VIDEO, Obama : "If I Had A Son, He Would Look Like Trayvon" - "When I think about this boy, I think about my own kids" - "I think every parent in America should be able to understand why it is absolutely imperative that we investigate every aspect of this. And that everybody pull together"

.

"My main message is to the parents of Trayvon Martin. You know, if I had a son, he'd look like Trayvon," Obama said. "All of us as Americans are going to take this with the seriousness it deserves."

"Obviously, this is a tragedy. I can only imagine what these parents are going through," Obama said. "All of us have to do some soul searching to figure out how something like this has happened."

Uploaded by charliespiering on Mar 23, 2012 

Obama: "If I Had A Son, He Would Look Like Trayvon"

 

***********************

Jeb Bush endorses Romney and his cruel "self-deportation" immigration policy - Jeb abandons prudence, caution, compassion, humanity and his support for the DREAM Act in order to partake in a Party of Racism, Bigotry and Hatred

.

Jeb Bush acts like another Unprincipled Opportunist, made in the same "image and likeness" of Mitt Romney, champion of Hypocrisy, Lies and Flip-Flops. Another Wishy-Washy Chameleon Politician.  Jeb Bush is making a shameful U-Turn in politics.

Huffington Post
Jeb Bush: Endorsing Romney Is an Endorsement of His Cruel Immigration Policy
March 22, 2012


By Cesar Vargas, Political strategist and managing partner, DRM Capitol Group


Jeb Bush: Endorsing Romney Is an Endorsement of His Cruel Immigration Policy


Some excerpts :

Former Governor Jeb Bush has claimed that his endorsement of Mitt Romney is not on any particular issue. Unfortunately for him, this endorsement cannot be seen in any other way but as an endorsement of Romney's cruel "self-deportation" immigration policy. For a while, Jeb Bush has been a prudent voice of common sense and compassion in the Republican party, which has since been highjacked by the extreme right-wing Tea Party. But with Jeb's endorsement of Romney, it appears that we have yet another Florida Republican who has chosen his party over common sense.

Mitt Romney has come out against supporting undocumented youth, promising to veto the DREAM Act if passed, while Jeb Bush has called the DREAM Act a "fair policy." Jeb Bush has consistently warned Republicans to tone down their harsh rhetoric on immigration amidst mud-slinging in the GOP debates. Yet he has given up the fight and decided to be swallowed into the same black hole as the presidential candidates and the rest of the Republican party.

And Romney's support for the ARMS Act should not be received with praise by Jeb Bush. The ARMS Act is a poor attempt to provide relief to undocumented youth. It simply says: you are not good enough to serve your country as a teacher, lawyer, engineer, entrepreneur or artist.

What's worse, the bill is full of provisions that have the potential to deport a veteran if he were to become injured in, say, an IED or car crash that wasn't his fault and became a public burden. This demonstrates a lack of understanding of the complexity of immigration policy by Rep. Rivera and Mitt Romney, or at least a lack of interest in those being most drastically affected.

*****************

Black on White Hate Crime and "Wisconsin v. Mitchell" in which the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously found that penalty-enhancement hate crime statutes do not conflict with free speech rights, because they do not punish an individual for exercising freedom of expression; rather, they allow courts to consider motive when sentencing a criminal for conduct which is not protected by the First Amendment.

.
This case in 1993 found the "Hate Crime" legislation was not unconstitutional and did not violate the U. S. Constitution :

Wisconsin v. Mitchell, 508 U.S. 476 (1993), was a decision of the United States Supreme Court. It was a landmark precedent pertaining to First Amendment free speech arguments for hate crime legislation. In effect, the Court ruled that a state may consider whether a crime was committed or initially considered due to an intended victim's status in a protected class.

Wisconsin v. Mitchell in U. S. Supreme Court 1993

Background facts

The respondent, Todd Mitchell, was with a group of other African American individuals in an apartment complex in Kenosha, Wisconsin. Members of this group were discussing the film Mississippi Burning; in particular, a scene in which a white man beat a young black boy who was praying. According to the facts, undisputed by the respondent, in the briefs filed in lower courts, the group had discussed the scene indoors while drinking, and later moved outside the apartment complex. Outside they were joined by Mitchell and further discussed the scene. Seeing that everyone is enraged, Mitchell asked the group, "Do you all feel hyped up to move on some white peoples?"

Looking across the street, Mitchell and the group spot Gregory Reddick, a white fourteen-year old, walking home from a nearby pizza parlor. Mitchell reportedly turned to the group and remarked, "You all want to fuck somebody up? There goes a white boy; go get him." Mitchell counted to three and then pointed left and right, signaling that they should encircle him. Ten of them then took off after Reddick, most running directly at him. One person in the group kicked Reddick, knocking him to the ground. Several attackers then surrounded Reddick. They kicked, punched, and stomped on him for over five minutes. The beating left Reddick unconscious on the ground, and one of the attackers remarked that they had killed him. Another then took Reddick's British Knights sneakers and showed them off later at his apartment complex with Mitchell. The police found Reddick unconscious a short while later. He remained in a coma for four days in the hospital; the record indicates he fully recovered from all physical injuries.

[edit] Court

In a jury trial under the Circuit Court for Kenosha County, Mitchell was convicted of aggravated battery. The maximum sentence was raised to seven years imprisonment because Mitchell had selected his target based on race. This was pursuant to a Wisconsin statute (939.645) that allowed for such an increase if it could be shown that the defendant, "[i]intentionally selects the person against whom the crime... is committed... because of the race, religion, color, disability, sexual orientation, national origin or ancestry of that person...." The Circuit Court sentenced Mitchell to four years imprisonment.

Mitchell appealed the decision of the Wisconsin Circuit Court, alleging that the Wisconsin statute unconstitutionally infringed upon his First Amendment rights. The appeal was rejected by the Wisconsin Court of Appeals, but the Wisconsin Supreme Court reversed. The Wisconsin Supreme Court claimed that the statute was a direct violation of the First Amendment because it, "punish[ed] what the legislature has deemed to be offensive thought." It rejected the State of Wisconsin's claim that the statute only punished the "conduct" in which a victim was selected, saying that it felt the law punishes the reason the defendant selected the victim. This was an important distinction to make in constitutional law, and the Wisconsin Supreme Court invoked the United States Supreme Court's ruling in R.A.V. v. St. Paul, claiming this law criminalized, "bigoted thought with which it disagrees."

Further, the Wisconsin Supreme Court claimed that the law was also unconstitutionally over broad, reasoning that, in order to prove a person selected a victim in the prohibited manner, the state would need to introduce evidence of a person's prior speech. The court thought this would create a "chilling effect" on free speech in general, as people sought to avoid the appearance of bigotry in fear that it may be used against them in court at a later time to enhance their potential penalty. The court distinguished their opinion on this matter from anti discrimination laws which had already been ruled constitutional, claiming that the law in question for this particular case punished the "subjective mental process" of victim selection, whereas the anti discrimination laws upheld previously had punished "objective acts of discrimination."

The Supreme Court granted certiorari.

