

Emmy Ham, 22, senior at the University of New Hampshire: I think that the main thing we all have in common is we really want a change in our political system. We want to go against mainstream politics and Bernie represents that for us. When I heard about his platform, I really identified with that pretty quickly. I jumped on board. He exposed so many things about our political system that I have been frustrated with for a very long time. I think that's where it stems from.

Youngs: I don't want to see us getting involved globally as a global power. I want to see us disengage from that and fix our own stuff first. Globally there are a lot of problems, but at the same time, you know, no one president has made all the foreign policy decisions singlehandedly. They hire a Cabinet, they have people who are talking to them constantly about what the best form of action is, and I trust Bernie and his choice in the Cabinet that he picks to help him with those foreign policy issues.

Lee: Right now, for me at least, domestic policy is the most important. Making sure that income inequality doesn't spin out of control is something that's way more important to me than the quagmire in Syria, and things like that. I think that with Syria, there's no good choice for the U.S. Whatever we do is going to damage Syria and the people there to some degree. But there are clear meaningful steps that we can take in domestic policy that can really better people's lives.

Sanders is often criticized for being a single-issue candidate, focusing on the economy and campaign finance, but not other issues. How do you respond?

Taylor: I will never say that Bernie Sanders is not on message. But I think the reason Bernie Sanders seems like a single-issue candidate is because he is looking at that issue so holistically. He's looking at the economy in this broad sense that involves everything from education to health care to racial justice to criminal justice. He wants to fix the economy by fixing all of these other individual problems that are so connected.

Youngs: I'd never put the economy over any other things like social issues. I definitely do not think that Bernie Sanders is a single-issue candidate. If he does focus on the economy, he focuses on all aspects of the economy, including prison reform and making sure to get private prisons off the table and making sure that you legalize or decriminalize marijuana so you're not overcrowding prisons. It might have something to do with the economy, but it also has to do with social issues.

What do you like about Sanders personally?

Youngs: Bernie doesn't pander or patronize my vote. He doesn't think, How can I get young people to vote for me? He thinks, How do I make this world better for young people? It matters that he has a strong voting record that reflect those values. For me, Bernie is not for sale, which, I mean, that might be a kind of tried-and-true cliché of his campaign, but it means something to me. It means that he wouldn't turn around and abandon me and my cause and my people just for a political setup.

Taylor: I find Bernie very genuine, and I think one of the appeals of him is that he's very straightforward to the point of being sort of brusque at times, but very straightforward and genuine, and people appreciate that. The genuineness of Bernie, who he is as a person as well as a politician, really appeals to me as well as individual policy things that would really even the playing field for Americans.

What don't you like about Hillary Clinton?

Lee: I wouldn't say I dislike Hillary Clinton. I wouldn't necessarily be against the idea. She doesn't make me very excited about politics. I just don't really know where she stands on issues because she changes a lot, in terms of what the issues are. She doesn't really address them in her speeches. If you look at the debates, she drills other candidates on issues, but she doesn't really take a stance on what her position is. Which I think makes me a little bit skeptical and unable to support something that I don't really know what it is.

Youngs: I think Hillary's values have a price tag. In 2017, I don't think a corporate interest would be able to walk up to Bernie Sanders and say, "Here's $1 million, now's not the time for a social movement." She has the capacity to compromise if she gets [certain things she wants,] which is political sharpness, but that desperation scares me.

Taylor: I was very much ready for Hillary, but as you look into her individual policy decisions, her various campaigns in the past, I had grown, sort of as most people do, less enchanted with her and with the political system in general. When she says she's an outsider in the political process, not like the Democratic candidates, and not an establishment politician, it's silly. Hillary has spent so much time in the political system, she's always a politician first, and people can tell when she's not being genuine.

Ham: I think it's tricky. I get asked a lot why I don't support Hillary, and I don't think it's that I don't support her. I just truly identify with Bernie more, and I think he's more authentic, and he is really fighting for everybody and not just a select few.

Does anyone question your feminism because you're not voting for Clinton, who could be the first woman president?

