"Even the great and powerful Kochs can’t force GOP moderation on those issues ... their political commitments are all about their bottom line, anyway."

...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
*   Not only that, we have to stop dividing our votes. Enough with the "let's vote 3rd party" crap. We have winner take all elections, that is how it is. 3rd parties only play the spoiler. Accept the fact that as long as we have winner take all elections, it's either going to be the democrat or republican that wins. Liberals need to stop making the perfect the enemy of the good. Stop putting purity over winning. I guarantee you the righties never have this debate every damn election. Debating whether to support the republicans or a 3rd party. No they know to win, they have to vote republican. Don't matter who the republican is, that's who they need to vote for. Time liberals figure this out too. Get over your perfect candidate not being on the ballot. Get over that Hillary, or Bernie, who ever the dem nominee doesn't perfectly represent you on every single issue. GET OVER IT. Just vote democratic and stop the damn republicans from destroying our country. 
*  I love election years.  They're a huge stimulus to the economy.  They take billions of dollars out of the savings of tycoons and dump them into ads in media markets across the country.  The ads have been shown to have near-zero effect (less than 1 percent return on investment), but this doesn't deter the billionaires, it actually causes them to spend even more.
    *  It is the closest thing we have to taxing them I suppose.  In a weird, Orwellian sort of way.
*  Ah, but a very important aspect of a President Hillary Clinton administration is that she will control the veto pen AND be able to appoint at least one --and probably two --supreme court justices.  It will be only then that terrible decisions like Citizen's United, voter suppression laws, and the Voting Rights Act can be corrected.  Maybe then we can get this nation back of track toward growing a solid, strong middle class again.
    *  That's if Republican craziness doesn't descend to the level of refusing to appoint the President's nominations. After all, they only just stopped short of putting the country into default, and this is something they can get just as mad about without the blowback.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Koch brothers’ humiliating secret: Why even their billions can’t save the GOP from self-destruction

The brothers, plus Fox, are trying to cull the GOP field. But they can't make it avoid demographic catastrophe

By Joan Walsh, May 26, 2015

Faced with the nightmare of up to 20-something GOP presidential candidates in 2016, Fox News last week announced its bid for sanity: It would limit its debate to the top 10 candidates in national polls. Now David Koch tells Larry Kudlow that he and brother Charles are likely to distribute some of the $900 million they’ve socked away for 2016 to “several” contenders, not just one Republican candidate.

Paul Waldman reads this as an attempt to cull the GOP field, and so do I.  The Kochs can spread the wealth, at least among Republicans, because the entire 2016 roster supports their tax-slashing, regulation-gutting, climate-change accelerating policies. Their real interest is having a limited debate among the “grown-ups” of the party and sending a strong candidate off to face the Democratic nominee, most likely Hillary Clinton.

Charles Koch said something similar last month to USA Today, specifically mentioning Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, Jeb Bush, and Senators Ted Cruz, Rand Paul and Marco Rubio.  ”Those are the ones we have talked to the most and who seem to be the possible leaders,” Koch said.

At the time, Charles’s comments were widely interpreted as cleaning up an earlier mess made by brother David, when he told New York GOP donors that the Kochs would only get involved “when the primaries are over and Scott Walker gets the nomination.” That was taken as a sign they backed the man who turned Wisconsin into an arm of Koch Industries.

When Charles Koch came out days later and said the brothers would in fact back “several” GOP candidates, I took it as evidence that they recognized that Walker had stumbled early and often in his first forays into national politics, and he shouldn’t be their only bet.

Now I think it’s a sign of many things, none of them good for the GOP.

First, even though the Democrats’ 2014 effort to raise awareness of the Kochs’ control of the GOP was widely perceived as a failure, it succeeded in making the Kochs edgy about their public image. They don’t want anybody IDed as the Kochs’ man.

It’s also a signal they don’t see anyone who’s a slam-dunk winner: Walker and Jeb Bush have matched each other for missteps all year, and the Kochs can’t afford to back a loser.

But it’s also a sign that for all their influence with the GOP field, the Kochs can’t force a change in the top candidates’ political platform.  Despite their claims that they’re still libertarian on abortion rights and marriage equality, and despite evidence they support comprehensive immigration reform, the brothers don’t even pretend to be searching for a candidate who’s moderate on any of those things.

Even the great and powerful Kochs can’t force GOP moderation on those issues — and they don’t really care that much, because their political commitments are all about their bottom line, anyway.

While the Kochs look for a way to prop up “the possible leaders” of the GOP field, Fox will try to stage-manage the clown show. Fox’s decision to use national polls, rather than polling in key primary-state races, has the benefit of wider inclusion. Biographic and demographic curiosities like neurosurgeon Ben Carson and businesswoman Carly Fiorina, two “non-politicians” who don’t have a prayer of running serious, nationwide campaigns, will likely make the cut.