[edit] The decision

Writing for a unanimous court, Chief Justice William Rehnquist reason that, in substance, Wisconsin's law served the same purpose as federal antidiscrimination law. Whereas in R.A.V., the ordinance struck down was explicitly targeted at expression, the statute in this case was directed towards conduct that was not expressive as such, but was instead directed at violence in particular.

The Court further stated that Wisconsin was within its rights to offer sentence enhancement in bias-motivated crime because it had a compelling interest in preventing the negative secondary effects of such crimes. Among these secondary effects mentioned were the increased likelihood of a bias-motivated crime to provoke retaliation, to inflict greater emotional distress on the victim, and to incite community unrest. The Court explained that these secondary effects were more than adequate reason for such a sentencing enhancement, especially if, as stated above, the law was not explicitly targeting beliefs or statements.

Regarding the "chilling effect" argument presented by Mitchell's side, the Court stated that it "[found] no merit in this contention." The Court determined that this rationale was far too speculative in nature to merit a genuine complaint of a statute's constitutional over breadth. Because lesser crimes such as "negligent operation of a motor vehicle" (cited in the opinion) were very unlikely to ever be racially-based, the Court stated that for this statute to be over broad one would have to consider the prospect of a citizen actively suppressing their bigoted beliefs because they believed they could be used against him or her at a trial for a serious offense, such as burglary, battery, or murder.

Finally, the Court noted that it is relatively commonplace for a defendant's prior speech to be presented to the court as evidence. This is a tool in the judicial process, often serving a vital role in establishing the defendant's motive.

For the reasons listed above, the Court reversed the Wisconsin Supreme Court's decision and remanded the case to a lower court for final proceedings.

********************

Immigrants and the children of immigrants will play increasingly important roles within the U.S. economy as workers and taxpayers for decades to come. 77 million baby boomers, comprising nearly one quarter of the total American population have started to retire

.

Those 77 million baby boomers are mostly White, the first cohorts are reaching the age of 65 and 66 and there are no White Youngsters to replace them.

Children of immigrants are the fastest growing demographic group within the U.S. population. When these children become adults and join the workforce, the taxes they pay—as well as the taxes their immigrant parents pay—will help to sustain Social Security and Medicare.

Immigration Policy Center

American Immigration Council

The Future of a Generation: How New Americans Will Help Support Retiring Baby Boomers

February 14, 2012


The Future of a Generation: How New Americans Will Help Support Retiring Baby Boomers


Some excerpts :

The U.S. population would be aging even more rapidly if not for the demographic impact of immigration. Because immigrants tend to be younger than native-born Americans—and to have higher rates of labor-force participation—they mitigate the impact of aging among the native-born population and workforce. In 2010, roughly 80 percent of immigrants were “working age” (18 to 64), compared to only 60 percent of the native-born population. As a report from the U.S. Census Bureau points out, “the country’s aging is slowed somewhat by immigration of younger people.” Demographer Dowell Myers estimates that current levels of immigration will temper the aging of the U.S. population substantially over the next two decades, slowing the increase in the “old-age dependency ratio”—the number of elderly per 1,000 working-age individuals—by more than one-quarter.

However, neither current levels of immigration nor current birthrates are sufficient to fully compensate for the retirement of the baby boomers. Immigration and new births notwithstanding, the elderly population is projected to grow far more quickly than the working-age population. The number of working-age adults for every elderly person in the United States declined from 13.6 in 1900 to 7.5 in 1950 to 5.0 in 2000. It will drop to only 2.8 by 2050 {Figure 3}. This represents an enormous fiscal and economic burden upon taxpayers and workers. Over the coming decades, the United States will face an escalating need for new taxpayers to help fund Social Security and Medicare, new workers to take the place of retirees, and new healthcare providers to care for the elderly.

*******************

Four Million Plus Pages of Trayvon Martin in Google - Similar to JonBenet Ramsey case, a little Colorado girl, beauty pageant queen, killed at home December 1996. Early police errors in that case, some of them atrocious, have resolutely precluded any successful prosecution of any of the suspects ever identified

.

"Will an otherwise game Seminole County grand jury reluctantly refuse to indict Zimmerman because of a lack of physical evidence compiled by the police? In 1999, it happened in the Ramsey case. And it's certainly possible that it could happen here.

The Atlantic
Trayvon Martin's Killer Was Looking for Trouble -- and Found It
Examining the details and unanswered questions that will come to light when the case goes to court next month.
Wednesday, March 21, 2012

By Andrew Cohen
Andrew Cohen is a contributing editor at The Atlantic and legal analyst for 60 Minutes. He is also chief analyst and legal editor for CBS Radio News and has won a Murrow Award as one of the nation's leading legal analysts and commentators


Trayvon Martin's Killer Was Looking for Trouble -- and Found It


Some excerpts :

From January 2011 until the night of the shooting, a period of roughly 13 months, Zimmerman called 911 for one reason or another an astounding 46 times. This official record alone, a sharp prosecutor might suggest to Seminole County grand jurors, indicates a pattern of unreasonable assertiveness (and perhaps even paranoia) on the part of the 28-year-old neighborhood watch captain. At a minimum, the calls reveal that Zimmerman took his job as a local busybody more seriously than most of us ever would or could. On January 29, 2012, for example, he called the cops on a group of kids just "playing in the street."

On Tuesday, Florida officials released audio and transcripts from six more of the Zimmerman tapes. Together, they portray a man on the lookout for "suspicious characters" -- a man out looking for trouble, an earnest prosecutor might say to grand jurors. On October 1, 2011, for example, Zimmerman called 911 to report that two black men were "just hanging out" at the gate of his neighborhood. "I have no idea what they're doing," Zimmerman told the dispatcher, as if this fact alone justified the intervention of the police. Neighbors say Zimmerman had a false sense of authority over his volunteer role -- and you can almost hear that in the tapes.

.....................

We know from the 911 tapes what Zimmerman's motive might have been in going after Martin the way he did. But what would Martin's motive have been to attack Zimmerman, who was 11 years older and 100 pounds heavier than him? That's a question grand jurors will have to answer if and when they are confronted by the evident conflict between Zimmerman's story and the version offered by Martin's girlfriend. And it is here where the failings of the police investigation will likely deprive grand jurors of all the pertinent evidence and information they might have had, and should have had, in looking into this tragedy.

THE POLICE AND PROSECUTORS

Did the police fail to test Zimmerman for drugs and alcohol on the night of the 26th? If so, why? Did the police otherwise fail to treat him as a suspect? Why? Did they treat him, in other words, as they would have treated Martin, if it had been Martin who had shot Zimmerman that night? What about the allegation that a police officer may have coerced a witness into incriminating Martin, and not Zimmerman? Will prosecutors call that police officer before the grand jury to testify? And will there be a mini-trial during the grand jury proceedings over any conflicts between the witness's testimony and the testimony of the police officer?

There is something about this story, even this early on, that reminds me of the JonBenet Ramsey case. She was the little Colorado girl, the beauty pageant queen, who was killed in her home in December 1996. Early police errors in that case, some of them atrocious, have resolutely precluded any successful prosecution of any of the suspects ever identified. Will an otherwise game Seminole County grand jury reluctantly refuse to indict Zimmerman because of a lack of physical evidence compiled by the police? In 1999, it happened in the Ramsey case. And it's certainly possible that it could happen here.

