Religion influences politics more now than it did 50 years ago. To help explain how we moved seemingly backward from global secularism to increased religious involvement in public policy, Professor of International Politics Monica Duffy Toft explains the threefold story of failed modernization, democratization, and globalization, and how they propelled religious figures and ideas into the political arena once again.
USA Politics.
-
Joel
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 7043
Why Religion Influences Politics More Now Than 50 Years Ago
-
Joel
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 7043
Roy Moore Cast The Sole Vote In Favor Of A Man Who Raped A Four-Year-Old
Roy Moore Cast The Sole Vote In Favor Of A Man Who Raped A Four-Year-Old
Embattled Alabama Senate Republican candidate Roy Moore once cast the lone vote in favor of a man accused of raping a four-year-old boy.
In 2015, Roy Moore was performing his second stint as a justice sitting on the Alabama Supreme Court–Moore was previously removed from office for ignoring a federal court order mandating the removal of a Ten Commandments monument from the state judicial building.
The Alabama Supreme Court had the opportunity to hear the case of one Eric Lemont Higdon, a man accused and convicted of two sodomy charges due to sexual assault against a four-year-old at Mama’s Place Christian Academy in Clay, Alabama.
One of those convictions was first-degree sodomy of a child less than 12 years old. The other conviction was first-degree sodomy by forcible compulsion. Essentially, the first conviction was for statutory rape; the second for forcible rape.
Higdon’s conviction on the forcible rape charge was eventually overturned on appeal. The state, by way of prosecutor Luther Strange, appealed that decision and the Alabama Supreme Court took the case up for review.
Eight of the nine justices on the panel found that the appeals court had erred. Their legal logic was such that a 17-year-old’s sexual assault of a four-year-old was enough to produce in the mind of the four-year-old, an “implied threat of serious physical injury.” The decision was reversed and remanded and Higdon’s conviction was reinstated.
Roy Moore dissented from that opinion. He wrote:
Because there was no evidence in this case of an implied threat of serious physical injury…or of an implied threat of death, Higdon cannot be convicted of sodomy in the first degree “by forcible compulsion.”
-
Joel
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 7043
Millennials would rather live in socialist or communist nation than under capitalism: Poll
Millennials would rather live in socialist or communist nation than under capitalism: Poll
The majority of millennials would prefer to live in a socialist, communist or fascist nation rather than a capitalistic one, according to a new poll.
In the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation’s “Annual Report on U.S. Attitudes Toward Socialism,” 58 percent of the up-and-coming generation opted for one of the three systems, compared to 42 percent who said they were in favor of capitalism.
The most popular socioeconomic order was socialism, with 44 percent support. Communism and fascism received 7 percent support each.
Marion Smith, executive director of the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation, said the report shows millennials are “increasingly turning away from capitalism and toward socialism and even communism as a viable alternative.”
“This troubling turn highlights widespread historical illiteracy in American society regarding socialism and the systemic failure of our education system to teach students about the genocide, destruction, and misery caused by communism since the Bolshevik Revolution one hundred years ago,” Mr. Smith said in a statement.
Millennials are more likely to prefer socialism and communism than the rest of the country. Fifty-nine percent of all respondents chose capitalism as their preferred arrangement, compared to 34 percent who said socialism, 4 percent fascism and 3 percent communism.
Some of communism’s luminaries are admired by millennials. Thirty-one percent said they have a favorable view of Che Guevara, 32 percent Karl Marx, 23 percent Vladimir Lenin and 19 percent Mao Zedong. Joseph Stalin is viewed favorably by just 6 percent.
In the poll, only 33 percent of millennials were able to identify the correct definition of socialism. They fared about as well as the rest of the country, which only successfully identified socialism at a 34 percent clip. Gen Z, the generation after millennials, ―was the most informed group, with 43 percent correctly identifying socialism.
Where millennials struggled compared to other generations was in the identification of capitalism. Just 51 percent correctly said capitalism is the “economic system based on free markets and the rule of law with legal protections for private ownership.” That was by far the lowest of any age cohort. Americans as a whole correctly identified capitalism 67 percent of the time.
Millennials are also less likely to have a negative view of communism. Just 36 percent said they had a “very unfavorable” impression of the system, and only 44 percent said they would be insulted if described as a communist.
As a whole, 56 percent of Americans view communism very unfavorably, and 63 percent would be insulted to be associated with the ideology.
One possible explanation for the millennial infatuation with socialism is that 53 percent of the cohort reports feeling burdened by the economy.
Millennials were the only age group more likely to say America’s economic system “works against me” rather than “works for me.” Gen Z had the most positive impression of the economy, with 66 percent saying it “works for me,” although many of them have yet to enter the workforce.
The Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation survey was conducted online from Sept. 28 to Oct. 5 by YouGov. It polled 2,300 members of the general public age 16 and above.
