InvestorsHub Logo

F6

Followers 59
Posts 34538
Boards Moderated 2
Alias Born 01/02/2003

F6

Re: F6 post# 196716

Wednesday, 01/16/2013 6:08:44 AM

Wednesday, January 16, 2013 6:08:44 AM

Post# of 467079
The Second Amendment was Ratified to Preserve Slavery


Brown Bess flintlock Musket, circa 1790 - detail.
(Photo: Birmingham Museum and Art Gallery [ http://www.flickr.com/photos/birminghammag/5957727744/ ])


By Thom Hartmann
Tuesday, 15 January 2013 09:35

The real reason the Second Amendment was ratified, and why it says "State" instead of "Country" (the Framers knew the difference - see the 10th Amendment), was to preserve the slave patrol militias in the southern states, which was necessary to get Virginia's vote. Founders Patrick Henry, George Mason, and James Madison were totally clear on that . . . and we all should be too.

In the beginning, there were the militias. In the South, they were also called the "slave patrols," and they were regulated by the states.

In Georgia, for example, a generation before the American Revolution, laws were passed in 1755 and 1757 that required all plantation owners or their male white employees to be members of the Georgia Militia, and for those armed militia members to make monthly inspections of the quarters of all slaves in the state. The law defined which counties had which armed militias and even required armed militia members to keep a keen eye out for slaves who may be planning uprisings.

As Dr. Carl T. Bogus wrote for the University of California Law Review [ http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Bogus2.htm ] in 1998, "The Georgia statutes required patrols, under the direction of commissioned militia officers, to examine every plantation each month and authorized them to search 'all Negro Houses for offensive Weapons and Ammunition' and to apprehend and give twenty lashes to any slave found outside plantation grounds."

It's the answer to the question raised by the character played by [ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztD3mRMdqSw ] Leonardo DiCaprio in Django Unchained when he asks, "Why don't they just rise up and kill the whites?" If the movie were real, it would have been a purely rhetorical question, because every southerner of the era knew the simple answer: Well regulated militias kept the slaves in chains.

Sally E. Haden, in her book [ http://www.amazon.com/Slave-Patrols-Violence-Carolinas-Historical/dp/0674012348 ] Slave Patrols: Law and Violence in Virginia and the Carolinas, notes that, "Although eligibility for the Militia seemed all-encompassing, not every middle-aged white male Virginian or Carolinian became a slave patroller." There were exemptions so "men in critical professions" like judges, legislators and students could stay at their work. Generally, though, she documents how most southern men between ages 18 and 45 - including physicians and ministers - had to serve on slave patrol in the militia at one time or another in their lives.

And slave rebellions were keeping the slave patrols busy.

By the time the Constitution was ratified, hundreds of substantial slave uprisings had occurred across the South. Blacks outnumbered whites in large areas, and the state militias were used to both prevent and to put down slave uprisings. As Dr. Bogus points out, slavery can only exist in the context of a police state, and the enforcement of that police state was the explicit job of the militias.

If the anti-slavery folks in the North had figured out a way to disband - or even move out of the state - those southern militias, the police state of the South would collapse. And, similarly, if the North were to invite into military service the slaves of the South, then they could be emancipated, which would collapse the institution of slavery, and the southern economic and social systems, altogether.

These two possibilities worried southerners like James Monroe, George Mason (who owned over 300 slaves) and the southern Christian evangelical, Patrick Henry (who opposed slavery on principle, but also opposed freeing slaves).

Their main concern was that Article 1, Section 8 of the newly-proposed Constitution, which gave the federal government the power to raise and supervise a militia, could also allow that federal militia to subsume their state militias and change them from slavery-enforcing institutions into something that could even, one day, free the slaves.

This was not an imagined threat. Famously, 12 years earlier, during the lead-up to the Revolutionary War, Lord Dunsmore offered freedom to slaves who could escape and join his forces. "Liberty to Slaves" was stitched onto their jacket pocket flaps. During the War, British General Henry Clinton extended the practice in 1779. And numerous freed slaves served in General Washington's army.

Thus, southern legislators and plantation owners lived not just in fear of their own slaves rebelling, but also in fear that their slaves could be emancipated through military service.

At the ratifying convention in Virginia in 1788, Henry laid it out:

"Let me here call your attention to that part [Article 1, Section 8 of the proposed Constitution] which gives the Congress power to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States. . . .

"By this, sir, you see that their control over our last and best defence is unlimited. If they neglect or refuse to discipline or arm our militia, they will be useless: the states can do neither . . . this power being exclusively given to Congress. The power of appointing officers over men not disciplined or armed is ridiculous; so that this pretended little remains of power left to the states may, at the pleasure of Congress, be rendered nugatory."


George Mason expressed a similar fear:

"The militia may be here destroyed by that method which has been practised in other parts of the world before; that is, by rendering them useless, by disarming them. Under various pretences, Congress may neglect to provide for arming and disciplining the militia; and the state governments cannot do it, for Congress has an exclusive right to arm them [under this proposed Constitution] . . . "

Henry then bluntly laid it out:

"If the country be invaded, a state may go to war, but cannot suppress [slave] insurrections [under this new Constitution]. If there should happen an insurrection of slaves, the country cannot be said to be invaded. They cannot, therefore, suppress it without the interposition of Congress . . . . Congress, and Congress only [under this new Constitution], can call forth the militia."

And why was that such a concern for Patrick Henry [ http://jgiganti.myweb.uga.edu/henry_smith_onslavery.htm ]?

"In this state," he said, "there are two hundred and thirty-six thousand blacks, and there are many in several other states. But there are few or none in the Northern States. . . . May Congress not say, that every black man must fight? Did we not see a little of this last war? We were not so hard pushed as to make emancipation general; but acts of Assembly passed that every slave who would go to the army should be free."

Patrick Henry was also convinced that the power over the various state militias given the federal government in the new Constitution could be used to strip the slave states of their slave-patrol militias. He knew the majority attitude in the North opposed slavery, and he worried they'd use the Constitution to free the South's slaves (a process then called "Manumission").

The abolitionists would, he was certain, use that power (and, ironically, this is pretty much what Abraham Lincoln ended up doing):

"[T]hey will search that paper [the Constitution], and see if they have power of manumission," said Henry. "And have they not, sir? Have they not power to provide for the general defence and welfare? May they not think that these call for the abolition of slavery? May they not pronounce all slaves free, and will they not be warranted by that power?

"This is no ambiguous implication or logical deduction. The paper speaks to the point: they have the power in clear, unequivocal terms, and will clearly and certainly exercise it."