Lee: I think it did make me hesitate a little bit, because I obviously want to see a woman in the White House as the president. But I think that we need to prioritize the issues before we can prioritize who this person is. In the future, there will be more women candidates running, and I can imagine a woman coming into the White House. It doesn't necessarily have to be Hillary Clinton; it can be someone else.

Youngs: I haven't been challenged that much in my feminism. Much of my feminist friends are strong Bernie supporters. I think there's an element of truth that we desperately need a woman in the White House. If it were Elizabeth Warren or Barbara Lee, versus Bernie Sanders, I wouldn't hesitate for Senator Warren or Congresswoman Lee. But I strongly believe that Bernie's values align more with mine and that I'm going to vote more in my interest more so than in symbolism. Eventually we'll find someone we feel comfortable representing us, but it's just not her.

Taylor: As much as I would like to see a woman president, and as happy as I would be with Hillary Clinton as president, I think Bernie Sanders's policies will do more for women, or at least the things that he's focusing on. Because women don't just need reproductive rights and a decrease in the pay gap, and they don't just need to see women represented in politics; they also need the same things that everybody else needs. That's really why I lean Bernie. Not that I fault any feminist who votes for Hillary.

Ham: I think that our generation is very progressive, male and female. When looking at the candidates, we want to see somebody who's not only looking out for women's rights but also for black people, disabled people, and people of all types of minorities. Bernie fights that system in one fell swoop by trying to improve our economic system, which is the primary oppressor of these people.

Do you think the symbolism of Clinton's gender matters?

Youngs: I actually only know of one woman who I consider politically competent who supports Hillary, and I think that comes from the belief that she's more of a symbol than that she agrees with her policies. I've seen [Clinton] support the Iraq War, Wall Street bailouts, the TPP, Keystone XL for a while, I've just seen all this stuff that I can't see her as a symbol anymore. I don't think she stands for me; I don't think she represents women. There are some things I will ignore for the symbolism of having a woman in office, but there's just too much.  

Taylor: I very much respect Hillary as a woman, and I think she's one of the great examples of powerful women in politics. As much as I would like to see a woman as president, I don't think it particularly solves problems because I obviously believe in the glass ceiling, but I don't think that the glass ceiling is broken once and everyone soars through and suddenly you have a female president every other election. In high-up offices like that, you have a female president and it cracks the glass ceiling, but there's still a lot more work to be done then; it's still not easy to get through.

Ham: I definitely identify as a feminist, and when I first started reading into the campaign and candidates, that was my one reluctance because I do want to see a female president. I think it's time for one in the United States, but I just don't think it's Hillary Clinton. For me, what's just as important is having the right female candidate, not just a female candidate. I just see Clinton as kind of another cog in the political machine. And I would like to see somebody who not only represents feminist rights, women's rights, but the rights of everybody. And I think that Bernie Sanders more broadly encompasses social justice for the majority of minorities and oppressed people in the United States.

What do you foresee happening in the general election? Regardless of whether he wins, what's the future for Bernie's "political revolution"?

Ham: I would say that Bernie is making fundamental change right now in how we elect candidates. In the beginning and even now, it's hard to see it happening, but there really is a movement going on. And once people start seeing his progress, and how many people are following him and joining his movement, then I think it's going to change, and it already has among youth. So of course the unknown is a little bit intimidating for some people. I'm interested in seeing that the United States is really ready for that change, and I really hope we are.

Youngs: I really think that both candidates are so much better than anything the Republican candidates have to offer. I really resent the Hillary vs. Bernie rhetoric. It's so much more nuanced than that and there's so much that goes into it, and I really want to see young people go out and vote in the House and Senate. 

A lot of people just check Bernie or Hillary, and walk out of the polls and they don't consider the cause and effect of not researching all candidates available. 

When Bernie Sanders talks about a political revolution, he means more than just him. 

He means everyone across the board.

BLACK LOUISIANA SENATOR ELBERT GUILLORY SWITCHES TO REPUBLICAN PARTY

BLACK LOUISIANA SENATOR ELBERT GUILLORY SWITCHES TO REPUBLICAN PARTY:

HE WAS BORN BLACK, NOT A DEMOCRAT.