-
Joel
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 7043
Half of Americans Favor Mandatory National Service
Half of Americans Favor Mandatory National Service
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Almost half (49%) of Americans favor requiring young men and women to give a year of service to the nation. But a majority (57%) of the group most likely to be affected -- those under the age of 30 -- oppose the idea.
The idea of mandatory national service has been floated numerous times by think tanks and opinion writers over the past decade and a half, but it has never become a major issue in national politics. U.S. Rep. Charles Rangel unsuccessfully pushed a version of the idea in every legislative session from 2003 to 2015; at one point, it even reached the House floor, where it was defeated by a vote of 402-2.
Though the idea has never garnered much attention as a national policy proposal, there is support for the concept among segments of the public. A majority of Republicans, including independents who lean Republican, favor it (57%), as do men (57%) and those 65 or older (66%).
Americans Supported Mandatory Service in Earlier Times
Many of those being honored in this year's Veterans Day celebrations joined the military as a result of being drafted -- a form of mandatory national service for young men that has been invoked several times in the nation's history. The use of a draft became highly controversial during the Vietnam War in the late 1960s and early 1970s; the United States ended the draft and transitioned to an all-volunteer military force in 1973.
A majority of Americans (54%) in 1977 favored sticking to a volunteer force, but two 1980 surveys showed a majority wanting to return to a military draft. Eventually, most Americans endorsed the all-volunteer concept, with five polls conducted between 1998 and 2007 showing majorities from 69% to 85% rejecting a return to the draft.
Meanwhile, as the nation shifted away from the concept of required military service for young men, Gallup in 1981 asked Americans about requiring a year of mandatory national service "either in the military forces or in nonmilitary work" for young men and, in a separate question, young women.
Majorities in 1981 favored the idea for both sexes, with more widespread support for requiring service from men (71%) than requiring it from women (54%). This contrasts with today's 49% support for mandatory service for all men and women, asked as a single question.
In terms of the demographic patterns, as is the case now, in 1981 those under the age of 30 were less likely to support the idea -- 60% for men and 48% for women. Unlike now, however, there was no significant gap on the issue between men and women or between Republicans and Democrats.
Implications
The idea that young adults should be required to serve the nation for a period of time has percolated on the national stage for many years. While Americans today are not overwhelmingly in favor of it, neither are they overwhelmingly opposed. Even among young adults -- the group most likely to be required to serve -- almost four in 10 say they favor it.
Until the proposal rises to the level of a major political issue, however, it is unclear just how firm the public's views are, or how much arguments for and against national service will be able to sway Americans' opinions.
-
Elizabeth
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 11796
- Location: East Coast Australia
Re: USA Politics.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_cont ... -8k7YKl8hE
https://conservativetribune.com/latino- ... tyalliance
"A Latino student who was criticized by his liberal creative writing teacher for supporting President Donald Trump posted a 10-minute video of him absolutely schooling the teacher in a debate about police brutality, white supremacy and terrorism. This video has to be seen to be believed.
According to TheBlaze, the 12th-grade student — who wishes to remain anonymous — attends a high school in the Hudson Valley area of New York. He was challenged on his views by his teacher, and the resulting video should tell you all you need to know about bias in America’s public schools."
https://conservativetribune.com/latino- ... tyalliance
"A Latino student who was criticized by his liberal creative writing teacher for supporting President Donald Trump posted a 10-minute video of him absolutely schooling the teacher in a debate about police brutality, white supremacy and terrorism. This video has to be seen to be believed.
According to TheBlaze, the 12th-grade student — who wishes to remain anonymous — attends a high school in the Hudson Valley area of New York. He was challenged on his views by his teacher, and the resulting video should tell you all you need to know about bias in America’s public schools."
-
Joel
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 7043
-
Joel
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 7043
-
Elizabeth
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 11796
- Location: East Coast Australia
Re: USA Politics.
https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/i ... on-surgery
"An active duty U.S. military service member underwent “gender transition” surgery November 14, a procedure that was approved and paid for by the Pentagon, the Defense Department has announced.
The Pentagon said the individual getting the surgery is an infantry soldier who identifies as a woman, and who received his Combat Infantry Badge in Afghanistan in 2003.
Defense Department spokeswoman Dana White told reporters that the surgery was performed in a private hospital in Pennsylvania and was paid for through the soldier's militarys health coverage. She explained that the procedure was done on the advice of doctors who deemed it medically necessary.
“Military hospitals do not have the surgical expertise to perform this type of surgery, therefore it was conducted in a private hospital,” said White, adding that since the soldier “had already begun a sex-reassignment course of treatment, and the treating doctor deemed this surgery medically necessary, a waiver was approved by the director of the Defense Health Agency.”
In July President Trump overturned President Obama's decision to allow transgender individuals full access to military service, announcing that “the United States government will not accept or allow transgender individuals to serve in any capacity in the U.S. military. Our military must be focused on decisive and overwhelming victory and cannot be burdened with the tremendous medical costs and disruption that transgender in the military would entail.”