He added: "This is a local matter, and I can see no propriety in subjecting it to Congress."

James Madison, the "Father of the Constitution" and a slaveholder himself, basically called Patrick Henry paranoid.

"I was struck with surprise," Madison said [ http://books.google.com/books?id=tN99jYDpUi0C&;pg=PA92&lpg=PA92&dq=%22alarmed+with+respect+to+the+emancipation%22+madison&source=bl&ots=bFUi95nbYz&sig=lytuAn4skhTFHZjkZTZKHxPk08Y&hl=en&sa=X&ei=88_xUMvDMIyI0QHBxYG4CA&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAA#v=onepage ], "when I heard him express himself alarmed with respect to the emancipation of slaves. . . . There is no power to warrant it, in that paper [the Constitution]. If there be, I know it not."

But the southern fears wouldn't go away.

Patrick Henry even argued that southerner's "property" (slaves) would be lost under the new Constitution, and the resulting slave uprising would be less than peaceful or tranquil:

"In this situation," Henry said to Madison, "I see a great deal of the property of the people of Virginia in jeopardy, and their peace and tranquility gone."

So Madison, who had (at Jefferson's insistence) already begun to prepare proposed amendments to the Constitution, changed his first draft of one that addressed the militia issue to make sure it was unambiguous that the southern states could maintain their slave patrol militias.

His first draft for what became the Second Amendment had said: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed, and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country [emphasis mine]: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person."

But Henry, Mason and others wanted southern states to preserve their slave-patrol militias independent of the federal government. So Madison changed the word "country" to the word "state," and redrafted the Second Amendment into today's form:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State [emphasis mine], the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Little did Madison realize that one day in the future weapons-manufacturing corporations, newly defined as "persons" by a Supreme Court some have called dysfunctional, would use his slave patrol militia amendment to protect their "right" to manufacture and sell assault weapons used to murder schoolchildren.

Copyright, Truthout.

http://truth-out.org/news/item/13890-the-second-amendment-was-ratified-to-preserve-slavery [with comments]


--


(linked in) http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=61643992 and preceding and following


===


New NRA ad
Published on Jan 15, 2013

http://www.nrastandandfight.com/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=saHyMxVjceE [via http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/nras-new-ad-calls-obama-elitist-hypocrite-for-h (with comments), via http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/15/nra-video-obama_n_2483118.html (with comments)]


===


Minorities and gun murders: Ann Coulter sees link


Coulter
(AP/seattlepi.com file)


Posted by Joel Connelly on January 15, 2013 at 6:59 pm

Conservative pundit Ann Coulter, who uses shock to sell books, is linking the rate of gun violence in the United States to the country’s minority populations.

The blonde bomb thrower held forth Tuesday on the relentlessly right-thinking “Hannity” show on the Fox News Channel.

Coulter said she has just returned to this side of pond from Great Britain, and compared the Brits’ crime rate to that in the United States.

“If you compare white populations, we have the same murder rate as Belgium,” said Coulter. “So perhaps it’s not a gun problem, it’s a demographic problem, which liberals are the ones pushing, pushing, pushing.”

Coulter went on to take a swipe at immigrants, saying: “Let’s get more Colin Fergusons and whoever the guy was who shot up Fort Hood. Why are they coming in to begin with.”

Ferguson is a Jamaican-born immigrant who shot up a Long Island Railroad commuter train, killing six and wounding 19. The “guy” at Fort Hood, who shot 13 people to death, was an Arlington, Va.-born Army psychiatrist named Nidal Malik Hasan.

During the first decade of the 21st century, Belgium had an average murder rate of 2.2 per 100,000, compared to 5.5 per 100,000 for the United States. The murder rate committed by whites, however, was higher in the United States than in Belgium . . . and far higher than in France, Germany, Denmark, Spain, Italy, Greece and Norway.

©2013 Hearst Seattle Media, LLC

http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepolitics/2013/01/15/minorities-and-gun-murders-ann-coulter-sees-link/ [with video of Coulter's comments from http://mediamatters.org/video/2013/01/14/ann-coulter-if-you-compare-white-populations-we/192232 embedded; no comments yet]


===


It's Not Just Partisanship That Divides Congress


Members of the 113th Congress, many accompanied by family members, take the oath of office in the House of Representatives chamber on Capitol Hill in Washington, Thursday, Jan. 3, 2013.
(AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)


The same demographic trends that helped the GOP keep the House will hurt their shot at the presidency. And the trends that propelled Obama to reelection will impede Democrats from retaking the House.

This article appeared in print as Stairway to Nowhere

By Ronald Brownstein and Scott Bland
January 10, 2013 | 4:00 p.m.
Updated: January 10, 2013 | 5:31 p.m.

The House of Representatives is not just divided between the red and the blue. It also fractures along lines of white, black, and brown.

Four-fifths of the House Republicans in the new Congress represent districts in which the white share of the voting-age population exceeds the national average, according to a new National Journal analysis. In a near-mirror image, almost two-thirds of House Democrats represent districts in which the minority share of the voting-age population exceeds the national average, the analysis found.

For each party, these stark patterns bring opportunities and challenges. The GOP’s strength in these preponderantly white districts helped sustain its House majority in a year when overwhelming minority support powered President Obama to a comfortable reelection. But the party’s disproportionate reliance on whites also means that few House Republicans have much experience in courting nonwhite voters—or much electoral incentive to do so.

That dynamic will likely make it tougher for the party to formulate an agenda, on issues from immigration to health care, that attracts more of the minority support it will almost certainly need to reclaim the White House in 2016 or beyond. “If we are going to become a national governing party again, the first thing we need to do is accept the reality of America as it is today, and these reapportioned districts work against that completely,” says veteran GOP strategist John Weaver. “While I don’t want to lose House seats, I would much rather be entrusted with governing the country than having a permanent House majority that is out of touch with the rest of the country.”

Conversely, the tilt toward minority districts among Democrats reflects both the party’s gains in heavily diverse areas and its systemic decline in the mostly white districts once represented by centrist Democratic Blue Dogs.

Those twin trends could make it easier for the party to coalesce around common positions on issues that have long divided it, such as immigration and gun control. But with Republicans holding such a commanding advantage in heavily white districts—which still significantly outnumber the diverse districts—it also means that Democrats will struggle to regain a House majority until changing demography brings more seats within their reach.