GUILLORY EXPLAINS WHY HE SWITCHED FROM DEMOCRAT PARTY TO SUPPORTING THE GOP.

Louisiana Senator Elbert Guillory (R-Opelousas) explains why he recently switched from the Democrat Party to the Republican Party. He discusses the history of the Republican Party, founded as an Abolitionist Movement in 1854. Guillory talks about how the welfare state is only a mechanism for politicians to control the Black community.

~ Elbert Guillory switches parties, now first Black GOP state senator since Reconstruction (CIRCA 2013)

Louisiana state Sen. Elbert Guillory has switched political parties to become the first black Republican senator in the state since Reconstruction. The now-former Democrat from Opelousas made the announcement Friday in Baton Rouge at the @large conference, an event aimed at attracting black conservatives to the GOP.

"Is it a surprise, or is it the worst-kept secret in Louisiana? I am, as of this day, joining Frederick Douglass as a Republican," Guillory said at the event, after accepting the group's "Frederick Douglass" award.

This isn't the first time Guillory has made the party switch -- he became a Democrat in 2007 when he first ran for the state House of Representatives. However, his voting record remained staunchly conservative.

Last year Guillory, who heads the Senate Retirement Committee, carried the bills containing Gov. Bobby Jindal's proposed retirement overhaul, which was strongly opposed by Democrats.

On Friday, Guillory said he had come to disagree with the direction of the Louisiana Democratic Party, which he referred to as "the party of disappointment." He expressed his opposition with the party's stances on abortion, the Second Amendment, education and immigration.

"Today, the party of disappointment has moved away from the majority of Louisiana.

They have moved away from the traditional values of most Americans," he said. "Their policies have encouraged the high teen birth rates, high school drop out rates, high incarceration rates and very high unemployment rates."

After the event, Guillory shed some light on his decision, saying remarks by the state party chair this week influenced his decision.

During debate Wednesday on a bill to expand Medicaid coverage in Louisiana, Sen. Karen Carter Peterson said fellow lawmakers had told her they based their opposition to the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, on the race of the president and not on policy.

"The accusations of racism this week certainly helped push me over the edge. I thought that they were over the edge," Guillory said in an interview Friday. "It just showed me just how far out of tune I was, I am, with the Democrat Party."

The remarks were made Wednesday, the same day Guillory filed his paperwork to change parties.

Speaking after Guillory at the conference on Friday, Louisiana Republican Party Chair Roger Villere again called on Peterson to resign as head of the state Democratic Party.

"The bottom line is that it's never appropriate to demonize and even infer someone is racist for disagreeing with the president," Villere said. "Trust me, we have plenty of reasons to oppose Obamacare and race is not one of them."

The Democratic Party reacted swiftly to the announcement, characterizing Guillory's defection "a craven display of political opportunism" and calling on him to resign.

"This move isn't surprising given Guillory's record of saying one thing to his constituents and then voting another way," Stephen Handwerk, executive director of the Louisiana Democratic Party, said in a statement Friday.

"He should do the right thing and step down from his seat immediately since he has chosen to abandon the Democratic Party values that the voters elected him to represent."

Katrina Jackson, head of the Legislative Black Caucus also responded to the news, saying Guillory remains a "full-fledged member" and that inclusion in the group is not based on political party.

Guillory will be the only Republican member of the caucus.

With just one week of the 2013 session left -- and with a conservative voting record as precedent -- it is unclear what impact, if any, Guillory's party switch will mean for this year's remaining legislation.

Republicans already held a majority of the 39 seats in the state Senate. With Guillory, their numbers will increase to 25.

Sources: NOLA.com, Youtube

COLORADO PLANNED PARENTHOOD SHOOTER IS A TRANSGENDER LEFTIST, IS NOT REGISTERED REPUBLICAN

‪#‎Colorado‬

COLORADO PLANNED PARENTHOOD SHOOTER IS A TRANSGENDER LEFTIST, IS NOT REGISTERED REPUBLICAN

HE IDENTIFIES AS A WOMAN ON HIS VOTER REGISTRATION CARD.