All prosecutors have an ethical obligation to pass on a case they do not reasonably believe they can win. But all prosecutors also have a duty to push up against legal precedent when they believe that to do so would further the interests of justice. A reasonable prosecutor here could convince grand jurors to indict Zimmerman -- the idea being that there is a reasonable probability that his conduct on the night of Martin's death does not fall under Florida's self-defense law. But then the prosecutor would have the burden at trial, if the case got that far, of establishing beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman had not acted in self-defense.

..............................

Like it or not, Florida law permits scared residents to defend themselves with lethal force. It permits residents to "stand their ground" rather than try to avoid trouble when trouble comes toward them. But it does not permit residents to go looking for trouble. It does not permit residents to hunt down other residents, to corner them, to kill them, and then to allege that they killed in self defense. George Zimmerman no doubt thought he was doing the right thing on those dozens of occasions when he dialed 911. Could he ever have imagined that one day those calls might be used against him with his life on the line?

...........................

The federal investigation. So many questions for the Justice Department to answer! Here are a few off the top of my head: What did the police think about Zimmerman before the deadly incident? Did the dispatchers put together the fact that they were getting so many calls from one person? Did it influence their decisions -- the speed of police intervention, the way they treated Zimmerman on the scene -- on the night of Martin's death? At any point, did a police officer sit Zimmerman down and tell him to chill out? What about the allegations of disparate treatment for minorities in Sanford? So many questions. So few answers.

***********************

VIDEO : The Brutal Racist Murder of Black Adolescent Trayvon Martin - Two Witnesses Speak Out In Trayvon Martin Case and finger Police - An unarmed child was murdered for being Black. Hate Crime

.

A grand jury will investigate the death of Trayvon Martin, an unarmed 17-year-old shot to death in a gated community in Florida on Feb. 26, state attorney Norm Wolfinger announced Tuesday.

"I share in the desire of the family and the community to accurately collect and evaluate all the facts surrounding the tragic death of Trayvon Martin," Wolfinger said in a news release. "The public is entitled to no less than a thorough, deliberate, and just review of the facts. We intend to honor that commitment."

Uploaded by BlackTalkMedia on Mar 16, 2012

The woman whose backyard 17 yr-old Trayvon Martin was gunned down in by Geroge Zimmerman comes forward to finger the police. She says the Sanford police were not interested in hearing the truth.

Witness in Trayvon Martin murder fingers police

************************

Mitt Romney gave this explanation to an Iowa radio host about the second coming of Christ : that Jesus would first appear in Jerusalem and then, “over the thousand years that follow, the millennium, he will reign from two places, the law will come from Missouri, and the other will be from Jerusalem

.

A pillar of the Mormon Church :

The New York Times Sunday Review : Maureen Dowd tells us how Odd, Weird and Bizarre Mitt Romney is, he tries to hide as much as possible the weirdness of his religion or cult : like baptizing Elvis Presley as a Mormon after death in order to carry him to a special Mormon Heaven :

The New York Times Sunday Review
Is Elvis a Mormon?
By Maureen Dowd
March 17, 2012


Is Elvis a Mormon?


Some excerpts :

Romney also feels he must hide an essential part of who he is: a pillar of the Mormon Church. He fears he would turn off voters by talking too much about a faith that many evangelicals dismiss as a cult and not a true Christian religion.

Mitt works overtime pretending he’s a Nascar, cheesy-grits guy and masking his pride in his bank account and faith.

When he talked about his beliefs in his last presidential run, it sometimes provoked confusion, like this explanation to an Iowa radio host about the second coming of Christ: that Jesus would first appear in Jerusalem and then, “over the thousand years that follow, the millennium, he will reign from two places, the law will come from Missouri, and the other will be from Jerusalem.”

Just as Romney did not step up immediately after Rush Limbaugh called Sandra Fluke “a slut,” he has yet to step up as the cases have mounted of Jews posthumously and coercively baptized by Mormons, including hundreds of thousands of Holocaust victims; the parents of the death camp survivor and Nazi hunter Simon Wiesenthal; and Daniel Pearl, the Jewish Wall Street Journal reporter murdered by Al Qaeda in Pakistan. (His widow, Mariane, told CNN she was “shocked.”)

Believing that only Mormons can get into the highest level of heaven, the Celestial Kingdom, and that others will be limited to the Terrestrial and Telestial Kingdoms, they have baptized anyone and everyone, including Anne Frank, Gandhi, Hitler, Marilyn Monroe, Charlie Chaplin and Elvis.

Asked by Newsweek in 2007 if he had done baptisms for the dead, which involve white garb and immersion in water, a startled Romney replied, “I have in my life, but I haven’t recently.”

Mormon feminists got upset this winter when they found that young women in some temples had not been allowed to do proxy baptisms while they were menstruating.

...................

Post Mortem Baptisms :

Wiesel calls “the whole process very strange,” and faults Romney, a Mormon stake president: “After all, Romney is not simply a Mormon. He’s been a bishop of the Mormon Church.

...............

“Poor Anne Frank. As if she didn’t suffer enough.”

**************************

Romney Mormonism Polygamy Racism : You won’t find any questions coming from Mitt Romney. If he can’t question the moral character of someone like "Prophet" Joseph Smith shouldn’t that tell us something about Mr. Romney’s decision making process ?

.

By a Lady that rebelled against Mormonism after being in a family of several generations of Mormons.

The Wishy-Washy Character of Mitt Romney - He does not question "Prophet" Joseph Smith, Brigham Young and the History of Mormonism, that is perhaps because he shares traits with these deceivers and con men.

Life After Ministry
Leading Mormons to the REAL Jesus Christ
« Thought of the Day about Mormonism
Tip of the Day, January 3, 2012 »
Mitt Romney, Polygamy, Racism and the Mormon Church

By a Lady that rebelled against Mormonism after being in a family of several generations of Mormons :
Michelle Grim

Michelle was a 6th generation Mormon who’s family background included polygamists. After a lifetime in the Mormon Church, Michelle left the church in search of the truth. Though she would find that lasting peace in Christ, it did come with a price. Michelle was rejected by her friends and family in Utah and treated like the worst kind of criminal. The Mormon Church has attempted to persuade her to come back to the Mormon Church and renounce her Christian faith, even going as far as pressuring family members. Since she left, the LDS Church has long persecuted her by using character assassination as their weapon. Ironically, although Michelle would once spit in the face of Ed Decker for his efforts to shed light on Mormon beliefs, she eventually joined forces with him and worked along side Mr. Decker at Saint Alive for 11 years. Michelle and her husband, Kirk, have two beautiful daughters, ages 20 and 18.

Romney, Polygamy, Racism and the Mormon Church


Some excerpts :

One of the main concerns I believe people should have when choosing a president is the moral character of that person. Case in point is obviously the Mitt Romney topic. If this guy supports the Mormon Church then of course his tithe money is going to be sent to Salt Lake City. Remember, those are your tax dollars.

Now if Mr. Romney believes and condones what the Church does then I can tell you straight up that he’s not going to believe Mormonism has any culpability in the debauchery still going on with the residual fruits of Joseph Smith.