In October a federal court put a hold on that ban as lawsuits filed by transgender service members make their way through the courts. However, the ban on federal funding of “gender reassignment” surgeries was left in place, with the caveat that service members who had already begun the “transition” process would be exempted. This exemption allowed the present soldier to have his “gender reassignment” surgery paid for by the government."
"An active duty U.S. military service member underwent “gender transition” surgery November 14, a procedure that was approved and paid for by the Pentagon, the Defense Department has announced.
The Pentagon said the individual getting the surgery is an infantry soldier who identifies as a woman, and who received his Combat Infantry Badge in Afghanistan in 2003.
Defense Department spokeswoman Dana White told reporters that the surgery was performed in a private hospital in Pennsylvania and was paid for through the soldier's militarys health coverage. She explained that the procedure was done on the advice of doctors who deemed it medically necessary.
“Military hospitals do not have the surgical expertise to perform this type of surgery, therefore it was conducted in a private hospital,” said White, adding that since the soldier “had already begun a sex-reassignment course of treatment, and the treating doctor deemed this surgery medically necessary, a waiver was approved by the director of the Defense Health Agency.”
In July President Trump overturned President Obama's decision to allow transgender individuals full access to military service, announcing that “the United States government will not accept or allow transgender individuals to serve in any capacity in the U.S. military. Our military must be focused on decisive and overwhelming victory and cannot be burdened with the tremendous medical costs and disruption that transgender in the military would entail.”
In October a federal court put a hold on that ban as lawsuits filed by transgender service members make their way through the courts. However, the ban on federal funding of “gender reassignment” surgeries was left in place, with the caveat that service members who had already begun the “transition” process would be exempted. This exemption allowed the present soldier to have his “gender reassignment” surgery paid for by the government."
-
Joel
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 7043
-
Joel
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 7043
Pro-Roy Moore Minister: He Went After Teens Because Older Women Were All Married
Pro-Roy Moore Minister: He Went After Teens Because Older Women Were All Married
https://soundcloud.com/rightwingwatch/r ... nage-girls“Judge Roy Moore graduated from West Point and then went on into the service, served in Vietnam and then came back and was in law school,” Benham said. “All of the ladies, or many of the ladies that he possibly could have married, were not available then, they were already married, maybe, somewhere.”
-
Joel
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 7043
-
Elizabeth
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 11796
- Location: East Coast Australia
Re: USA Politics.
"Tammy Baldwin and other extreme liberals in the Senate don’t want you to have lower taxes.
Sure, she might talk about how she supports tax reform, or make flowery speeches about how she wants to cut taxes. But when it comes time to deliver for Americans, she votes in lock-step with the likes of liberal extremists Chuck Schumer and Elizabeth Warren.
This is exactly the kind of attitude that Americans voted against in 2016. We are sick and tired of these career politicians in Washington on both sides of the aisle who talk about doing something, yet vote the complete opposite when it comes time to fulfil their promises.
Tammy Baldwin is all talk, but no action.
That’s why it is so crucial we conservatives unite together and get Tammy Baldwin out of Washington. Someone who can so easily lie directly to the American people for years has no place in the Senate!
Help me stop Tax-Hiking Tammy today.
I’m Kevin Nicholson, a United States Marine Corps veteran, a businessman, and a conservative from Wisconsin. And I’m running for the United States Senate to toss out Tammy Baldwin.
I’m a political outsider who believes in service to my country. I don’t align with special interest groups. I want to impact change in Washington, so that Wisconsin and America are better off than politicians like Tammy Baldwin and her liberal friends have left us.
Tammy Baldwin is the definition of what is wrong with the political culture in Washington.
She is bankrolled by special interest groups like MoveOn.org and EMILY’s List --- two huge contributors to her campaign that lobby for values that are the complete opposite of conservatives.
She votes 96% of the time with her fellow far-left senator Elizabeth Warren, showing she cares more about keeping the party-line than doing what is best for America.*
And now, she wants to join with socialist Bernie Sanders and force a government-run single-payer healthcare system on all of us. No one knows how this would be done or how it would be paid for, aside from making your taxes skyrocket.
Yet despite all of this, she will still come home here in Wisconsin, and claim that she is working for us --- that she has only our best interests in mind.
It’s clear, however, that someone who votes so consistently with Elizabeth Warren only has the best interests of left-wing special interest groups at heart. We need to put a stop to Tax-Hiking Tammy!
When I get to the Senate, I’m going to help drain the swamp in Washington, not revel in it like Tammy Baldwin.
I promise that I will:
• Fight for tax reform and giving Americans some much needed tax relief.
• Vote against any and all attempts to force a single-payer government-run healthcare system on America.
• Work to repeal Obamacare and replace it with something better.
And most importantly, I’ll never let any special interest group control the way I vote.
Because at the end of the day, the most important job of a Senator is to represent you, not special interests.