WHY DIDN'T MAINSTREAM MEDIA REPORT THIS INFO??

~ We’re in the second day rounding up the media coverage of the Planned Parenthood shooting because, unlike normal people, several human beings insist on jumping to conclusions anytime a mass shooting occurs.
The “white Christian terrorist” refrain has been a constant drumbeat among the activists who smell blood in a terrible story that seems to confirm every outlandish bias they hold about pro-life Americans.

The media have reported that the motive is currently unknown for the Colorado Springs shooting yesterday:

Although it is not known what was the motive of the shooter Robert Lewis Dear or if the Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado Springs was even a target, there are already news stories surfacing that don’t add up to a profile of the stereotypical anti-abortion activist supposedly disturbed by the recent spate of Planned Parenthood undercover videos.

As reported earlier by IJ.com, a criminal background check reveals that Dear was arrested for offenses of “cruelty to animals” and for being a “peeping tom” (that latter offense was dismissed).
In addition, there is the question of why the supposed anti-abortion activist John Lewis Dear is identifying as a “female.”

Via the Gateway Pundit:

Robert Lewis Dear, Jr. from Hartsel, Colorado is registered to vote in Park County, Colorado as a woman.
The Colorado Springs authorities confirmed the Hartsel, Colorado address.

Furthermore, Dear is not a registered Republican:


No Planned Parenthood staff or employees were reported shot or killed in the harrowing six-hour standoff.
The public is awaiting the motive for the heinous act of shooting twelve Americans.
The attack injured nine people and killed three others, including police officer Garrett Swasey, who was also a Christian pastor.

Post Sources: Independent Journey, Gateway Pundit, YouTube

MEDIA USES COLORADO PLANNED PARENTHOOD SHOOTING TO MOCK CHRISTIANS

‪#‎Colorado‬

MEDIA USES COLORADO PLANNED PARENTHOOD SHOOTING TO DEFAME CHRISTIANS:

ROBERT DEAR DOES NOT REPRESENT ALL CHRISTIANS.

JUST AS ISIL DOES NOT REPRESENT ALL MUSLIMS.

IT'S FINE TO MOCK CHRISTIANS BUT NOT MUSLIMS.

~ The man accused of killing three people -- including a police officer -- at a Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado Springs allegedly made rambling comments during the incident, some of which suggested animosity toward the health care provider, according to law enforcement sources.

Robert Dear remains in jail as he awaits his first court appearance, scheduled for Monday.

He was arrested Friday after an hours-long standoff with police.

Sources told ABC News the Justice Department is building a domestic terrorism case against Dear, though it would only move forward if somehow the state capital case was sidetracked.

Investigators estimate it will take six to seven days to process the crime scene.

On Saturday, police and federal agents used a robot to search the mobile home and storage shed on the property in Hartsel, Colorado, where Dear lived. Neighbors said he mostly kept to himself.

In a statement released late Saturday, Attorney General Loretta Lynch called the shooting a "crime against women receiving healthcare services at Planned Parenthood."

While police haven't released a motive or said whether the clinic was the intended target, Vicki Cowart, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains, said in a statement Dear "eyewitnesses confirm that the man ... was motivated by opposition to safe and legal abortion."

“We've seen an alarming increase in hateful rhetoric and smear campaigns against abortion providers and patients over the last few months," Cowart said.

"That environment breeds acts of violence.

Americans reject the hatred and vitriol that fueled this tragedy. We do not accept this environment as normal.

We should not have to live in a world where accessing health care includes safe rooms and bullet proof glass."

Colorado Springs Mayor John Suthers said he was not aware of any threats to the clinic, but said "we can speculate" on the motive.

"It happened at a Planned Parenthood center," he said.

"My suspicions are that has a lot to do with the motive."