Above all, these divergent patterns of support threaten to deepen the national polarization so evident in the standoff over the fiscal cliff. In Congress, as in the presidential race, the two parties are supported by electoral coalitions increasingly divided not only by ideology but also by race. Each side’s congressional caucus is now rooted in places that differ enormously from the other side’s, in their demographic composition, cultural values, and attitudes toward government. It’s becoming more difficult to bridge those differences. “It’s a problem for the country,” says Tom Davis, the former Republican representative from Virginia and chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee. “You hate to have any society ethnically divided. But that’s what we are becoming.”



RACE AGAINST HISTORY

Compared with the wave elections of 2006, 2008, and 2010, the 2012 campaign produced only modest change in the House’s partisan balance, with Democrats adding eight seats. But beneath the surface, a demographic riptide pushed the two parties further apart. Despite their losses, Republicans increased their share of districts that are whiter than the national average; the Democratic gains came entirely from districts that lean toward minorities.

For this analysis, National Journal used 2010 census data to rank the 435 House districts based on the share of their voting-age population represented by whites. NJ then compared the districts with the national white share of the voting-age population—which stands at almost exactly two-thirds, or 67 percent, according to the latest census calculations. The voting-age population figure includes residents who are not citizens or are in the U.S. illegally, so it does not measure the share of eligible voters in each district. But it still provides a useful gauge of the demographic bent in the House’s districts—and a clear dividing line in the fortunes of each party.

In districts where the white share of the voting-age population exceeds the national average, Republicans in November captured nine Democratic-held seats and lost seven of their own, for a net gain of two. In seats where the minority share of the voting-age population exceeds the national average, Democrats gained 11 and lost just one, for a net gain of 10. (The calculations are somewhat complicated by the redistricting that occurred after the 2010 census; this tally allocated new seats created by redistricting to one or the other party based on the district’s Partisan Voting Index, a measure of political leaning calculated by The Cook Political Report.)

Among the Democratic losers in the heavily white districts were several of the last remaining Blue Dogs—moderate Democrats who represented predominantly white, often rural, seats. These included Democrats Mark Critz of Pennsylvania, Ben Chandler of Kentucky, and Leonard Boswell of Iowa, all of whom lost reelection bids; and Oklahoma’s Dan Boren, North Carolina’s Heath Shuler, and Arkansas’s Mike Ross, whose seats flipped to the GOP after they retired.

The Republican losers in the diverse districts prominently included three California incumbents defeated in redrawn seats with substantial Hispanic populations: Mary Bono Mack, Dan Lungren, and Brian Bilbray. Another loser was Rep. Francisco Canseco of Texas, who was ousted by Democrat Pete Gallego in a majority Hispanic district. At the Republican National Convention last summer, NRCC Executive Director Guy Harrison heaped scorn on the suggestion that Canseco could lose. Democrats “believe that a 67 percent Hispanic seat should never vote for a Republican,” Harrison told The Dallas Morning News then. It’s not quite a hard-and-fast rule, but Canseco’s defeat is one of several last year demonstrating how close that sentiment is to becoming a reality.

After this reshuffling, the parties glare across a deep racial chasm in the House. That’s evident most visibly in the composition of each party in the 113th Congress. White men will still constitute 88 percent of House Republicans, while, for the first time ever, they will represent a minority of the House Democratic Caucus, in which women and minority members are now the majority.

Even more important is the divergence in the voters each side represents. Republicans now hold 187 of the 259 districts (72 percent) in which whites exceed their national share of the voting-age population. Democrats hold 129 of the 176 seats (73 percent) in which minorities exceed their national share of the voting-age population. From another angle, 80 percent of Republicans represent districts more heavily white than the national average; 64 percent of House Democrats represent seats more heavily nonwhite than the national average.

Looking solely at Hispanics, the differences are even more striking: 68 House Democrats, about one-third of the total, hold districts in which Hispanics constitute at least one-fifth of the voting-age population. That’s true for just 28, or 12 percent, of House Republicans. Conversely, 165 House Republicans, or just over 70 percent, represent districts in which Hispanics make up no more than 10 percent of the voting-age population; that’s true for only 81 Democrats (or two-fifths of their caucus).

Whatever the vantage point, in the House, Democrats now hold a clear edge in the portions of America being reshaped by diversity, while Republicans dominate the portions that remain largely untouched by it.

REPUBLICAN CHOICES

The biggest question these patterns raise for the GOP is whether it is possible to align the interests of House Republicans and the national party on issues that the growing nonwhite population cares most about.

For many Republican strategists, the clear message of the 2012 election was that the party will struggle to win the White House until it gains support among minorities. The numbers left little room for debate: According to the Election Day exit poll, Mitt Romney carried 59 percent of white voters—the same percentage George H.W. Bush did in his resounding 1988 victory. Yet Romney was soundly defeated because Obama won 80 percent of all nonwhite voters, who increased their share of the electorate to a record 28 percent.

Obama not only captured more than nine in 10 African-Americans but also soared past 70 percent with both Hispanics and Asian-Americans after a campaign in which Romney championed “self-deportation” for illegal immigrants. “The national numbers … were a wake-up call,” says Jennifer Korn, executive director of the center-right Hispanic Leadership Network. “Republicans need to look at how they talk to these different demographics without pandering to them. On the immigration thing, it didn’t just affect Hispanics.”

But even some House Republicans from racially diverse districts worry that many of their colleagues representing more monolithically white areas aren’t doing enough to court minorities. “Honestly, I don’t believe they are,” says Rep. Joe Heck, who won reelection in a diverse district outside Las Vegas.

Heck says he’s established beachheads among minority voters by working first with ethnic chambers of commerce. “For me, meeting with the members of the chamber was a door to building relationships with members of those communities,” he says. Then he hired aides to coordinate outreach to Hispanic and Asian constituents; during his campaign, he organized coalitions in those communities. “When I’m home in the district, we would do entire outreach days, visiting multiple Hispanic businesses, even ones outside of my district.”

Rep. Scott Rigell, R-Va., also won reelection last fall in a racially diverse Newport Beach-area district. He says that access and attention have been the keys to his success. “I see a Democrat of any hue as a prospect” for future support, he says. “Your calendar has to reflect that. I’ve spent time in the African-American community. The Latino community: I bring them in.” Rigell says that building bridges to minorities also has required sensitivity to subtle cultural differences invisible to many of his colleagues. For instance, he says he never refers to the president’s health care reform as “Obamacare,” because when “you refer to a sitting president by last name only, some will be offended by it, and some will see it as disrespect to a person of color.”