So please join with me, and help send Tammy Baldwin packing. America has said time and time again that we are tired of career politicians. Now, we have a real chance to keep draining the swamp in Washington.
Semper Fi,
Kevin Nicholson
P.S. Tammy Baldwin is a creature of the swamp in Washington. She constantly votes the Democratic party line, while claiming to have our interests and values at heart. You can be a part of the movement to put a stop to this.”
[email protected]
Sure, she might talk about how she supports tax reform, or make flowery speeches about how she wants to cut taxes. But when it comes time to deliver for Americans, she votes in lock-step with the likes of liberal extremists Chuck Schumer and Elizabeth Warren.
This is exactly the kind of attitude that Americans voted against in 2016. We are sick and tired of these career politicians in Washington on both sides of the aisle who talk about doing something, yet vote the complete opposite when it comes time to fulfil their promises.
Tammy Baldwin is all talk, but no action.
That’s why it is so crucial we conservatives unite together and get Tammy Baldwin out of Washington. Someone who can so easily lie directly to the American people for years has no place in the Senate!
Help me stop Tax-Hiking Tammy today.
I’m Kevin Nicholson, a United States Marine Corps veteran, a businessman, and a conservative from Wisconsin. And I’m running for the United States Senate to toss out Tammy Baldwin.
I’m a political outsider who believes in service to my country. I don’t align with special interest groups. I want to impact change in Washington, so that Wisconsin and America are better off than politicians like Tammy Baldwin and her liberal friends have left us.
Tammy Baldwin is the definition of what is wrong with the political culture in Washington.
She is bankrolled by special interest groups like MoveOn.org and EMILY’s List --- two huge contributors to her campaign that lobby for values that are the complete opposite of conservatives.
She votes 96% of the time with her fellow far-left senator Elizabeth Warren, showing she cares more about keeping the party-line than doing what is best for America.*
And now, she wants to join with socialist Bernie Sanders and force a government-run single-payer healthcare system on all of us. No one knows how this would be done or how it would be paid for, aside from making your taxes skyrocket.
Yet despite all of this, she will still come home here in Wisconsin, and claim that she is working for us --- that she has only our best interests in mind.
It’s clear, however, that someone who votes so consistently with Elizabeth Warren only has the best interests of left-wing special interest groups at heart. We need to put a stop to Tax-Hiking Tammy!
When I get to the Senate, I’m going to help drain the swamp in Washington, not revel in it like Tammy Baldwin.
I promise that I will:
• Fight for tax reform and giving Americans some much needed tax relief.
• Vote against any and all attempts to force a single-payer government-run healthcare system on America.
• Work to repeal Obamacare and replace it with something better.
And most importantly, I’ll never let any special interest group control the way I vote.
Because at the end of the day, the most important job of a Senator is to represent you, not special interests.
So please join with me, and help send Tammy Baldwin packing. America has said time and time again that we are tired of career politicians. Now, we have a real chance to keep draining the swamp in Washington.
Semper Fi,
Kevin Nicholson
P.S. Tammy Baldwin is a creature of the swamp in Washington. She constantly votes the Democratic party line, while claiming to have our interests and values at heart. You can be a part of the movement to put a stop to this.”
[email protected]
-
Joel
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 7043
-
Joel
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 7043
Alex Jones And Laura Loomer Release ‘Revenge Porn’ Video Of Conservative Lawmaker, Could Face Jail Time
Alex Jones And Laura Loomer Release ‘Revenge Porn’ Video Of Conservative Lawmaker, Could Face Jail Time
Talk radio host Alex Jones published a disgusting video of Freedom Caucus Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) masturbating today on his social media account, having obtained the video from disgraced Twitter personality Laura Loomer.
“People are asking me why I gave exclusive video footage of [Rep. Barton], a Republican, to [Alex Jones]. I’d be a hypocrite to report on Democrats who get caught up in sex scandals and not do the same for Republicans,” Loomer said in a Tweet, congratulating herself for tearing down a conservative Republican. Barton has been divorced since 2015.
Desperate for clicks and relevance, Jones published the revolting video on his conspiracy website, Infowars, as well as several affiliated social media outlets. Soon after, Jones lost his nerve and took the video down. He may have done this as an attempt to shield himself from criminal liability.
According to Texas lawyer Brett Podolsky, revenge porn laws have been on the books in the Lone Star State since 2015. He explains that the law is violated when an individual does the following:
• Distributes or transfers photos of a person in which the subject is nude or engaged in sexual activity
• Distributes such photos without the subject’s consent
• Distributes such images when the subject took them with a reasonable expectation of privacy
• Distributes such photos along with identifying personal information of the subject
If it is determined that Jones or Loomer violated these rules, they could face up to one year in prison and a fine of up to $4,000 for posting this illicit video. Although they claim that releasing this pornography to humiliate a conservative Republican was done for credible journalistic purposes, their long-standing records indicate otherwise.