Post Sources: ABC News, CNN, NBC News, YouTube

OBAMACARE vs SCOTUS: Justice Sotomayor Grants Religious Organizations Exemption From Contraceptive Mandate (For Now)

#ObamacareMandate

Tuesday evening SCOTUS Justice Sotomayor Blocked the OBAMACARE Contraception Mandate.

She allowed Religious Organizations to be Exempt from the Contraception Mandate.

However she has given the OBAMA Admin until Friday to respond to her Ruling.

"Justice Blocks Contraception Mandate On Insurance In Suit by Nuns"

Justice Sonia Sotomayor on Tuesday temporarily blocked the Obama administration from forcing some religious-affiliated groups to provide health insurance coverage of birth control or face penalties as part of the Affordable Care Act.

Acting at the request of an order of nuns in Colorado, Justice Sotomayor issued the stay just hours before the requirement was to go into effect on New Year’s Day. She gave the Obama administration until Friday to respond to the Supreme Court.

Justice Sotomayor’s order applies to the nuns, the Little Sisters of the Poor, and other Roman Catholic nonprofit groups that use the same health plan, known as the Christian Brothers Employee Benefit Trust. The groups’ lawsuit is one of many challenging the federal requirement for contraceptive coverage, but a decision on the merits of that case by the full Supreme Court could have broader implications.

“We are delighted with the ruling,” said Mark L. Rienzi, a lawyer at the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, who represented the nuns in the lawsuit. “We are delighted that the Supreme Court will require the government to file briefs in the court on this matter.” The Little Sisters of the Poor operate nursing homes for low-income people in the United States and around the world.

Without Justice Sotomayor’s order, the nuns “would have been forced to comply with the contraceptive mandate on Wednesday or face large fines,” Mr. Rienzi said late Tuesday.

The contraception requirement has been one of the most controversial aspects of the health law since the Obama administration first announced it in mid-2011, along with other requirements it characterized as preventive care. Religious opponents of abortion have objected especially strongly to the requirement to provide emergency contraception pills, like Plan B, although most studies show that the drug works by preventing fertilization, not by inducing abortion.

In an effort to compromise, the administration said that women who work for nonprofit religious groups that object to birth control could receive separate coverage not paid for by the employers. It refused, however, to offer accommodations to secular businesses whose owners have religious objections to contraception.

That has led to a separate group of lawsuits. And last month, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a pair of cases on whether corporations may refuse to provide insurance coverage for contraception.

Justice Sotomayor — who later was to lead the countdown for the Times Square ball drop — issued her order after the United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, in Denver, earlier on New Year’s Eve denied the nuns’ request for a preliminary injunction to block enforcement of the contraceptive coverage requirements imposed by the new health care law.

The Obama administration had argued that the Little Sisters of the Poor could opt out of the contraceptive coverage requirement by completing “a self-certification form” and providing it to the entity that administers their health benefits. Therefore, the Justice Department said, the contraceptive mandate imposes “no substantial burden on their exercise of religion.”

“To opt out of providing contraceptive coverage, Little Sisters need only certify that they are nonprofit organizations that hold themselves out as religious and that, because of religious objections, they are opposed to providing coverage for some or all contraceptive services,” the Justice Department told the appeals court on Monday.

The administration says it has exempted churches from the contraceptive coverage requirement and offered an accommodation to certain religious nonprofit groups. But the Becket Fund argued that “the ‘accommodation’ still forces the Little Sisters to find an insurer who will cover sterilization, contraceptive and abortion-inducing drugs and devices.”

“The Sisters would also be required to sign a form that triggers the start of that coverage,” it said. “In good conscience, they cannot do that. So the ‘accommodation’ still violates their religious beliefs.”

The Obama administration has repeatedly defended the birth control requirement. “The president believes that no one, including the government or for-profit corporations, should be able to dictate those decisions to women,” Jay Carney, the White House press secretary, said last month.

One of the pending Supreme Court cases was filed by Hobby Lobby, a corporation owned by a family whose members have said they try to run the business on Christian principles. The company, which operates a chain of arts-and-crafts stores and has more than 15,000 full-time employees of many faiths. Hobby Lobby has said it has no problem with offering coverage for many forms of contraception, including condoms, diaphragms, sponges, several kinds of birth control pills and sterilization surgery. But drugs and devices that can prevent embryos from implanting in the womb are another matter, and make it complicit in a form of abortion, the company said.