The LDS Church will not admit that because of Joseph Smith’s philandering ways there has arisen many sectors of his so-called restoration of the gospel. And the adoration they pour forth for this man is and should be questionable, but you won’t find any questions like this coming from Mitt Romney. If he can’t question the moral character of someone like Joe Smith shouldn’t that tell us something about Mr. Romney’s decision making process? Read our latest thought of the day about Mormonism and Joe Smith’s way of thinking here

...........

Polygamy breeds incest.

There is nothing, and I do mean nothing, that gets me moving faster than when someone steps in to defend those who practice this nauseating, slime-ball behavior. The iniquitous conduct of Mr. Joseph Smith still permeates the Mormon psyche today as I write this. His “residual fruits” of Mormonism are found in the likes of Warren Jeffs, Kody Brown, Tom Green, Rulon Jeffs and the rest of them.

The mainstream Mormon Church can give all the publicity statements they want when telling the public at large these aren’t part of the Mormon Church but the truth is that these miserable groups are cut from the same cloth. The Book of Mormon is waved proudly from their pulpits and remember; this is what Romney reads.

....................

Women still think of themselves as a baby producing machine and see no other virtuous qualities about her while falsely believing her spirit has been sexually begotten by a polygamous god and one of his wives in heaven. Everything still revolves around sex. Not even her soul is created without mentioning it was because of sex.

Much like the major change in 1978 about the blacks receiving the priesthood, only the public display of diversity looks better. Blacks can get into the priesthood now but the holy Mormon scriptures still teach that blacks are inferior and made poor choices in a pre-existent spirit world. The Mormon Church says they don’t practice polygamy today, but their books still say it’s the only way to heaven. It’s kinda like my mother. She says she has no problem with people of color in the Church, but my mother is racist. You can hear it in her vocabulary when she’s referring to anyone on the television who isn’t white. It’s very telling.

Growing up in mainstream Mormonism I was taught how to be proud of my polygamous ancestors. They toiled, they pushed handcarts, and they struggled to make Utah what it is today. My grandmother “didn’t care” that she had to share her wedding bed with her sister and three other women. Really? As a grown woman I just can’t imagine such a thing.

What you won’t see in the pictures that lined the hallways of our homes are the stories each of those women held. The majority of them lived through a nightmarish hell. Jealousy, back-biting, degrading, soul ripping torture is what goes on inside the people who have to live like this.

And how do I know this? I’ve read diaries, spoken to hundreds of relatives and others just like my family who all tell the same stories. A good friend of mine had two aunts that came over from England in the late nineteenth century and the two sisters were promised everything short of the moon if they’d make the trip to Utah. Things were not as they were promised when they arrived and both young women killed themselves over the polygamy issue. How holy is that?

..............

The only time that polygamy should be a private matter is when kids aren’t involved. If you want to aspire to having a harem of women slobbering all over you have at it, but don’t bring kids into your sick scenario and then raise them to believe they have to do the same thing. Sex for salvation is a tawdry game and that’s all this whole thing is about.

............

Supreme Court rulings on SB1070 and Texas Redistricting could be decisive to motivate Latino Turnout - Two-thirds of eligible whites and blacks voted in 2008, only 49 percent of Hispanics did. Hispanic voters are known for low turnout

.

"If a series of Supreme Court decisions is perceived as pro-Republican and anti-Hispanic, that number could rise. Given that there are about two million more eligible Hispanic voters this year than in 2008, a small turnout boost in swing states like Colorado, New Mexico and even Ohio could be significant".

"The Texas election districts have been challenged on the grounds that they undermine Hispanic political power. The Justice Department challenged the state's voter ID law on similar grounds, because Hispanics are less likely to have the photo identification that Texas now requires to vote. And while Arizona's aggressive immigration law has produced plenty of outrage, Hispanics -- the obvious target of the law -- have taken particular offense".

Bloomberg.com
Is the Supreme Court the Key to Hispanic Voter Turnout? The Ticker
By Francis Wilkinson
March 16, 2012


Is the Supreme Court the Key to Hispanic Voter Turnout? The Ticker


**********************

CNN Transcript : Anderson Cooper 360 : Fight between Republican Mary Matalin and Democrat Hilary Rosen about Obama, Contraception, Religious Liberty, Slavery of Women's Bodies, Sex, Procreation, Catholic Church, harsh and tough discussion

.
CNN Anderson Cooper 360
Contraception Controversy
Aired March 15, 2012



Contraception Controversy - Mary Matalin vs Hilary Rosen

COOPER: Well, joining me now is CNN political contributor, Republican strategist, Mary Matalin, also CNN political contributor and Democratic strategist, Hilary Rosen.

So, Mary, you saw the poll number. Six in 10 Americans are saying that this isn't about religious freedom. Is this a losing issue for Republicans?

MARY MATALIN, CNN POLITICAL CONTRIBUTOR: Absolutely unequivocally not. That was one poll and it depends how you ask it. In "The New York Times" poll, in the CBS poll, in myriad other polls when majorities of Americans, including women oppose the government, the full force of the government to intrude on First Amendment rights -- First amendments guarantee of religious rights.

I'm saying, women, when it's posed that way and that's how the regulation is written and that's what not just Catholics but it's multidenominational, have made an argument not as forcefully as the Obama people have, to switch it, to frame it up, when they -- when they say what it actually is, people oppose it. But equally important, probably more important is what you led with. Three- quarters of Americans, including women, do not even think this is a political issue. Equal numbers, three-quarters of Americans, including women, think the top political issue is the economy.

It's not an issue. And they don't want the government to be dealing with birth control. So I've strategically, the president has made a grievous political error here, I believe.

COOPER: Hilary, do you see that as an error? I mean, as far as Democrats go, critics are saying they're playing politics on this. We're seeing ads, mailers, fundraising, appeals from them, and a lot of talk about women on the campaign tail from the Obama administration.

HILARY ROSEN, CNN POLITICAL CONTRIBUTOR: Well, I mean, first of all, the president did not make this a political issue. The president issues a regulation to try and accommodate, implementing a law that Congress passed, and the Republicans and -- went out and started opposing it and jumping on it.

It is the Republicans who are opposing reauthorizing the -- the Violence Against Women Act today in the United States Senate. It's Mitt Romney who's on the campaign trail saying, let's get rid of Planned Parenthood. These are not Democrats going out there. To the extent that Democrats are actually telling voters what it is that the Republicans are saying, you bet we are.

And here's a key issue, which is, you know, when men have medical issues, they are medical. When women have medical issues, they seem to be political. And I think what women are sick and tired of is having their health issues politicized and framing this as a religious liberty issue is equally infuriating. I think, you know, why isn't the -- why isn't Catholic Church out there ranting and raving about not serving pork on Fridays in their cafeterias.

The only thing that they seem to, you know, want to take to the streets on is something that discriminates against women who don't agree with the men in the church.

COOPER: Mary?

MATALIN: Oh, Hilary, please, the Catholic bishops and Cardinal Dolan have tried to work with the White House. They sat there for a week, waiting for an accommodation which turned out to be --

ROSEN: An accommodation --

(CROSSTALK)

COOPER: Let her finish -- let her finish what -- no, let her finish what she's saying.