Loomer has been dogged by allegations of sexual impropriety herself, with Gavin Wax, editor-in-chief of The Liberty Conservative, producing a startling video accusing Loomer of stalking him and providing chat transcripts to verify his story. Independent journalists Cassandra Fairbanks and Lauren Southern were threatened with lawsuits by Loomer for exposing her alleged predatory behavior in Tweets.
Jones, who once opposed Big Brother and claimed to be a privacy advocate, is now releasing sensitive personal information of questionable legality on friendly legislators. Additionally, Jones lost full custody of his children earlier this year and was forced to issue an apology to the globalist yogurt maker, Chobani, after releasing false allegations about the multinational corporation.
It remains to be seen if criminal charges will be pressed against Loomer and Jones for their latest attention-whoring stunt, or if they will remain in business to embarrass the conservative movement even more than they have already.
-
Elizabeth
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 11796
- Location: East Coast Australia
Re: USA Politics.
http://mommyunderground.com/lgbt-activi ... ad-to-say/
LifeSite News reported:
“The Advocate reported that the California state board of education approved “10 LGBT-inclusive history textbooks” for elementary school students in grades K-8 last week.
It also rejected two textbooks on the grounds that they did not include “LGBT history.” The exclusion of LGBT history violates California’s FAIR Education Act.
The FAIR Education Act, once informally called the LGBT History Bill, was written by Senator Mark Leno. FAIR stands for “Fair, Accurate, Inclusive, and Respectful.”
It ensures that the political, economic and social contributions of people with disabilities as well as those people identified as lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender are included in textbooks of California’s state-funded schools.
It also added sexual orientation and religion to a list of characteristics that California schools already could not present in a negative way.”
The notion of including LGBT folks as a “protected class” is outrageous. Deciding to live an unnatural lifestyle should not earn special privileges.
But there’s one thing LGBT activists must learn – history cannot be rewritten. Attempting to change the school curriculum to highlight their continued corruption of family values is nothing innocent children need to read.
It’s actions like this, which encourage more and more parents to homeschool their children.
Children should not be forced to “relearn” the LGBT’s version of history.
Let it be known, the LGBT community is not trying to peacefully allow all to “choose” their lifestyle. They are trying to force it onto all, and even worse, they are targeting children.
LifeSite News continued:
“Rick Zbur, head of Equality California, told the Advocate that this “is the next step for California students to learn about the contributions of LGBT people.”
“Approval of these textbooks means that California schools will now have access to approved materials that accurately represent LGBTQ people …”
Renata Moreira, executive director of the pro-homosexuality Our Family Coalition, told the Advocate that “LGBTQ students, and those with LGBTQ families, will finally be able to see themselves and our history accurately reflected in textbooks in California.”
But as Mommy Underground previously reported, this trend is nothing new. The LGBT community has been working tirelessly to have textbooks rewritten.”
LifeSite News reported:
“The Advocate reported that the California state board of education approved “10 LGBT-inclusive history textbooks” for elementary school students in grades K-8 last week.
It also rejected two textbooks on the grounds that they did not include “LGBT history.” The exclusion of LGBT history violates California’s FAIR Education Act.
The FAIR Education Act, once informally called the LGBT History Bill, was written by Senator Mark Leno. FAIR stands for “Fair, Accurate, Inclusive, and Respectful.”
It ensures that the political, economic and social contributions of people with disabilities as well as those people identified as lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender are included in textbooks of California’s state-funded schools.
It also added sexual orientation and religion to a list of characteristics that California schools already could not present in a negative way.”
The notion of including LGBT folks as a “protected class” is outrageous. Deciding to live an unnatural lifestyle should not earn special privileges.
But there’s one thing LGBT activists must learn – history cannot be rewritten. Attempting to change the school curriculum to highlight their continued corruption of family values is nothing innocent children need to read.
It’s actions like this, which encourage more and more parents to homeschool their children.
Children should not be forced to “relearn” the LGBT’s version of history.
Let it be known, the LGBT community is not trying to peacefully allow all to “choose” their lifestyle. They are trying to force it onto all, and even worse, they are targeting children.
LifeSite News continued:
“Rick Zbur, head of Equality California, told the Advocate that this “is the next step for California students to learn about the contributions of LGBT people.”
“Approval of these textbooks means that California schools will now have access to approved materials that accurately represent LGBTQ people …”
Renata Moreira, executive director of the pro-homosexuality Our Family Coalition, told the Advocate that “LGBTQ students, and those with LGBTQ families, will finally be able to see themselves and our history accurately reflected in textbooks in California.”
But as Mommy Underground previously reported, this trend is nothing new. The LGBT community has been working tirelessly to have textbooks rewritten.”
-
Elizabeth
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 11796
- Location: East Coast Australia
Re: USA Politics.
http://www.gopusa.com/?p=34102?omhide=true
"A recent article by the Wall Street Journal had MSNBC’s Joy Reid declaring rural Americans “the core threat to our democracy” over the weekend.