The other case was filed by the Conestoga Wood Specialties Corporation, which makes wood cabinets and is owned by a Mennonite family that had similar objections to the law.

Sources: AP, NY Times, TIME Magazine

Mitt Romney & Bain's Link To ABORTION: Stericycle (Disposing Dead Fetuses) OMG!

Mitt Romney Invested in a Company that Disposed of Aborted Fetuses?
Wait a Minute!
I thought Romney was a "Man Of God"!

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Romney Invested in Medical-Waste Firm That Disposed of Aborted Fetuses, Government Documents Show

Earlier this year, Mitt Romney nearly landed in a politically perilous controversy when the Huffington Post reported that in 1999 the GOP presidential candidate had been part of an investment group that invested $75 million in Stericycle, a medical-waste disposal firm that has been attacked by anti-abortion groups for disposing aborted fetuses collected from family planning clinics.

Coming during the heat of the GOP primaries, as Romney tried to sell South Carolina Republicans on his pro-life bona fides, the revelation had the potential to damage the candidate's reputation among values voters already suspicious of his shifting position on abortion.

But Bain Capital, the private equity firm Romney founded, tamped down the controversy.

The company said Romney left the firm in February 1999 to run the troubled 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City and likely had nothing to with the deal. The matter never became a campaign issue.

But documents filed by Bain and Stericycle with the Securities and Exchange Commission—and obtained by Mother Jones—list Romney as an active participant in the investment.

And this deal helped Stericycle, a company with a poor safety record, grow, while yielding tens of millions of dollars in profits for Romney and his partners.

The documents—one of which was signed by Romney—also contradict the official account of Romney's exit from Bain.

The Stericycle deal—the abortion connection aside—is relevant because of questions regarding the timing of Romney's departure from the private equity firm he founded.

Responding to a recent Washington Post story reporting that Bain-acquired companies outsourced jobs, the Romney campaign insisted that Romney exited Bain in February 1999, a month or more before Bain took over two of the companies named in the Post's article.

The SEC documents undercut that defense, indicating that Romney still played a role in Bain investments until at least the end of 1999.

Here's what happened with Stericycle.

In November 1999, Bain Capital and Madison Dearborn Partners, a Chicago-based private equity firm, filed with the SEC a Schedule 13D, which lists owners of publicly traded companies, noting that they had jointly purchased $75 million worth of shares in Stericycle, a fast-growing player in the medical-waste industry.

(That April, Stericycle had announced plans to buy the medical-waste businesses of Browning Ferris Industries and Allied Waste Industries.)

The SEC filing lists assorted Bain-related entities that were part of the deal, including Bain Capital (BCI), Bain Capital Partners VI (BCP VI), Sankaty High Yield Asset Investors (a Bermuda-based Bain affiliate), and Brookside Capital Investors (a Bain offshoot).

And it notes that Romney was the "sole shareholder, Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President of BCI, BCP VI Inc., Brookside Inc. and Sankaty Ltd."

The document also states that Romney "may be deemed to share voting and dispositive power with respect to" 2,116,588 shares of common stock in Stericycle "in his capacity as sole shareholder" of the Bain entities that invested in the company.

That was about 11 percent of the outstanding shares of common stock. (The whole $75 million investment won Bain, Romney, and their partners 22.64 percent of the firm's stock—the largest bloc among the firm's owners.)

The original copy of the filing was signed by Romney.

Another SEC document filed November 30, 1999, by Stericycle also names Romney as an individual who holds "voting and dispositive power" with respect to the stock owned by Bain.

If Romney had fully retired from the private equity firm he founded, why would he be the only Bain executive named as the person in control of this large amount of Stericycle stock?


Stericycle was a lucrative investment for Romney and Bain.

The company had entered the medical-waste business a decade earlier, when it took over a food irradiation plant in Arkansas and began zapping medical waste, rather than strawberries, with radiation.