Both Rigell and Heck believe that the rising tide of diversity could submerge the GOP unless the party attracts more minorities. Heck says that his colleagues in areas largely untouched by racial change “need to look past their own political future and their own district. While they may be in a safe district or a nonminority district, for the party to be sustainable into the future we’ve got to think about things at national scale.… The Republican Party is, I think, at risk of fading away into insignificance as the minority population grows in the U.S.”

Rigell holds similar concerns. “We as Republicans have one of two choices,” he says. “You can either see this as some ominous disheartening trend causing you to hunker down and lament the long-term future of America—or, alternately, the only appropriate response [is to say], ‘Hey, no problem. Our ideas are better, our values are best for all Americans, people of color, people who aren’t.’ ”

Both men argue that the GOP’s disconnect with minority voters springs from tone rather than agenda. Certainly, House Republicans from diverse districts reflect that belief in their voting records. According to the latest National Journal vote ratings, Republicans from more-diverse seats have voting records no less conservative than their colleagues from more heavily white areas. (By contrast, Democrats from predominantly white districts vote to the right of those from more diverse places.)

But polling evidence suggests that, on several fronts, the conservative agenda popular in the vast majority of Republican-leaning House districts could collide with the party’s national goal of improving its minority performance. Surveys, including the Election Day exit poll, consistently show that most minority voters support more government activism than Republicans prefer. In particular, while retrenching or repealing Obama’s health care reform may be popular in GOP districts, the law wins much more support among Hispanics, nearly one-third of whom lack health insurance. Raising taxes on the highest earners also draws overwhelming minority support.

Immigration looms as the sharpest conflict between the needs of the national party and those of a House GOP majority with very few members representing large Hispanic constituencies. Polls show that most minority voters, especially Hispanics, support comprehensive immigration reform that includes a pathway to citizenship for those here illegally.

Obama’s signal that he will make a major push for immigration reform in 2013 could place House Republicans in an excruciating spot. Virtually all of them oppose a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, and many fear that supporting the idea might expose them to a primary challenge from the right. Yet a scenario in which House Republicans block immigration reform (especially if a comprehensive plan clears the Senate) could accelerate the party’s losses among Hispanic voters.

“That’s the worst possible outcome,” says Weaver, a senior strategist for Sen. John McCain’s 2008 presidential campaign. “We just got 27 percent [among Hispanic voters in the presidential race], and the trend lines are down everywhere. If we block immigration reform, what is going to happen? We should not only help pass it, we need to embrace it; and then we need to communicate other policies, particularly on the economic side, that can target [Hispanic voters].”

THE DEMOCRATIC CHOICE

Obama’s focus on immigration reform shows how these patterns of House support are affecting the Democratic Party. One reason he downplayed the issue during his first term was concern among the Blue Dogs that a reform push could hurt them politically. (The same dynamic has discouraged Democratic action on gun control.) But even with that issue shelved, those Blue Dog Democrats suffered sweeping losses in 2010 and further erosion in 2012. In the next Congress, Democrats will hold just 31 of the 143 seats in which whites constitute at least 80 percent of the voting-age population.

That weakness in the most heavily white seats complicates Democratic hopes of regaining the House majority. But with fewer Democratic members relying on conservative whites to win, the party has more freedom to advance issues, such as immigration reform, that it muted for fear of alienating those voters.

Rep. Xavier Becerra of California, the recently elected House Democratic Caucus chairman, says he believes that the freshman members rooted in these diverse districts will coalesce more closely, even on issues such as health care and immigration that previously divided the party. Members who previously were “spooked by the Republican attacks” on those subjects “today are solid,” he says. “The conversation we’re having about immigration reform is dramatically different.”

The change Becerra describes is a congressional analogue to the process Obama went through at the national level over the past year. On issues from gay marriage to contraception coverage to immigration reform, Obama embraced positions that mobilized elements of the new Democratic coalition (young people, socially liberal women, minorities) even at the price of further antagonizing culturally conservative, older, and blue-collar whites.

In November, Obama emphatically demonstrated that his formula could produce a national majority. But the calculus is more complex for House Democrats. While minority voters are dispersing, they remain heavily concentrated around big cities. That means the changing demography is reshaping the congressional battlefield more slowly than the presidential landscape. The 259 districts in which whites represent at least two-thirds of the voting-age population is down from 304 in 2000, but they remain a solid majority of House seats; the Republicans’ hold on 187 of those districts provides the GOP a structural advantage in the battle for a majority (just as the Democrats’ advantage in the most diverse states gives them a structural advantage in the Electoral College).

All of this presents Democrats with a mirror image of the Republican conundrum. Although Becerra says that it is critical to deliver on issues such as immigration reform to convince the party’s national coalition that “there is a reason for the faith that they have in voting,” those same initiatives could make it tougher for Democrats to capture the heavily white districts that undergird the GOP House majority.

That could require a shift in the party’s electoral strategy. In 2006, then-Rep. Rahm Emanuel, who chaired the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, regained the House majority largely by recruiting culturally conservative candidates who won those white districts. But with Obama committed to a more culturally liberal agenda on everything from gay marriage to gun control, Democrats may find it more profitable to focus on capturing more of the 22 Republican-held districts in which minorities represent at least 40 percent of the voting-age population, or the 38 where minorities constitute between 30 and 40 percent.

For now, the DCCC is determined to split the difference. In the next midterm election, when minority turnout traditionally declines, the committee plans to focus largely on the sort of heavily white seats that Emanuel targeted in 2006, officials there say. In 2016, when the presidential race could again swell minority turnout, it will intensify its efforts in the diverse Republican-held districts.

Any “diverse” path toward a Democratic majority will require the party to expand on the three Republican seats it captured last November in California and the one it took in Texas. Democrats have greater near-term opportunities in California (including the districts now held by Republicans Gary Miller, David Valadao, and Jeff Denham), but Texas could prove even more critical to their long-term hopes.

There, the Republicans who controlled redistricting fragmented the rapidly growing population of Hispanics and African-Americans across a large number of districts, usually leaving enough white voters for GOP candidates to maintain an advantage. As a result, 19 Texas Republicans in the House hold seats in which minorities represent at least 29 percent of the voting-age population. Few of those members look vulnerable today, but that could change as the minority population’s growth continues over the decade—particularly if Democrats seriously invest in registering some of the state’s 2.2 million eligible but unregistered Hispanics. “If your rule is to keep [the minority population] in the mid-30s and spread it out over four or six districts, that’s not something you can sustain,” says Jacob Limon, the deputy executive director of the Texas Democratic Party. “Eventually those start turning into 40 percent-plus [minority] districts … and you’re building a coalition that can win those districts.”