The host of “AM Joy” followed up her recent claim that the National Rifle Association seeks to create a landscape littered with murderous “warlords” with a new prediction over Thanksgiving: Rural voters will become de facto tyrants by 2040.
“This is the core threat to our democracy,” Ms. Reid tweeted Saturday night in response to a Journal piece titled “The Varied — and Global — Threats Confronting Democracy.”
One element of writer Gerald F. Seib’s piece mentioned that 70 percent of Americans are expected to live in the 15 largest states by 2040. That reality, if it came to fruition, would create a scenario where “the remaining 30 percent of Americans will have 70 senators representing them.”
“The rural minority — the people author @JYSexton just wrote a long thread about — have and will continue to have disproportionate power over the urban majority,” Ms. Reid continued.
She then told readers that “the abolition of the Electoral College” would help stave off the “core threat” posed by rural voters.
The Blaze noted on Monday that Ms. Reid’s fears run counter to those of the Founding Fathers, who feared heavily populated states would wield too much political power without the Electoral College.
“As of the 1790 census, 74 percent of America’s population lived in the seven largest states, which means that America’s population has always been concentrated in larger states, since the time of its founding,” wrote the conservative website’s Sara Gonzales. “Reid is not objecting to a threat to American constitutional democracy. She’s objecting to a central feature of American constitutional democracy — a central feature that has been present since the founding of the country.”
"A recent article by the Wall Street Journal had MSNBC’s Joy Reid declaring rural Americans “the core threat to our democracy” over the weekend.
The host of “AM Joy” followed up her recent claim that the National Rifle Association seeks to create a landscape littered with murderous “warlords” with a new prediction over Thanksgiving: Rural voters will become de facto tyrants by 2040.
“This is the core threat to our democracy,” Ms. Reid tweeted Saturday night in response to a Journal piece titled “The Varied — and Global — Threats Confronting Democracy.”
One element of writer Gerald F. Seib’s piece mentioned that 70 percent of Americans are expected to live in the 15 largest states by 2040. That reality, if it came to fruition, would create a scenario where “the remaining 30 percent of Americans will have 70 senators representing them.”
“The rural minority — the people author @JYSexton just wrote a long thread about — have and will continue to have disproportionate power over the urban majority,” Ms. Reid continued.
She then told readers that “the abolition of the Electoral College” would help stave off the “core threat” posed by rural voters.
The Blaze noted on Monday that Ms. Reid’s fears run counter to those of the Founding Fathers, who feared heavily populated states would wield too much political power without the Electoral College.
“As of the 1790 census, 74 percent of America’s population lived in the seven largest states, which means that America’s population has always been concentrated in larger states, since the time of its founding,” wrote the conservative website’s Sara Gonzales. “Reid is not objecting to a threat to American constitutional democracy. She’s objecting to a central feature of American constitutional democracy — a central feature that has been present since the founding of the country.”
-
Joel
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 7043
Rep. Grijalva reportedly paid off former employee amidst allegations
Rep. Grijalva allegedly used tax payer money to pay off a confidential settlement with a former staffer who threatened to sue him for allegations of a hostile work environment and drunkenness.
-
Elizabeth
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 11796
- Location: East Coast Australia
Re: USA Politics.
"Angel and Carl Larsen are a St. Cloud couple with eight kids, deep Christian faith and a conviction that the First Amendment protects their videography business from having to film same-sex weddings.
Attorney General Lori Swanson is the state’s top lawyer who, alongside the state human rights commissioner, defended Minnesota against the Larsens’ lawsuit this year and won a sweeping ruling, which said the Constitution does not shield businesses from obeying state human rights law.
Both sides will be watching Tuesday, when the U.S. Supreme Court hears arguments in a parallel case brought by a baker against the state of Colorado. Swanson signed a friend-of-the-court brief siding with Colorado and citing the ruling Minnesota won from U.S. District Judge John Tunheim. The Larsens hope that a favorable decision from the nation’s highest court might help them win an appeal of their case.
Both agree that Masterpiece Cakeshop Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission could have broad national implications as religious conservatives, backed by a well-funded legal foundation, invoke the First Amendment to attack state laws that bar discrimination in the marketplace.
“I believe all of us want to be part of a big story — the story,” Carl Larsen says in a web video produced by the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), a national legal advocacy group representing both the Larsens and Masterpiece Cakeshop owner Jack Phillips.
The two cases are so similar that attorneys for Minnesota have asked the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals to halt proceedings on the Larsens’ appeal until the Supreme Court decides the Colorado case, which could come next spring.
‘Creative expression’?
ADF attorneys have described Phillips, the Colorado baker, as a “cake artist” who was protected by the First Amendment when he refused to design a wedding cake for Charlie Craig and David Mullins in 2012. The state’s civil rights commission ruled that he engaged in discrimination based on sexual orientation.
Unlike Phillips, the Larsens filed a “pre-enforcement” suit against Minnesota before they had wedding customers to turn away, in an effort to avoid penalties under the Minnesota Human Rights Act.