Thus the Fox debate stage will likely feature two Latinos (Cruz and Rubio), plus an African American and a woman, vying to lead a party in which white men make up the majority of voters.

Meanwhile, the New York Times reported Friday that the Kochs’ efforts were eclipsing Karl Rove and his American Crossroads empire, which failed spectacularly in the 2012 cycle. Rove is suffering for his ties to the last, spectacularly unsuccessful GOP president, George W. Bush – but he doesn’t particularly get along with Bush’s brother. Not to worry: Crossroads seems to be carving out a role in attacking Hillary Clinton.

But Rove, too, was supposed to be seeking the great GOP moderate after Tea Party extremists hijacked his party and made it unelectable in presidential races. Neither Rove nor the Kochs seem able to steer the field away from demographically destructive policies on gay rights or immigration. Money can’t buy moderation on social issues, at least not yet, so the GOP’s best hopes involve trashing the Democratic nominee in 2016.
...................................................................................................................................................................

Huckabee, if you don't want to be attacked, then don't attack the rest of us!

...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
*  I'm more scared of Huckabee and other Christianist clowns than I am of any Islamist clowns in this country as there are one hell of a lot more Christianists than Islamists here.  I want all religions to stay the hell out of American politics because they are never supposed to be there in the first place...
*  "We are criminalizing Christianity in this country,' Mike Huckabee says in appealing to the religious right"   If there really is a God....I wonder how Huckabee thinks he can justify this type of fear mongering falsehood?
*  Clearly Mr. Huckabee has no use for the interests of non-Christians, which is why I can't take him seriously as a presidential candidate. This is divisive and demonizing rhetoric, intended to paint the rest of us (a small and not particularly powerful group) as a fearsome enemy. Christianity is only "under attack" insofar as the state and some institutions have increasingly ceased to give it special privileges in imposing its beliefs on others in the public sphere; in other words, only insofar as we've come as a society to observe the principles of equality of rights that pervade our Constitution. Mr. Huckabee should be ashamed.
    *   That's it in a nutshell isn't it? White males and the Christian church have enjoyed special privileges for so long that they now feel entitled to those privileges. Not having them feels like discrimination to them. No wonder they feel like victims.
*  With churches on every corner in every town in America I do not see any backlash by anyone. Oh wait, I do see backlash by the Christians against our own American Muslims, Jews, Catholics, women, gays. Most nonbelievers do not give a whiz what you believe as long as you don't try to shove it down our throats. Unfortunately, most of the evangelicals are doing just that with their conservative politicians passing laws on who to marry, when to have babies, with holding birth control from women, making raising the unwanted babies w/o any financial help. Let us alone, go worship as you wish and stay out of our lives.
*  With all of the right-wing nonsense about Obama wanting to destroy our democracy, it's amazing that Huckabee gets away with all of his nonsense. This is a secular country, not a theocracy. He is exactly the kind of demagogue that the Founding Fathers were thinking of when they wrote the 1st amendment, which essentially erects an unscalable wall between the government and religion. And yet, Mike Huckabee talks like a man who thinks the country was only intended for Bible-believing Christians. Personally, I can't detect a shred of Christian decency in his rhetoric. It is judgmental, divisive, and intolerant.  Christianity is not "under attack". The issue has become political organizations which are really congregations. Churches are tax exempt in this country because they're supposed to be apolitical. If they want to be political and start influencing elections, then they should lose that status.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Mike Huckabee's rhetoric of religious victimization
By Randall Balmer, May 30, 2015

Just prior to announcing his candidacy for the Republican presidential nomination, Mike Huckabee addressed the Iowa Faith and Freedom Coalition in Waukee. “We are criminalizing Christianity in this country,” Huckabee declared. “We cannot stand by silently.” The Southern Baptist minister, former governor of Arkansas and Fox News host went on to sympathize with those who are “scorned” or “mocked” for what they believe and suggested that they might be jailed. “That's the fear that we better face,” he concluded.

Most voters outside of Republican primaries will find these assertions less than persuasive, even paranoid, but also, perhaps, familiar. With his entry into the race, Huckabee is bringing back into the national political conversation the sounds and tropes of the religious right. Whereas the tea party, which has come to dominate the grass-roots movement, broadcasts anger, the religious right stresses victimization.

Huckabee's statement in Waukee was eerily reminiscent of the sentiments I encountered among activists on the religious right in the run-up to the Iowa caucuses in 1988. At that time, Iowa's evangelicals were still relatively new to the political process, still learning the ropes. But they were already fluent in the language of ill-treatment.

“The enemy would just come in like a flood if we didn't stand there,” one activist told me.

For much of the 20th century, America's evangelicals felt marginalized. They hunkered into a subculture of their own making — congregations, denominations, Bible camps, Bible institutes, private colleges, seminaries — to protect themselves from the depredations of an outside world that they believed was both corrupt and corrupting.