MATALIN: Hilary. Hilary. Please.

COOPER: Go ahead, Mary.

MATALIN: They are -- this is a 2,000-year-old Catholic belief that the natural order of things is love, marriage, sex, procreation. So the overwhelming majority of American people including women do not want their religious liberties invaded. They -- all we're asking is this. In this very narrow issue exempt religious institutions and those that are affiliated with religious institutions and this would go away. But it won't go away because the president hasn't vented this war on women.

And I -- I'm going to agree with you on this point. If we're against subsidizing -- using taxpayer dollars for birth control or sexual sorts of drugs, then we're waging a bigger war on men because we don't want taxpayer subsidized erectile drugs and arguably I think that's a much bigger issue for men -- I'm not a scientist but anecdotally after decades I think that's a bigger health issue for the men.

ROSEN: But the Catholic --

MATALIN: Than birth control is for women.

COOPER: But guys --

MATALIN: The Catholic Church is not going after any men's health issues. They are not making those value judgment. It's only about women. And you know here's the issue I think that we have to focus on, which is, you know, women are going -- are watching now. You know, and this is -- this is going to be an issue that is waking up women.

The gender gap in 2008 for the election was, you know, over 10 points, the difference between senator -- then Senator Obama and John McCain. In 2010, it evened out. This is going to widen that gender gap. Women are sick of having our reproductive health and our health issues be politicized and used on the campaign trail.

COOPER: And Mary, Mary --

MATALIN: Yes.

COOPER: I mean, couldn't you argue that both sides are using this as a political issue? I mean the Republicans certainly raised the stakes on this issue between Rush Limbaugh's comments, Rick Santorum's comments on the trail, they saw it as a religious liberty issue and that as something that would mobilize people to come out and vote, and on the Democratic side they see it as a women's health issue and that's something that's going to mobilize women voters who they believe are going to side with the Democratic Party.

MATALIN: Right. The president specifically turned it into a women's health issue, and a war on women because -- let me translate for you, Anderson, because women are dropping him like a bad first date. He had a nine-point gender advantage the last time, he's down to less than half that.

Mitt Romney is not even on the field yet and he's only down by four points. Mitt Romney has no gender gap. But I think this is insulting to women. They do not think there is a birth control problem. They do believe, as all Americans do, that it's a government out of control problem. So what is happening here is every -- all of his enthusiasm, the intensity and the support among all this demographics, starting with women who -- the president is right, are going to make a difference in this election are leaving the president because they are insulted by making them focus on this. Any woman who's going to be jazzed up by this are not people who would ever, ever vote for Romney as he gave them birth control and a man to go with it.

ROSEN: You know, my friend Mary is, you know, engaging in wishful thinking here. She may be right that this is not an issue that's -- important. But it is -- her candidates, Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney who are running around the country trying to get elected on this. By saying they're going to get rid of Planned Parenthood, by saying that there's a war on, you know, religious liberty using what was a regulatory issue to be a political issue.

You know, it is the Republicans ginning up this issue, it's the Republicans refusing to reauthorize a statute that has been on the books for years.

COOPER: Hilary, both sides are using the issue.

(CROSSTALK)

COOPER: I mean aren't both sides use this as an issue?

ROSEN: Well, you know --

COOPER: I mean they both see this as an opportunity in different ways.

ROSEN: I think that Democrats started out here playing defense. And you bet we're going on offense because it became clear that this is not just a political game. It became clear that literally our rights are threatened. And that is going to be the case if you have a Mitt Romney president and a Republican Senate, because they've laid out their agenda.

COOPER: We got to leave it there.

ROSEN: That's it. They've been very clear.

COOPER: Hilary, appreciate your perspective. Mary Matalin, as well. Thank you.

*********************

VIDEO, Cenk Uygur and Michael Hastings : "If Afghanistan shooter is insane, he's a product of an insane policy" - "After having committed so many troops to fight in Afghanistan, Obama can not do an about-face and say "I was wrong" ....."

.

Obama does not want to lose face !... He did not stand up to the Military in the past when they wanted to send more troops, two years ago.

"The troops know that we are leaving and that this war is pointless".

Michael Hastings (born 1980) is an American journalist and a writer. He was a regular contributor to Gentlemen's Quarterly and now is a contributing editor at Rolling Stone magazine. From 2002 - 2008, he was a journalist for Newsweek magazine, famous for his Iraq War coverage and book about the death of his fiancée Andrea Parhamovich I Lost My Love in Baghdad: A Modern War Story.

TYT: "If Afghanistan shooter is insane, he's a product of an insane policy!" [© Current TV LLC]

Uploaded by World2Awakens on Mar 14, 2012

Michael Hastings, author of "The Operators," joins Cenk to talk about an expedited exit strategy for getting the U.S. out of Afghanistan and the role in that decision played by the massacre in Khandahar of 16 Afghans by a solider.

TYT: "If Afghanistan shooter is insane, he's a product of an insane policy!" [© Current TV LLC]

*******************

Republicans in Alabama : 68% Evangelical, 60% deny Evolution, 21% think interracial marriage should be illegal, 45% think Obama is a Muslim, only 14% say that Obama is a Christian. - In Mississippi 52% of Republicans think that Obama is Muslim, 12% think Obama Christian

.

Exit Polls of Republicans in Mississippi and Alabama : They are living in the times of "Uncle Tom's Cabin" ...... That is why they are called "Deep South".

Uploaded by TheYoungTurks on Mar 12, 2012

A majority of Republicans in Alabama and Mississippi believes evolution is not true. A large percentage believe President Obama is a Muslim. Do they think interracial marriage should be legal? A poll from Public Policy Polling is broken down by The Young Turks host Cenk Uygur.

Evolution A Myth, Ban Interracial Marriage - Republicans In AL, MS

***********************

POLITICO.COM : National Republican Senatorial Committee Chairman Senator John Cornyn (R-Texas) and Republican Senator Sen. Lindsey Graham (South Carolina) are warning Mitt Romney of the political suicide for GOP, due to anti-Latino Rhetoric

.

Top GOP brass and Romney’s own Hispanic supporters have made it known to Romney’s campaign that the party risks losing Hispanic voters by a historic margin and with them the General Election for the Presidency in November 6, 2012.

According to Conservative and Republican Pollster Fox Latino Obama wins Latino Voters by 75% and Romney gets only 14% of them.

POLITICO.COM
How Mitt Romney lost Latinos
By GLENN THRUSH
March 14, 2012


How Mitt Romney lost Latinos


Some excerpts :

“In 2008, John McCain paid the price with Latinos for what other Republicans … had said and done,” said Ana Navarro, a Republican Party operative who worked for McCain in 2008 and is a longtime friend of Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, who remains popular with that state’s large Latino population. “Romney could very well pay an even higher price with Latinos, but it will be for things he’s said and done. The tragic part about it is that he’s done it to win over the very conservatives, and they still [aren’t supporting him].”

One top GOP operative said that number needs to be closer to 33 percent: “We lose Hispanics this bad, we lose the whole election. Period.”

*****************************

Election 2012: The Core Four States - Super Swing States Florida, North Carolina, Ohio and Virginia. Obama Leads Romney in the Core Four States - Rasmussen Reports, Conservative Polling Corporation

.