But in both cases, ADF attorneys emphasize the “creative expression” of their clients. And despite criticism that it is waging a campaign to erode civil rights, ADF attorneys say they simply want to ensure all Americans are protected from government overreach.
“What you need to think about is a government you disagree with, which has the power to say either you create expression you don’t agree with or we’ll punish you,” said Jordan Lorence, one of several ADF attorneys representing both the Larsens and Phillips. “That’s what at stake.”
The Larsens, who did not respond to requests for comment for this story, appealed Tunheim’s ruling on Oct. 20. In a commentary published on FoxNews.com that same day, Angel Larsen said their case was designed to preserve freedom of religious beliefs.
“If the First Amendment only protects speech that is popular in its cultural day,” she wrote, “then it really doesn’t protect any speech.”
But in a 63-page opinion in September, Tunheim wrote that Minnesota’s law “does not target speech or expression at all,” but only forbids denying service based on sexual orientation.
“Contrary to the Larsens’ assertions, [the law] does not amount to a state effort to stamp out expression opposing same-sex marriage or to privilege only pro-same-sex marriage views,” Tunheim wrote. Tunheim added that the couple could easily publicize their views of same-sex marriage with a statement on their website, which would be permissible under state law.
The subtleties of the issue and the stakes involved have generated a lively debate in Minnesota legal circles.
Joshua Newville, a Minneapolis attorney who debated Lorence at a Twin Cities event last month, views the Larsens’ videography work as a form of expression, but stops short of siding with Phillips. He also said the conservative Eighth Circuit could draw a similar distinction and side with the couple regardless of the outcome at the Supreme Court.
Still, Newville said, the ADF may be “overplaying its hand” with its strategy of filing free-speech claims against state anti-discrimination laws.
“And as a result, it will help us quickly establish where the line is between First Amendment protections and flat-out discrimination,” he said.
Teresa Collett, a University of St. Thomas law professor, said the Supreme Court left open the door for a “tense, ongoing conflict” surrounding same-sex marriage rights after a 2015 ruling granting recognition to such unions.
“It’s one thing to say the law requires the government to recognize these unions as marriages. It’s quite another to say ‘I’m going to make you recognize it or drive you out of the marketplace,’ ” said Collett, who joined 33 legal scholars in a brief supporting Phillips earlier this year.
Possible precedent
Minnesota is among 21 states and the District of Columbia that prohibit discrimination in public accommodations based on sexual orientation. In October, Swanson joined a group of attorneys general in a brief to the Supreme Court that cited rulings like Tunheim’s and argued that judges are rejecting claims that businesses can cite religious beliefs to turn away customers.
Such theories, offered in both the Larsens’ Telescope Media and Masterpiece Cakeshop cases, threaten “to transform the First Amendment into a vast source of exemptions to anti-discrimination laws,” the states wrote.
Minnesota, meanwhile, is asking the Eighth Circuit to stay the Larsens’ appeal until after the Supreme Court decides the Masterpiece case. Assistant Solicitor General Alethea Huyser pointed to five examples of identical legal arguments being raised in both cases — including the claim that both wedding videography and cake designing are “artistic expression” under attack by state laws.
Any Supreme Court ruling, she wrote, “is very likely to address many of the legal questions raised by this case.”
But Jeremy Tedesco, chief legal counsel for the ADF, said any delay would cause the Larsens to “suffer additional months of inevitable harm.”
In a video produced by the ADF, the couple say they welcome visitors from all backgrounds into their St. Cloud home. A camera pans over a living room scene that finds the couple and eight children — two of whom were adopted from Ethiopia — reading a book. As the featurette nears its end, Angel Larsen tells the camera she believes Telescope Media was created “for such a time as this.”
“I never anticipated it to come to this point,” she said. “But … I want to help my children preserve their religious freedom, and if I don’t do something now I’ll look back and totally regret it.”
Attorney General Lori Swanson is the state’s top lawyer who, alongside the state human rights commissioner, defended Minnesota against the Larsens’ lawsuit this year and won a sweeping ruling, which said the Constitution does not shield businesses from obeying state human rights law.
Both sides will be watching Tuesday, when the U.S. Supreme Court hears arguments in a parallel case brought by a baker against the state of Colorado. Swanson signed a friend-of-the-court brief siding with Colorado and citing the ruling Minnesota won from U.S. District Judge John Tunheim. The Larsens hope that a favorable decision from the nation’s highest court might help them win an appeal of their case.
Both agree that Masterpiece Cakeshop Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission could have broad national implications as religious conservatives, backed by a well-funded legal foundation, invoke the First Amendment to attack state laws that bar discrimination in the marketplace.
“I believe all of us want to be part of a big story — the story,” Carl Larsen says in a web video produced by the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), a national legal advocacy group representing both the Larsens and Masterpiece Cakeshop owner Jack Phillips.