Ultimate Democratic gains in racially diverse Texas districts would fit a larger pattern. As fewer voters split their ballots in this highly polarized era, each party now primarily holds House districts populated by the same sort of voters it attracts in the presidential contest. For Republicans, that means a caucus centered on whiter districts, many of them blue collar, and the vast majority culturally conservative. For Democrats, that translates into reliance on mostly diverse districts, supplemented by socially liberal white-collar suburban seats. Outliers who defy these trends, such as Republican former Rep. Christopher Shays of Connecticut, or rural Democratic former Reps. Ike Skelton of Missouri and John Spratt of South Carolina, are dwindling on either side.

This tightening alignment in national and congressional elections promises more unity within each party on most issues. But it could make it even more daunting to forge common purpose between them.

This article appeared in the Saturday, January 12, 2013 edition of National Journal.

Copyright © 2013 by National Journal Group Inc.

http://nationaljournal.com/magazine/it-s-not-just-partisanship-that-divides-congress-20130110 [with comments]


===


GOP seeks to rig presidential race on model of Congressional gerrymandering

The Rachel Maddow Show
January 15, 2013

Rachel Maddow reports on a new initiative by state-level Republicans to rig the Electoral College in the states they control to better advantage Republican presidential candidates and subvert popular political will.

© 2013 NBCNews.com

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/vp/50477422#50477422 [show links, 19 related to this segment, at http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2013/01/15/16535348-links-for-the-115-trms (with comments)]


===


Reagan AG Ed Meese says Obama could be impeached over guns



By David Ferguson
Tuesday, January 15, 2013 15:59 EST

Former U.S. Attorney General Edwin Meese has joined the growing chorus of right-wing voices calling for the impeachment of President Barack Obama if his administration takes any steps toward increasing gun control. According to Talking Points Memo [ http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/01/impeach-obama-guns-edwin-meese.php (including embedded the full Meese interview on Newsmax)], the former Reagan official said in an interview with Newsmax on Monday night that if Obama were “to try to override the Second Amendment in any way,” Congress would be forced to consider impeachment.

“It would be up to the Congress to take action, such as looking in to it to see if, in fact, he has really tried to override the Constitution itself,” he said. “In which case, it would be up to them to determine what action they should take — and perhaps even to the point of impeachment.”

Meese said that under the separation of powers, the president can only take executive action on those areas of the government that are under direct control of the executive branch. He conceded, however, that Obama could take action through certain government agencies, such as the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.

“But to impose burdens or regulations that affect society generally, he would have to have Congressional authorization,” he said.

Meese [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwin_Meese ] resigned abruptly in 1988 when Reagan aides were implicated in the Wedtech scandal [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedtech_scandal ], an influence-peddling probe that exposed corruption at the highest levels of the Reagan administration. Although he was cleared of specific wrongdoing, Meese tendered his resignation only hours after the grand jury delivered its report on the investigation, ending what an editorial in the Tampa Sun-Sentinel called [ http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/1988-07-07/news/8802090633_1_meese-long-overdue-resignation-massive-probe ] “one of the least distinguished chapters in Justice Department history.”

Other conservatives who have called for Obama’s impeachment over possible federal gun safety measures include freshman congressman Rep. Steve Stockman (R-TX) [ http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/01/14/freshman-republican-threatens-to-impeach-obama-over-gun-control/ ; http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/15/steve-stockman-obama_n_2478913.html ] and Rep. Jeff Duncan (R-SC), who said that the White House’s promise to stem gun violence smacks of “tyranny” and risks turning the U.S. into “a dictatorship [ http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/01/guns-dictatorship-jeff-duncan.php ].”

Watch [the relevant portion of the] video of the NewsMax interview, embedded below [ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9MdVAhgWcY ], via TPM:
Copyright © 2013 Raw Story Media, Inc.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/01/15/reagan-ag-ed-meese-says-obama-could-be-impeached-over-guns/ [with comments]


--


Meese to Retire as Head of Legal Center; Addington to Take on Role



January 3, 2013

Washington, D.C., Jan. 3, 2013 -- After nearly 25 years of leadership and service to The Heritage Foundation, former Attorney General Edwin Meese III today announced he is “semi-retiring.” Meese will leave his full-time position as chairman of Heritage’s Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, but remain onboard as the think tank’s Ronald Reagan Distinguished Fellow Emeritus. In this capacity, he will oversee special projects and act as an ambassador for Heritage within the conservative movement.

Effective Feb. 1, David Addington will become senior vice president for legal and judicial policy, heading the Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies. In this new capacity, Addington will be responsible for the Legal Center’s research and education programs. Addington currently serves as Heritage’s senior vice president and deputy chief operating officer.

“It has been an incredible honor to work with one of the greatest, most honorable men of our time,” Heritage President Edwin J. Feulner said of Meese. “His lifelong dedication to the principles of government, as established by this nation’s Founders, has helped preserve freedom, opportunity and justice in America for two generations.

“Ed Meese’s wisdom, humanity and patriotism are second to none,” Feulner added, “and I can think of no one more capable or talented to take over the reins of our Legal Center than David Addington.”

The center was renamed the Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies last fall, in recognition of Meese’s contributions to the rule of law and the nation’s understanding of constitutional law.

After his announcement, Meese stated: “I’ve thoroughly enjoyed my tenure with The Heritage Foundation and appreciate the opportunity to continue working with such wonderful colleagues. Heritage is an outstanding organization that remains dedicated to the principles President Reagan served so well, and David Addington is an outstanding choice to lead the Legal Center for years to come.”

Meese served as the 75th attorney general of the United States from February 1985 to August 1988. Earlier in the Reagan administration, Meese held the position of counsellor to the president and functioned as Reagan’s chief policy adviser. Meese joined Heritage in 1988 as the think tank’s first Ronald Reagan Distinguished Fellow. In 2001, Meese became the founder and chairman of its Center for Legal and Judicial Studies.

Addington joined Heritage in 2010 as vice president for domestic and economic policy. In 2012, he was promoted to senior vice president and deputy chief operating officer. Before joining Heritage, Addington held senior posts in both the executive and legislative branches of the federal government, as well as in the private sector. Among other posts, he served as general counsel of the U.S. Department of Defense, deputy assistant to the president for legislative affairs, and minority chief counsel of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. Most recently he served from 2001 to 2009 as counsel and then chief of staff to the Vice President of the United States.