President Obama now holds modest leads over Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum in combined polling of key swing states Florida, North Carolina, Ohio and Virginia. The numbers mark a shift from late February when Obama was tied with both candidates in the four states.

Rasmussen Reports
Election 2012: The Core Four States
Obama Leads Romney, Santorum in Core Four States (FL, NC, OH, VA)
Friday, March 09, 2012


Election 2012: The Core Four States



**************************

Nevada : Sharon Angle lost ninety percent of the Latino vote - California : Meg Whitman's short-lived political career ran into a brick wall of Latino backlash. The difference this time is that losing Arizona will mean more than just losing a Senate race or a big governship. It'll mean the Presidency

.

"Every day the Republican presidential candidates compete with one another to appease the GOP's extreme right wing.." - "It may well cost the GOP this year's key swing state Arizona and, with it, the White House".

My Comment and Theory : People should always aspire to Big Things and Big Endeavors. Barack Obama didn't reach the American Presidency by being humble and having tiny aspirations.

Turning Arizona into a Blue State ( that is AZ for the Democratic Party ) is difficult but possible and doable. If grass-roots activists wake up early and knock on every door they will make it.

It is a matter of Enthusiasm in the Democrat Activists' Hearts in a year in which the Republican Party lacks enthusiasm as we see in the Republican Primaries that show incredible low turnout ( compared to year 2008 ) and very few of those voters in these primaries identify themselves as strong Republicans. ( So there are many Independents or Democrats in these Republican events that want to influence outcomes but are not strongly persuaded by the Republican Ideology, Propaganda Slogans and Repeated Memes, Litanies or Mantras ).

Huffington Post
Losing Arizona
By Maria Teresa Kumar
Founder of "Voto Latino"
March 1, 2012


Losing Arizona


*********************************

Mitt Romney is a "New-Deal Republican". He was a consistent supporter of Obamacare until this election campaign, once in the White House Mitt Romney would not repeal this bill but tweak it in modest ways and retain the individual mandate

.

And in any case, President Obama will also tweak his Health Care Law in the same ways as Romney will have to do. Same result with two different presidents and two different ruling parties.

In 2002, while campaigning in Massachusetts, Romney said, “My views are progressive.” - Mitt Romney, greatest chameleon in the political scene, master of flip-flopping and Topmost Opportunist will never repeal ObamaCare, and can not try to do it without falling in a Great Ridicule, because he has always praised and felt pride in his RomneyCare for Massachusetts, which is 100% identical and equal to ObamaCare in the essentials and in the "Individual Mandate", the obligation to buy Health Insurance, under penalties of not doing so.

Some people think that Romney would govern from the right because pressure in the republican primaries to campaign to the right would force him to keep his promises to govern from the right. That is absurd, because once Romney is President in the White House, he would have no pressure, and he can procrastinate when he sees a lot of opposition to killing ObamaCare. That opposition will naturally flow from those that are receiving tangible benefits from the Health Care Overhaul of President Obama and the Democratic Party.

Yes, I repeat this very important and extremely outstanding feature of the new legislation : it helps many people in their personal lives.

And the History of Romney as an Opportunist and Flip-Flopper ensures that he will conform to the easiest path to govern without too much trouble.

Most probably Obama will win in November 2012, but if I am wrong, then Mitt Romney will be a Liberal Republican, a "Massachusetts Governor" in the White House with similar behavior as in his Governorship, some people even talk of an "FDR Republican".

But let's be realistic : the obstacle of RomneyCare seems insurmountable for Mitt Romney to reach the White House, because repealing ObamaCare seems to be number one objective of the Republican Party.

Vicente Duque

*********************

"I Will Be a Second Mohammed" - "Neither Paul, John, Peter, nor Jesus ever did it. I boast that no man ever did such a work as I". Megalomania, Violence, Brutality of "Prophet" Joseph Smith - Threats against other people.

.
The Total Craziness, Fantasy and Absurd of Mormon Theology of "Prophet" Joseph Smith as told in his own statements, with councils of Gods and many expressions of Violence and Threats against other People in America.

I quote some excerpts from this website and Forum, written by a Former Mormon :


FreeRepublic.com
Who is Mitt Romney? [Ex-Lds author reveals why Mitt's wishy-washy culture waffles & flip-flops]
By Stephen Stone
March 8, 2012


Who is Mitt Romney? [Ex-Lds author reveals why Mitt's wishy-washy culture waffles & flip-flops]


Some excerpts :

**************

Then we all "evolved" into "spirit babies" when we were supposedly born to a Mormon goddess (or more than one) near Kolob. We're not sure where exactly the Mormon "god" evolved in a similar manner -- but he also then was sent to a planet to become a man.

At some point, the "god" of the man who wants to represent the United States before the entire world god got his "resume'" accepted by the "council of gods" -- and they appointed him god of planet earth. And his spiritual evolution supposedly invites one where Mitt can also become a god and rule his own world, receiving worship and prayer from his to-be-born spirit kids.

*************

“I Will Be a Second Mohammed”

In the heat of the Missouri “Mormon War” of 1838, Joseph Smith made the following claim, “I will be to this generation a second Mohammed, whose motto in treating for peace was ‘the Alcoran [Koran] or the Sword.’ So shall it eventually be with us—‘Joseph Smith or the Sword!’ ”[1]

It is most interesting that a self-proclaimed Christian prophet would liken himself to Mohammed, the founder of Islam. His own comparison invites us to take a closer look as well. And when we do, we find some striking—and troubling—parallels. Consider the following.

    Mohammed and Joseph Smith both had humble beginnings. Neither had formal religious connections or upbringing, and both were relatively uneducated. Both founded new religions by creating their own scriptures. In fact, followers of both prophets claim these scriptures are miracles since their authors were the most simple and uneducated of men.[2]

    Both prophets claim of having angel visitations, and of receiving divine revelation to restore pure religion to the earth again. Mohammed was told that both Jews and Christians had long since corrupted their scriptures and religion. In like manner, Joseph Smith was told that all of Christianity had become corrupt, and that consequently the Bible itself was no longer reliable. In both cases, this corruption required a complete restoration of both scripture and religion. Nothing which preceded either prophet could be relied upon any longer. Both prophets claim they were used of God to restore eternal truths which once existed on earth, but had been lost due to human corruption.

    Both prophets created new scripture which borrowed heavily from the Bible, but with a substantially new “spin.” In his Koran, Mohammed appropriates a number of Biblical themes and characters—but he changes the complete sense of many passages, claiming to “correct” the Bible. In so doing he changes many doctrines, introducing his own in their place. In like manner, Joseph Smith created the Book of Mormon, much of which is plagiarized directly from the King James Bible. Interestingly, the Book of Mormon claims that this same Bible has been substantially corrupted and is therefore unreliable. In addition, Joseph Smith went so far as to actually create his own version of the Bible itself, the “Inspired Version,” in which he both adds and deletes significant portions of text, claiming he is “correcting” it. In so doing he also changes many doctrines, introducing his own in their place.