The company subsequently replaced irradiation with a technology that used low-frequency radio waves to sterilize medical waste—gowns, masks, gloves, and other medical equipment—before it was transported to an incinerator.

By mid-1997, Stericycle was the second-largest medical-waste disposal business in the nation. Two years later, it was the largest.

With 240,000 customers, its operations spanned the United States, Canada, and Puerto Rico. Fortune ranked it No. 10 on its list of the 100 fastest growing companies in the nation.

But the company had its woes, accumulating a troubling safety record along the way. In 1991, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration cited its Arkansas operation for 11 workplace safety violations.

The facility had not provided employees with sufficient protective gear, and it had kept body parts, fetuses, and dead experimental animals in unmarked storage containers, placing workers at risk.

In 1995, Stericycle was fined $3.3 million—later decreased to $800,000—by Rhode Island for knowingly exposing workers to life-threatening diseases at its medical-waste treatment facility in Woonsocket.

Two years later, workers at another of its medical-waste processing plants in Morton, Washington, were exposed to tuberculosis.

In 2002 and 2003—after Bain and its partners had bought their major interest in the firm—Stericycle reached settlements with the attorneys general in Arizona and Utah after it was accused of violating antitrust laws.

It paid Arizona $320,000 in civil penalties and lawyers' fees, and paid Utah $580,000.

Despite the firm's regulatory run-ins, the deal worked out well for Bain.

In 2001, the Bain-Madison Dearborn partnership that had invested in the company sold 40 percent of its holdings in Stericycle for about $88 million—marking a hefty profit on its original investment of $75 million.

The Bain-related group sold the rest of its holdings by 2004.

By that point it had earned $49.5 million.

It was not until six years later that anti-abortion activists would target Stericycle for collecting medical waste at abortion clinics.

This campaign has compared Stericycle to German firms that provided assistance to the Nazis during the Holocaust.

A Stericycle official told Huffington Post that its abortion clinics business constitutes a "small" portion of its total operations. (Stericycle declined a request for comment from Mother Jones.)

In response to questions from Mother Jones, a spokeswoman for Bain maintained that Romney was not involved in the Stericycle deal in 1999, saying that he had "resigned" months before the stock purchase was negotiated.

The spokeswoman noted that following his resignation Romney remained only "a signatory on certain documents," until his separation agreement with Bain was finalized in 2002.

And Bain issued this statement: "Mitt Romney retired from Bain Capital in February 1999. He has had no involvement in the management or investment activities of Bain Capital, or with any of its portfolio companies since that time."

(The Romney presidential campaign did not respond to requests for comment.)

But the document Romney signed related to the Stericycle deal did identify him as a participant in that particular deal and the person in charge of several Bain entities.

(Did Bain and Romney file a document with the SEC that was not accurate?)

Moreover, in 1999, Bain and Romney both described his departure from Bain not as a resignation and far from absolute.

On February 12, 1999, the Boston Herald reported, "Romney said he will stay on as a part-timer with Bain, providing input on investment and key personnel decisions."

And a Bain press release issued on July 19, 1999, noted that Romney was "currently on a part-time leave of absence"—and quoted Romney speaking for Bain Capital.

In 2001 and 2002, Romney filed Massachusetts state disclosure forms noting he was the 100 percent owner of Bain Capital NY, Inc — a Bain outfit that was incorporated in Delaware on April 13, 1999—two months after Romney's supposed retirement from the firm.

A May 2001 filing with the SEC identified Romney as "a member of the Management Committee" of two Bain entities.

And in 2007, the Washington Post reported that R. Bradford Malt, a Bain lawyer, said Romney took a "leave of absence" when he assumed the Olympics post and retained sole ownership of the firm for two more years.

All of this undermines Bain's contention that Romney, though he maintained an ownership interest in the firm and its funds, had nothing to do with the firm's activities after February 1999.

The Stericycle deal may raise red flags for anti-abortion activists.

But it also raises questions about the true timing of Romney's departure from Bain and casts doubt on claims by the company and the Romney campaign that he had nothing to do with Bain business after February 1999.