© 2013, The Heritage Foundation

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/01/meese-to-retire-as-head-of-legal-center-addington-to-take-on-role


--


(linked in) http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=73503151 and preceding and following


===


Newtown parents learn comforting details about son's death

Video [embedded]

Sandy Hook parents talk about son's death

By Susan Candiotti and Thom Patterson, CNN
updated 11:26 AM EST, Tue January 15, 2013

His parents remember Dylan Hockley as such a happy child.

He was 6 and full of joy, his mother, Nicole Hockley, says.

She said he was always smiling and described his laugh as infectious. When his dad would return to their Newtown, Connecticut, home each day, Dylan would run to his father, Ian, saying,"Daddy!"

It's been exactly a month since Dylan and his teacher, Anne Marie Murphy, and 24 other students and adults were killed by a lone gunman at Sandy Hook Elementary School.

As would be expected, coping has been hard.

"It's a strange moment when you wake up in the morning and for that brief second everything is as it was," she says. "And then you realize that nothing is ever as it was -- and never will be again."

On Monday, after putting themselves "in a little cocoon," as she put it, Hockley decided it was time to tell the world about Dylan.

"He was autistic," she says, "but incredibly empathetic."

"He just wanted to have fun."

Most of all, Dylan loved to bounce on a trampoline in the family's backyard, remembers his father.

"I'd say, 'Go out on the trampoline!' Ian Hockley says. "And he would always say, 'Are you coming, Daddy?'"

Together, they would vault up on the trampoline and bounce, sometimes joined by Dylan's brother, Jake, who is two years older.

"If I didn't go, Dylan wouldn't go," Ian Hockley remembers. "He just wanted to have so much fun with me."

Just down the street lived Adam Lanza, 20. Authorities said Lanza opened fire inside Sandy Hook Elementary before taking his own life. They said he killed his mother, Nancy, before the school shooting.

Asked whether they knew the Lanzas, Nicole Hockley stiffened and said no.

But they say the pain has made it impossible to even drive past the Lanza home. So they are moving elsewhere in the community.

"You can't drive up your driveway every day and see the house of a person who took your son's life and who brought so much pain to so many people," Nicole said. "We are leaving that house. We will stay in Newtown, but that's just one thing too much. I can't do that every day."

And they have trouble answering Jake's questions, such as why? And will this happen again?

Nicole says these are not things an 8-year-old should have to worry about.

But Ian says it's Jake's difficult questions that give them the will to get involved -- to try to make something positive come from the tragedy.

"We're just focusing on getting up each day," Nicole said.

As she puts it, the family is "trying to find a way to make sense of this by taking some action and getting involved."

They've started a fund in Dylan's name to raise money to support programs and educational aids for other children with autism and other special needs.

They haven't learned all the details of the massacre that happened on December 14. Until now, they haven't felt much like watching TV or interacting with the outside world.

But one detail has given the Hockleys comfort.

A few days after the tragedy, the Hockleys ran into Mike Murphy. His wife, Anne Marie Murphy, taught their son at Sandy Hook.

He revealed to her that -- in the terrible aftermath of the attack -- first responders found Dylan and his teacher together.

"He said that Anne Marie Murphy had been found with her arms wrapped around Dylan ... that is what we had hoped for -- in a very strange sort of way to hope for something."

"She loved him and he loved her and she would've looked after him no matter what," she says, fighting back tears. "To know that he was with her, and that he wasn't alone, that gives you a huge peace of mind ... to know that he was loved even in those last moments."

*

Related

Obama says gun lobby stokes fear of federal action
http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/14/politics/gun-laws-battle/index.html

*

© 2013 Cable News Network. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/14/us/newtown-dylan/index.html [with additional embedded video reports, and comments]


===


Denny Peyman, Kentucky Sheriff, Feels 'Moral Obligation' Not To Enforce Gun Control Laws

01/14/2013
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/14/denny-peyman-kentucky_n_2472119.html [with comments]


--


Ore. sheriff says he won't enforce new gun laws
January 15, 2013
http://www.businessweek.com/ap/2013-01-15/ore-dot-sheriff-says-he-wont-enforce-new-gun-laws [no comments yet]


===


Sandy Hook Students Record "Somewhere Over the Rainbow" Benefit Song
Published on Jan 14, 2013

A month after 20 children and 6 adults were killed at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, students from Newtown gathered at the home studio of Chris Frantz and Tina Weymouth, of Talking Heads and Tom Tom Club, to record their version of "Somewhere Over the Rainbow" featuring Ingrid Michaelson. The proceeds from the sale of the song and the advertising with this video will benefit the Newtown Youth Academy and the United Way of Western Connecticut.

Help the victims' families and download the track on Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00B0NU0UQ/ref=sr_1_album_37_rd?ie=UTF8&child=B00B0NU0WO&qid=1358218411&sr=1-37

Produced by The Orchard. Filmed and edited by Abe Halpert.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pLhsmFHa2vM


===


Ted Nugent: Obama 'Psychotic' For Plan To Address Gun Violence

01/14/2013
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/14/ted-nugent-obama-gun-violence_n_2471350.html [with comments]


===


Civil War rhetoric heats up as new gun laws emerge

The Ed Show
January 15, 2013

New York State passed one of the toughest gun laws in the country. President Obama is set to unveil new gun safety proposals. The latest developments have members of the fringe calling for Civil War. The Daily Beast's Bob Shrum and David Corn of Mother Jones join Ed Schultz to examine the danger of the heated rhetoric.

© 2013 NBCNews.com

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45755822/vp/50476626#50476626


===


Little-known laws shed light on NRA influence



Fredereka Schouten, USA TODAY
10:36a.m. EST January 15, 2013

WASHINGTON — You can carry a loaded firearm into national parks and can tuck your rifle and ammunition into stowed luggage on Amtrak trains. Federal product-safety law subjects everything from toys to toasters to safety inspection and recalls, but exempts guns.

In the wake of the Newtown, Conn., massacre, the national debate raging over high-profile issues such as proposals to ban assault weapons also is bringing fresh attention to an array of little-known laws approved by Congress — some at the behest of the powerful National Rifle Association and other gun-rights groups — that either ease restrictions on firearms or clamp down on the ability of the government to regulate guns.

The NRA also has used its political muscle in state capitols — where its lobbyists and members have successfully pushed laws that allow gun owners to carry concealed weapons into parks, bars and churches, have sought to restrict the ability of doctors to talk to patients about gun safety and fought increased fees for background checks.

In the last decade alone, the NRA has spent $21 million to lobby Congress and federal agencies — 10 times the amount spent by one of the nation's best-known gun-control groups, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, during the same period.