    As a part of their new scriptural “spin,” both prophets saw themselves as prophesied in scripture, and both saw themselves as a continuation of a long line of Biblical prophets. Mohammed saw himself as a continuation of the ministry of Moses and Jesus. Joseph Smith saw himself as a successor to Enoch, Melchizedek, Joseph and Moses. Joseph Smith actually wrote himself into his own version of the Bible—by name.

    Both prophets held up their own scripture as superior to the Bible. Mohammed claimed that the Koran was a perfect copy of the original which was in heaven. The Koran is therefore held to be absolutely perfect, far superior to the Bible and superceding it. In like manner, Joseph Smith also made the following claim. “I told the Brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding its precepts, than by any other book.”[3]

    Despite their claim that the Bible was corrupt, both prophets admonished their followers to adhere to its teachings. An obvious contradiction, this led to selective acceptance of some portions and wholesale rejection of others. As a result, the Bible is accepted by both groups of followers only to the extent that it agrees with their prophet’s own superior revelation.

    Both Mohammed and Joseph Smith taught that true salvation was to be found only in their respective religions. Those who would not accept their message were considered “infidels,” pagans or Gentiles. In so doing, both prophets became the enemy of genuine Christianity, and have led many people away from the Christ of the Bible.

    Both prophets encountered fierce opposition to their new religions and had to flee from town to town because of threats on their lives. Both retaliated to this opposition by forming their own militias. Both ultimately set up their own towns as model societies.

    Both Mohammed and Joseph Smith left unclear instructions about their successors. The majority of Mohammed’s followers, Sunni Muslims, believe they were to elect their new leader, whereas the minority, Shiite Muslims, look to Ali- ibn Abi- T.a-lib, whom they consider Divinely appointed, as the rightful successor to Muhammad, and the first imam. (Ali was the cousin and son-in-law of the Islamic prophet Muhammad). Similarly, the majority of Joseph Smith's followers, Mormons, believed their next prophet should have been the existing leader of their quorum of twelve apostles, whereas the minority, RLDS, believed Joseph Smith's own son should have been their next prophet. Differences on this issue, and many others, have created substantial tension between these rival groups of each prophet.

    Mohammed taught that Jesus was just another of a long line of human prophets, of which he was the last. He taught that he was superior to Christ and superceded Him. In comparison, Joseph Smith also made the following claim.

“I have more to boast of than ever any man had. I am the only man that has ever been able to keep a whole church together since the days of Adam. A large majority of the whole have stood by me. Neither Paul, John, Peter, nor Jesus ever did it. I boast that no man ever did such a work as I. The followers of Jesus ran away from Him, but the Latter-day Saints never ran away from me yet.”[4] In light of these parallels, perhaps Joseph Smith's claim to be a second Mohammed unwittingly became his most genuine prophecy of all.

[1] Joseph Smith made this statement at the conclusion of a speech in the public square at Far West, Missouri on October 14, 1838. This particular quote is documented in Fawn M. Brodie, No Man Knows My History, second edition, (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1971), p. 230–231. Fawn Brodie’s footnote regarding this speech contains valuable information, and follows. “Except where noted, all the details of this chapter [16] are taken from the History of the [Mormon] Church. This speech, however, was not recorded there, and the report given here is based upon the accounts of seven men. See the affidavits of T.B. Marsh, Orson Hyde, George M. Hinkle, John Corrill, W.W. Phelps, Samson Avard, and Reed Peck in Correspondence, Orders, etc., pp. 57–9, 97–129. The Marsh and Hyde account, which was made on October 24, is particularly important. Part of it was reproduced in History of the [Mormon] Church, Vol. III, p. 167. See also the Peck manuscript, p. 80. Joseph himself barely mentioned the speech in his history; see Vol. III, p. 162.”

[2] John Ankerberg & John Weldon, The Facts on Islam, (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 1998), pp.8–9. Eric Johnson, Joseph Smith & Muhammed, (El Cajon, CA: Mormonism Research Ministry, 1998), pp. 6–7.

[3] Documentary History of the [Mormon] Church, vol.4, pp.461.

[4] Documentary History of the [Mormon] Church, vol.6, pp.408–409.

48 posted on Thursday, March 08 2012 17:00:15 by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going)

[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Elsie

If the people will let us alone we will preach the gospel in peace. But if they come on to molest us, we will establish our religion by the sword. We will trample down our enemies and make it one gore of blood from the Rocky Mountains to the Atlantic Ocean. I will be to this generation a second Mohammed, whose motto in treating for peace was "the Alcoran [Koran] or the Sword." So shall it eventually be with us -- "Joseph Smith or the Sword!"

49 posted on March 8 2012 17:50:12 by AnTiw1 ("Where Liberty is, there is my Country." B. Franklin)

Morgan Housel ( Motley Fool ) and Standard & Poor's report : NO recession or depression caused by $4 Per Gallon of Gasoline. - Natural Gas Price has fallen 40% - Exceptional mild winter in the northeastern U.S. - Economy picking up

.

I am a strong fan and follower of "The Motley Fool" for analysis and forecasts of the Economy, Finance, etc ...

Daily Finance
Can We Handle $4 Gas?
By Morgan Housel, The Motley Fool
March 07, 2012


Can We Handle $4 Gas?


Some excerpts :

How? For one, there's little sign that rising gasoline prices are causing consumers to retrench in a meaningful way -- yet, at least. Despite higher gas prices, "consumer spending on clothing and accessories was up 5.3% versus a year ago, spending increased 4.3% at sporting goods, hobby, book, and music retailers, and the food and drinking establishment business increased by 8.2% year over year," S&P wrote.

There are a few reasons for this. Nominal incomes are rising, up about 3% in the last year. That doesn't make people richer -- inflation ate away most of the gain -- but it does offset part of the rise in gas prices. People are also driving less and doing it in more fuel-efficient vehicles. And after defaulting or refinancing on painfully high mortgages, households have much more flexibility now than they did a few years ago. In 2007, debt payments made up 14% of an average household's disposable income. Today, it's 11%. That makes a huge difference.

But it was this line in S&P's report that caught my attention: "While consumers are definitely paying more at the pump, many consumers are benefiting from the lowest winter heating bills in years due to the combination of natural gas prices and the exceptionally mild winter in the northeastern U.S."

Surging gas prices could wallop consumers if you assume all else is equal. But it's not. Recent headlines that read "Home Heating Costs Fall to Lowest Point Since 2001" draw less attention than those detailing higher gasoline prices, but they're just as important to households' finances.

Natural gas -- which heats about half of U.S. homes -- has fallen 40% in the last year, with prices now near a decade low. The Energy Information Administration estimates that the average home that heats with natural gas will spend $204 less this year than they have during the average of the last five years. For a household using 60 gallons of gasoline per month, that savings offsets the entire recent spike at the pump.

....

HuffPost : Alabama's unleashed widespread bigotry : Latinos buying groceries have been asked by check-out clerks for their papers, and children who do show up at school are asked why they haven't yet gone back to Mexico

.