The two cases are so similar that attorneys for Minnesota have asked the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals to halt proceedings on the Larsens’ appeal until the Supreme Court decides the Colorado case, which could come next spring.
‘Creative expression’?
ADF attorneys have described Phillips, the Colorado baker, as a “cake artist” who was protected by the First Amendment when he refused to design a wedding cake for Charlie Craig and David Mullins in 2012. The state’s civil rights commission ruled that he engaged in discrimination based on sexual orientation.
Unlike Phillips, the Larsens filed a “pre-enforcement” suit against Minnesota before they had wedding customers to turn away, in an effort to avoid penalties under the Minnesota Human Rights Act.
But in both cases, ADF attorneys emphasize the “creative expression” of their clients. And despite criticism that it is waging a campaign to erode civil rights, ADF attorneys say they simply want to ensure all Americans are protected from government overreach.
“What you need to think about is a government you disagree with, which has the power to say either you create expression you don’t agree with or we’ll punish you,” said Jordan Lorence, one of several ADF attorneys representing both the Larsens and Phillips. “That’s what at stake.”
The Larsens, who did not respond to requests for comment for this story, appealed Tunheim’s ruling on Oct. 20. In a commentary published on FoxNews.com that same day, Angel Larsen said their case was designed to preserve freedom of religious beliefs.
“If the First Amendment only protects speech that is popular in its cultural day,” she wrote, “then it really doesn’t protect any speech.”
But in a 63-page opinion in September, Tunheim wrote that Minnesota’s law “does not target speech or expression at all,” but only forbids denying service based on sexual orientation.
“Contrary to the Larsens’ assertions, [the law] does not amount to a state effort to stamp out expression opposing same-sex marriage or to privilege only pro-same-sex marriage views,” Tunheim wrote. Tunheim added that the couple could easily publicize their views of same-sex marriage with a statement on their website, which would be permissible under state law.
The subtleties of the issue and the stakes involved have generated a lively debate in Minnesota legal circles.
Joshua Newville, a Minneapolis attorney who debated Lorence at a Twin Cities event last month, views the Larsens’ videography work as a form of expression, but stops short of siding with Phillips. He also said the conservative Eighth Circuit could draw a similar distinction and side with the couple regardless of the outcome at the Supreme Court.
Still, Newville said, the ADF may be “overplaying its hand” with its strategy of filing free-speech claims against state anti-discrimination laws.
“And as a result, it will help us quickly establish where the line is between First Amendment protections and flat-out discrimination,” he said.
Teresa Collett, a University of St. Thomas law professor, said the Supreme Court left open the door for a “tense, ongoing conflict” surrounding same-sex marriage rights after a 2015 ruling granting recognition to such unions.
“It’s one thing to say the law requires the government to recognize these unions as marriages. It’s quite another to say ‘I’m going to make you recognize it or drive you out of the marketplace,’ ” said Collett, who joined 33 legal scholars in a brief supporting Phillips earlier this year.
Possible precedent
Minnesota is among 21 states and the District of Columbia that prohibit discrimination in public accommodations based on sexual orientation. In October, Swanson joined a group of attorneys general in a brief to the Supreme Court that cited rulings like Tunheim’s and argued that judges are rejecting claims that businesses can cite religious beliefs to turn away customers.
Such theories, offered in both the Larsens’ Telescope Media and Masterpiece Cakeshop cases, threaten “to transform the First Amendment into a vast source of exemptions to anti-discrimination laws,” the states wrote.
Minnesota, meanwhile, is asking the Eighth Circuit to stay the Larsens’ appeal until after the Supreme Court decides the Masterpiece case. Assistant Solicitor General Alethea Huyser pointed to five examples of identical legal arguments being raised in both cases — including the claim that both wedding videography and cake designing are “artistic expression” under attack by state laws.
Any Supreme Court ruling, she wrote, “is very likely to address many of the legal questions raised by this case.”
But Jeremy Tedesco, chief legal counsel for the ADF, said any delay would cause the Larsens to “suffer additional months of inevitable harm.”
In a video produced by the ADF, the couple say they welcome visitors from all backgrounds into their St. Cloud home. A camera pans over a living room scene that finds the couple and eight children — two of whom were adopted from Ethiopia — reading a book. As the featurette nears its end, Angel Larsen tells the camera she believes Telescope Media was created “for such a time as this.”
“I never anticipated it to come to this point,” she said. “But … I want to help my children preserve their religious freedom, and if I don’t do something now I’ll look back and totally regret it.”
-
Joel
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 7043
Sessions says the president can be removed for obstruction
In 1999, Jeff Sessions insisted presidents can be removed for "obstruction of justice" and that "no one is above the law."
-
Joel
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 7043
How Politicians Can Use Big Data to Win Elections
Politicians have been redrawing districts to benefit their own political parties—a tactic known as Gerrymandering—since the 1970s. But recently, data aggregation technology has enabled politicians to choose their voters more strategically than ever before.