"The NRA has had great influence because they have largely had the field to themselves," said Robert Spitzer, a political scientist at the State University of New York College-Cortland and author of The Politics of Gun Control.

NRA spokesman Andrew Arulanandam said the NRA's "successes are due to the fact that the overwhelming majority of American people agree with our position, not because of any influence."

The organization, which has vigorously opposed any gun restrictions, faces new pressure after the Dec. 14 Newtown shooting that left 20 schoolchildren dead. President Obama this week plans to unveil proposals to curb gun violence, and Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., is readying legislation that would reinstate the assault-weapons ban that lapsed in 2004.

"We'll do what we've always done: fight," Arulanandam said about the NRA's response to any new gun-control proposals. "That's what our members want us to do. That's what tens of millions of law-abiding gun owners want us to do."

Examples of recent laws easing gun restrictions include:

• A measure, inserted into a 2009 credit-card regulation bill, that ended a 25-year ban on carrying concealed and loaded guns into national parks. Supporters said the change was needed to address a patchwork of state and federal firearms regulators that made it hard for gun owners to travel between state and federal lands.

In addition, the law's author, Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., "believes gun-free zones disarm everyone but the assailant," his spokesman John Hart said. The NRA backed the proposal, but Coburn "offered the amendment at his own initiative," Hart said.

Associations representing current and retired National Park rangers opposed the law, raising concerns about the potential for illegal poaching and arguing it would change the nature of USA's 398 national parks.

That year, Congress also overturned Amtrak's ban on carrying weapons, put in place after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and renewed after 2004 bombing attacks on Madrid's train system. Gun-control advocates argued the change made train travel less secure.

The measure's sponsor, Sen. Roger Wicker, R-Miss., called the Amtrak gun ban an "overreaction" that punished gun owners. He noted that the law brought Amtrak's rules closer in line with airline regulations, which now allow passengers to transport unloaded firearms in checked baggage — provided they are locked in a hard-sided container.

• A federal law passed by Congress in 2005 that shields gun dealers, trade associations and manufacturers from liability in lawsuits involving firearms used in crimes. The measure sponsored by then-senator Larry Craig, an Idaho Republican and former NRA board member. The law kept in place the ability to sue over defective guns.

Firearms, however, long have been exempt from oversight by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, which regulates everything from cribs and children's toys to washing machines and pools — making it the only U.S. consumer product not subject to federal safety regulations. The federal agency with regulatory power over the gun industry is Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, which focuses on law enforcement.

"It shows the immense political clout of the NRA to exempt itself from product-safety regulation and keep it that way for years and then to get protection from civil liability," said Kristen Rand, legislative director of the Violence Policy Center.

On Monday, Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., announced plans to introduce a bill to overturn the 2005 law limiting lawsuits. "Other industries across our country don't enjoy this protection under the law," he said. "It's inexcusable for Congress to give the NRA and gun manufacturers a blank check."

The NRA's Arulanandam called moves to expand legal liability part of a "strategy by gun-control advocates to bankrupt the gun industry by holding them responsible for the activities of criminals."

• Laws restricting the ability of doctors and insurance companies to ask questions about firearm ownership, usage and storage.

A law signed last year by Florida's Republican Gov. Rick Scott threatens doctors with the potential loss of their medical licenses for recording information in patients' files about firearms. A federal judge last year ruled the law unconstitutional and blocked its implementation. Florida officials have appealed.

Marion Hammer, a Florida gun rights lobbyist and former NRA president who pushed the measure, did not return telephone calls from USA TODAY. But in a letter to The Tallahassee Democrat, she said the law addressed "the growing political agenda being carried out in examination rooms by doctors and medical staffs — and the arrogant berating if a patient refuses to answer questions that violate privacy rights and offend common decency."

Mobeen Rathore, president of the Florida chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics, said doctors have a First Amendment right to talk with patients about potential hazards in the home.

The American Academy of Pediatrics also has raised objections about a provision in the massive 2010 federal health-care overhaul that it argues will deter doctors from asking about guns in homes.

The provision, inserted by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., bars the government from using the health-care law to collect gun information and prohibits the insurance companies that participate in new health-care exchanges from using gun ownership as criteria for denying coverage or determining premiums.

In addition, the law's "wellness" provisions, which expand employer-backed efforts to encourage workers to take healthy actions such as losing weight, "may not require disclosure or collection" of information about patients' guns or ammunition.

The NRA pushed the measure to "make sure law-abiding gun owners are not target of discrimination by insurance companies," Arulanandam said this week.

Reid spokesman Adam Jentleson said the provision only sought to reassure gun owners that the federal government had no plans to use the health law to create a national firearms registry.

"It was entirely intended to reinforce current law," he said, "and to make it clear that there was no back-door attempt to create a gun database."

Copyright Gannett 2013

*

This story is part of
Gunfight in America
http://www.usatoday.com/topic/9694898b-d569-45b7-82b8-f3c6f5192868/gunfight-in-america/

*

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/01/15/nra-gun-friendly-laws/1833733/


===


More Guns, Less Crime: The Switzerland Example

By Ta-Nehisi Coates
Jan 14 2013, 3:16 PM ET

In this rant last week, Alex Jones [ http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/01/alex-jones-pitches-government-by-boxing-match/266920/ ] cited Switzerland as one of the last remaining redoubts of gun culture. This post [ http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/14/mythbusting-israel-and-switzerland-are-not-gun-toting-utopias/ ] by Ezra Klein, in which he talks to Janet Rosenbaum about her research, does a good job examining that claim, but the Wikipedia article [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland ] is also pretty informative:

The Swiss army has long been a militia trained and structured to rapidly respond against foreign aggression. Swiss males grow up expecting to undergo basic military training, usually at age 20 in the Rekrutenschule (German for "recruit school"), the initial boot camp, after which Swiss men remain part of the "militia" in reserve capacity until age 30 (age 34 for officers).

Each such individual is required to keep his army-issued personal weapon (the 5.56x45mm Sig 550 rifle for enlisted personnel and/or the 9mm SIG-Sauer P220 semi-automatic pistol for officers, military police, medical and postal personnel) at home. Up until October 2007, a specified personal retention quantity of government-issued personal ammunition (50 rounds 5.56 mm / 48 rounds 9mm) was issued as well, which was sealed and inspected regularly to ensure that no unauthorized use had taken place.

The ammunition was intended for use while traveling to the army barracks in case of invasion. In October 2007, the Swiss Federal Council decided that the distribution of ammunition to soldiers shall stop and that all previously issued ammo shall be returned. By March 2011, more than 99% of the ammo has been received. Only special rapid deployment units and the military police still have ammunition stored at home today.