"Arizona's losses have totaled $141 million in conference cancellations alone and $253 million in overall economic output. In 2011, Georgia suffered a $300 million estimated loss in harvested crop statewide, with a $1 billion total estimated impact on Georgia's economy. The fallout continues. Just yesterday, the American Educational Research Association, one of the largest educational organizations in the country, announced its decision to move its 2013 annual conference out of Georgia and to a state where all its members would feel welcome"

Huffington Post

Why States Are Already Shifting Away From Alabama and Arizona's Failed Anti-Immigrant Experiment

By Jon Blazer,

Jon Blazer is Advocacy and Policy Counsel, ACLU ( American Civic Liberties Union )
February 29, 2012


Why States Are Already Shifting Away From Alabama and Arizona's Failed Anti-Immigrant Experiment


*********************************

Warren Buffett wrote in his last letter to Berkshire Hathaway shareholders: "I believe pundits will be surprised at how far unemployment drops once that happens. They will then reawake to what has been true since 1776: America's best days lie ahead"

.
I am a constant follower of Morgan Housel ( The Motley Fool ), he is very studious about debt, finance, banks, leverage - Morgan Housel quotes Warren Buffet's optimism about a recovery :


Quoting Buffet About Housing :

This hugely important sector of the economy, which includes not only construction but everything that feeds off of it, remains in a depression of its own. I believe this is the major reason a recovery in employment has so severely lagged the steady and substantial comeback we have seen in almost all other sectors of our economy.


Fortunately, demographics and our market system will restore the needed balance [between supply and demand] -- probably before long. When that day comes, we will again build one million or more residential units annually. I believe pundits will be surprised at how far unemployment drops once that happens. They will then reawake to what has been true since 1776: America's best days lie ahead.

Daily Finance
All Fingers Point to Housing
By Morgan Housel ( The Motley Fool )
March 5, 2012


All Fingers Point to Housing


***********************

The USA is under a Big "Baby Shower" of Latino Babies being born inside the Continental USA, for good or bad and that is very difficult to stop. Some statisticians even say that soon half the babies born in the USA ( all American Citizens ) will be or are somewhat Latino

.

This problem of Poverty and Development in Latin America, and migrations towards the USA has a lot to do with Women's capabilities of Reproduction.

So let me say something about Women, Reproduction, Births and New Born Children :

I can only support all Women in their Freedom from Constraints and Exploiters. And condemning the Right Wingers for the "Slut" temper tantrums.

Every child should be always loved, even 9 months before birth during that biological process called conception and during the whole pregnancy and birth.

A child is not guilty of being born before any court or any tribunal of justice.

A child did not ask to be begotten. It is very sad when a child appears in the middle of a dysfunctional family.

I know a lot about it, because I have been very close to Sociologists, Psychologists and People that work with the extreme dysfunctionals : Child Abuse, Child Neglect, Family Violence and Abusive Guys, Delinquents, Criminals, Single Mothers, Irresponsible Father that does not pay child support : food, medical attention and medicines, clothing, etc ... for the newborn.

Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly shoot themselves in their feet, because it is more expensive for Society and Government to have a lot of unwanted Children.

And I also know that those Children that receive a lot of love usually become a Great Economic Asset and Fortune for a nation, no matter their color, or ethnic origin. They contribute to prosperity.

Vicente Duque

VIDEOS : "True Origins of Mormonism Series" - Techniques of deception used by false "Prophet" Joseph Smith - Greatest Plagiarian that the World has seen, using several books well known in his time written by mystics, occultists, spiritists, kaballism

.

Does Mitt Romney really believe in all this plagiarized invention ??

Joseph Smith used extensively a book "View of the Hebrews" published in 1823 and a second edition was published in 1825. Written by a pastor of a congregation near Joseph Smith by the name of Ethan Smith. Ethan was Joseph's pastor for five years. The book of Mormon was published in 1830.

Joseph Smith copies dozens if not hundreds of ideas, words, phrases, etc.... from "View of the Hebrews". Startling similarities, including the precolumbian preaching of the Gospel in the New World.

Joseph Smith also copies from other books and special weird bibles. He also deforms geographical names of Canada and the USA to create his Fantasy Geography.

He used existing books of people that talked with angels like Emanuel Swedenborg, he copied rituals from freemasonry, etc...

Joseph Smith used Kaballistic beliefs ( Jewish Mysticism of an Esoteric nature ) and books, well known and published in his age with ideas of preexistence, gnostic ideas of the past, etc ...

Some ideas of Mormonism like Preexistence, Divinity of Man ( Man can become like God ), Gnostic idea that "God had two sons, the elder Satanael ( Satan ) and the younger Jesus ).

In April 1844, Joseph Smith stood in front of 10,000 people and taught these ideas in the "The King Follet Discourse". In that sermon he quotes almost word for word from the "Zohar", a must have manual for any serious Kaballist.

***********

Mormonism rather than being Christocentric is church-egocentric. It is twistology of theology, sedition of addition, and infusion of confusion, very radically unlike the purity, simplicity and power of devotion to Christ so gloriously lived and ministered by the church of the first century.

Many Mormons remain in the LDS church due to their unwillingness to conjure the courage to research their church's history outside sanitized, revisionist sources that are the work of deliberate deception.

Paul Richards, who left BYU in 1992 as BYU spokesman... 'I worked in public affairs for the church for 13 years, and I had to lie all the time...'(The Arizona Republic Oct. 10, 1993, quoted in Issue 85 (Nov. 1993) of the Salt Lake Messenger)

Ken Clark, a former LDS CES Institute Director for 27 years, illustrates how the Mormon Church utilizes deceptions and outright lies to maintain control over members and potential converts to Mormonism.

Watch the 10 part series "Lying for the Lord" at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GRzHUMyukCM

**********************************

VIDEOS :

The True Origins of Mormonism Part 1 (The Book of Mormon)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16N29YBg1mI

********************************

The True Origins of Mormonism Part 2 (The Masonic Influence)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsace8ec8RI

********************************

The True Origins of Mormonism Part 3 (The Occult Connection)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QV7Gq0V69lU

******************

The True Origins of Mormonism Part 4 (The Book of Abraham)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtis6AD04Rc

******************

Possibility of Obama's Reelection : A USA Today/Gallup Poll tells us that Republicans rank immigration very low as an issue of importance for deciding their 2012 presidential vote. Immigration is low on the list of priorities of voters

.

The media loves controversial human interest stories, so we think that Immigration will be very decisive on election day. But we are wrong. People will vote mainly on Economic Matters and other subjects.

I have many reasons to believe that Obama can be reelected : Bets, Polls, Demography of Minorities, Women, Young People, Educational Levels, Suburbanity, Metro Areas, etc ... Here is another reason : 

It is very easy to herd people to vote on the midterms using Immigration as an emotional issue and preaching against Immigrants. But using anti-Immigrant sentiment on the Presidential Election may get you more enemies than friends inside the voting booth.

Mitt Romney may be wasting his time, paling with such guys as Sheriff Joe Arpaio, Governor Jan Brewer, and Kris Kobach ( the author of several anti-immigrant state laws ).

I wrote this by inspiration after reading this Internet Page :




Two Weeks Notice
A Latin American Politics Blog
The American people and immigration
March 1, 2012


By Greg Weeks
Associate Professor of Political Science and Director of Latin American Studies at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. Editor of the academic journal "The Latin Americanist"




The American people and immigration


***********************