View Larger Map


Sources: Huffington Post, Mother Jones, MSNBC, NY Daily News, Political Articles, The Young Turks, Youtube, Google Maps

Hispanic Births Now Outnumber Black Births: Wooing The 2012 Hispanic Vote

Minorities are not looking for "Payback"

You've probably read those articles about how, in the United States, minorities are becoming the majority. That's a polite way of describing what is really going on. Namely, that the U.S. population is becoming more Latino and less white. More than any other group, it is Latinos who are driving demographic changes.

Last week, the U.S. Census Bureau reported that, of all the babies born in the United States in 2011, more than half were members of minority groups. Latinos, Asians, African-Americans and other minorities accounted for 50.4% of births last year, marking the first time in U.S. history this has happened.

Immigration is a driving force. So is the fact that Latinos have higher birthrates because they tend to be younger and starting families. According to the report, Latinos have a median age of 27; with whites, it's 42.

When I read these kinds of stories, I wince.

Some people assume that making lawmakers, media and corporations aware of population trends will persuade them to see the value in diversity and cause them to reach out to nonwhite populations. In my experience, it doesn't have that effect at all. People tend to do what they want to do the way they've always done it.

But what you can set your watch by is the backlash to these stories. It's rooted in fear, but also in human nature. No one likes being told they're being displaced or pushed aside, or that they're not going to be as relevant as time goes on.

So when David Bostis, a senior research associate at the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies, tells CNN.com as he did recently: "The Republicans' problem is that their voters are white, aging and dying off" and that "there will come a time when (Republicans) suffer catastrophic losses with the realization of the population changes," it is bound to set off shock waves. And it did.

Conservative radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh saw the CNN story as a threat, and he went ballistic.

"It is clear that this, and other similar stories like this, are meant to serve as a warning to Republicans and conservatives," Limbaugh told his audience of millions.
"And the warning is: You are on the wrong side of history. And you are on the wrong side of demographics. You better do what the coming majority wants right now, or you're gonna suffer the consequences. There is an implied threat in this story.

You're getting older. You're white and you're dying off. Pretty soon you're gonna find out what it's been like to not be you."

"That's the implication of the story," Limbaugh insisted. "You've been the majority for all these decades, all these generations, but your time is coming when you're gonna be the minorities and there's gonna be people with majority power over you. So you better learn right. You better change your ways. You better get with the program so that everybody likes you."

As is often the case when Limbaugh charges into matters of race and ethnicity, he has it all wrong. These aren't threats. These are facts. And they're presented not to pressure people to do "what the coming majority wants right now" as much as to highlight the value of doing the right thing by making our institutions more inclusive.

Stories like this are supposed to enlighten us and give us a heads up about what's coming around the corner, so we can take advantage of the trend and not be overrun by it. Elected officials, media companies and the business communities can put off thinking about the future, but they can't escape it.

Meanwhile, what people like Limbaugh seem to be trying to escape is a reckoning for what happened in the past. As he sees it, all this talk about changing demographics is tied to a larger criticism of the United States as having at times fallen short of its own principles of liberty, fairness and equality.

"Part of it is payback because this evil white majority has arranged things so they get all the spoils," he said. "And then whatever they don't want is what gets handed down. Those days are about over, and the big change is coming."

What needs to change is this kind of thinking. It's total nonsense. In nearly 25 years of writing about politics, race and ethnicity, I've never heard any member of a minority group talk about how they're looking forward to "payback" once they're in the majority. Not one.

What I do hear quite a bit is that people of color believe in the greatness of this country, and they want to help write the next chapter in ways that benefit them and their families. They want a seat at the table, not because they feel entitled but because they feel they have something unique and valuable to offer. And they don't want to get even; they just want to get ahead.

What's wrong with that? Nothing.

In fact, it's in keeping with some of this country's greatest traditions. Have no fear. The face of America is changing. But it's heart and soul never will.


View Larger Map


Sources: Alex Jones Show, CNN, Examiner, Fox News, PBS News, Youtube, Google Maps