When their period of service has ended, militiamen have the choice of keeping their personal weapon and other selected items of their equipment.[citation needed] In this case of retention, the rifle is sent to the weapons factory where the fully automatic function is removed; the rifle is then returned to the discharged owner.[citation needed] The rifle is then a semi-automatic or self-loading rifle.


There's a lot more in the article, but what became clear to me is that Switzerland does have a gun culture -- one that is heavily regulated by the government, right down to counting your bullets. Leaving aside that Switzerland has a fraction of America's population, leaving aside that gun ownership in Switzerland is still much lower than here in America (29 percent of households to 43 percent, respectively), this Swiss model strikes me as the kind of governmental intrusion that someone like Alex Jones is in no hurry to invite.

In our gun culture, as in so much else, we are unique. There's just no comparison.

Copyright © 2013 by The Atlantic Monthly Group

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/01/more-guns-less-crime-the-switzerland-example/267165/ [with comments]


===


Texas Dad Pretends to be Gunman Testing School Security, Gets Arrested
Published on Jan 11, 2013

Officials say Ronald Miller was unarmed Wednesday when he told a school greeter outside Celina Elementary School that he had a gun.

The town of Celina is just north of Dallas.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2S6BAWgpYg


--


Ronald Miller Poses As Gunman To Test His Child's School Security, Gets Arrested In Texas: Cops
01/15/2013
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/14/ron-miller-poses-as-gunman-to-test-school-security_n_2471381.html [with embedded video report, and comments]


===


Undercover with Europe's dangerous neo-Nazis

Thomas Kuban, a journalist who for over a decade filmed neo-Nazi concerts and other right-wing events, wears a disguise as he speaks to the Foreign Journalists' Association on November 30, 2012, in Berlin, Germany.
January 14, 2013
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57563918/undercover-with-europes-neo-nazis/ [with comments]


===


Orly Taitz Unveils White House Petition And Inaugural Plans


Birther queen Orly Taitz

By John Celock
Posted: 01/15/2013 11:48 am EST | Updated: 01/15/2013 12:20 pm EST

Birther queen Orly Taitz has announced a trip to Washington for President Barack Obama's inauguration next week, and also is unveiling a new White House petition [ https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/we-petition-barack-obama-aka-soetoro-aka-soegarkah-resign-due-his-use-forged-ids-and-stolen-ct/LSfnBpls?utm_source=wh.gov&utm_medium=shorturl&utm_campaign=shorturl (yanked)].

Taitz, a dentist, attorney and real estate agent from Rancho Santa Margarita, Calif., announced on her website [ http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=376751 ] that she plans to be in Washington Jan. 20 and 21 to picket Obama's inauguration for a second term. Taitz is planning 12 hours of picketing over the two-day period.

Her plan includes six hours of picketing the White House on Sunday during Obama's private inauguration in the building. She did not indicate where at the White House she would be meeting supporters.

On Monday, Taitz asked her followers to join her for another six hours of picketing in front of the Supreme Court. Taitz has a petition before the court demanding that it invalidate Obama's victory, which the court is scheduled to discuss during a Feb. 15 conference session [ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/09/orly-taitz-birther-supreme-court_n_2443077.html ]. The Monday protest will occur at the same time as Obama's public inauguration at the neighboring Capitol. The Supreme Court is on the opposite side of the Capitol from Obama's swearing in and speech.

"Corrupt officials and judges are committing treason and criminally complicit in cover up of forged IDs for Obama. Regime propaganda media is not reporting," Taitz wrote on her website [ http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=376751 ]. "The only way for us to spread the word is by being there in Obama’s face with signs 'Squatter in the WH with forged IDs and a stolen Soc. Sec number'. 'Obama using forged IDs, Supreme Court to decide February 15th.'"

Taitz also announced a new petition on the White House website [ https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/we-petition-barack-obama-aka-soetoro-aka-soegarkah-resign-due-his-use-forged-ids-and-stolen-ct/LSfnBpls?utm_source=wh.gov&utm_medium=shorturl&utm_campaign=shorturl (yanked)] demanding Obama's resignation for using what she calls forged identification. The petition reiterates previous Taitz claims that Obama is using a false Social Security number issued in Connecticut, along with a false last name.

As of Tuesday morning, Taitz's petition had less than 100 signatures on the White House petition website. She said a previous petition she posted on Monday had close to 1,000 signatures, but was removed from the website, for what she said were terms of use violations. The White House petition website includes a series of terms of use [ https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/how-why/terms-participation ], including prohibiting the disclosure of information that would violate a person's privacy.

Taitz's Supreme Court case [ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/09/orly-taitz-birther-supreme-court_n_2443077.html ] involves claims that three minor presidential candidates were disenfranchised by Obama being on the ballot. The three candidates aligned with Taitz includes Keith Judd, a federal prison inmate who received 41 percent of the vote against Obama in the 2012 Democratic presidential primary in West Virginia. Taitz claims that Judd would have been the Democratic presidential nominee if Obama was removed from the ballot based on his support in West Virginia.

Copyright © 2013 TheHuffingtonPost.com, Inc.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/15/orly-taitz-petition_n_2479464.html [with comments]


===


Joliet Strangulation Murders: 4 Young Adults Arrested In Horrific Double Murder

The family and friends of Eric Glover and Terrence O. Rankins are grieving after the two were found dead in a Joliet home Thursday. Emily Florez reports for NBC News at 5 p.m. on Saturday, Jan. 12, 2013. [video (from http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/4-Young-Adults-Charged-with-Strangling-2-Men-186617981.html ), embedded]

Joshua Miner

Adam Landerman

Alisa Massaro

Bethany McKee
01/15/2013
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/13/joliet-strangulation-murders_n_2467797.html [with comments]


===


(linked in):

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=83396764 and following

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=83407219 and preceding and following

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=83411213 (and any future following)

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=83415566 and following

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=83418622 and following

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=83420949 (and any future following);
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=83421020 (and any future following);
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=83421268 (and any future following)

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=83423246 and preceding and following

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=83424494 and following

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=83452095 (and any future following)

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=83460636 and following

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=83461100 and preceding and following

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=83462099 (and any future following)

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=83462586 and following

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=83463735 (and any future following)

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=83464341 (and any future following)

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=83464700 and preceding and following




Greensburg, KS - 5/4/07

"Eternal vigilance is the price of Liberty."
from John Philpot Curran, Speech
upon the Right of Election, 1790


F6

Join the InvestorsHub Community

Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.