When they emerged into the political arena in the late 1970s, enraged by the rescission of tax-exempt status for segregated schools and later galvanized by opposition to abortion, they came to believe that their values were under attack. Despite their numbers and their growing political influence, they still felt, in Huckabee's words, scorned and mocked.

By the 1980s, abortion was the issue that politically conservative evangelicals talked about most — and they did so in terms that suggested an almost preternatural identification with the innocence and the vulnerability of the fetus.

“The most dangerous place to be these days,” the president of the Iowa chapter of Concerned Women for America told me in 1988, “is inside a mother's womb.”

An antiabortion radio commercial airing around that time began: “First we had abortion, and they said that was all they wanted.” The ominous voice continued: “Then we had infanticide, killing handicapped newborn babies. Now we have euthanasia, killing the elderly and sick.” Then, after a pause: “Will you be their next victim?”

“They” and “their” were never specified, and the radio spot offered no evidence of infanticide or euthanasia. But the rhetoric of vulnerability need not be accurate to be effective.

Huckabee is deploying the same sort of rhetoric now as he advances his presidential prospects and tries to mobilize conservative evangelicals.

Whereas a candidate such as Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky worries about personal liberties, Huckabee warns about religious persecution. “I came to New Hampshire to announce that I will fight for your right to be left alone,” Paul declared at the beginning of his campaign.

Huckabee's approach is less philosophical and more visceral. “I think it's fair to say that Christian convictions are under attack as never before, not just in our lifetime, but never before in the history of this great republic,” Huckabee told pastors on an April conference call arranged by the Family Research Council.

Of course, Huckabee's linguistic style is part and parcel of his political strategy. In his 2008 book, “Do the Right Thing,” Huckabee noted that whenever the religious right “was energized and turned loose, they made the difference in elections.” Conversely, “when the GOP somewhat put us back in the attic and out of the way, we lost.”

Huckabee's argument to Republican primary voters is that the religious right, beginning with Ronald Reagan and continuing with George W. Bush, has a better track record of electing presidents than the tea party. When politically conservative evangelical voters have been indifferent about the Republican nominee — George H. W. Bush's run for reelection in 1992, John McCain in 2008, Mitt Romney in 2012 — the party's fortunes have faltered.

At yet another event in Iowa last year, Huckabee took aim at those within his party who want to avoid social issues. They only want to talk about “liberty and low taxes,” he complained.

The anger of tea party activists, in Huckabee's assessment, might attract media attention, but blind fury tends to be more evanescent than moral passion or the conviction that your values are endangered.

This is the sentiment that lies behind the so-called religious-freedom laws making their way through Republican-dominated state legislatures — laws that would allow individuals and businesses to refuse service on the basis of religious convictions. Our values are under attack, they insist. Huckabee warns darkly of incarceration.

Huckabee's own path from the attic back into the mainstream of presidential politics will not be easy. Resuscitating the rhetoric of victimization that religious right voters found so compelling in the 1980s, he must persuade them that their way of life is under siege. His electoral prospects may ride on his success in doing so.
...................................................................................................................................................................

Rick, so you think the "court got it wrong". Well, we KNOW that you have it wrong!

...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
*  Just another ignorant Republican. Also one who will never get the opportunity to oppose anything from the oval office.
*  This man thinks about gay sex more than the average gay person does. Why is that, Rick?
*  These right wing republicans who are running for presidency are sounding they're running for dictatorship instead.
*  "I would love them and support them"  What a crock of BS - right-wing nutters always say stuff like that, but their actions speak much louder than their lies.
*  This stance by Santorum reminds me of George Wallace standing in the schoolhouse door to prevent integration, or Lester Maddox threatening civil rights marchers with an ax handle.  Santorum is not a "social conservative." He's a racist, homophobic, misogynist bigot.
*  Evangelical Christians are afraid of extinction. If any part of the bible is incorrect or wrong and they are forced to admit that fact, then the entire bible might be wrong or incorrect and that would mean SPIRITUAL EXTINCTION. They cannot accept that the universe moves on and it is impossible to sustain the status quo.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Rick Santorum Will Fight The Supreme Court If It Legalizes Gay Marriage
By Marina Fang, May 31, 2015



Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum said on Sunday that if the Supreme Court legalizes gay marriage later this year, he would dispute the decision, saying that the court "doesn't have the final word."

"Of course I'd fight it," he said on NBC's "Meet the Press." "Roe versus Wade was decided 30 some years ago, and I continue to fight that, because I think the court got it wrong. And I think if the court decides this case in error, I will continue to fight, as we have on the issue of life ... We're not bound by what nine people say in perpetuity."

Santorum justified his stance by arguing that the executive and legislative branches are obligated to challenge the judicial branch.

"I think it's important to understand that the Supreme Court doesn't have the final word. It has its word. Its word has validity. But it's important for Congress and the president, frankly, to push back when the Supreme Court gets it wrong," he said.

The Supreme Court last month heard oral arguments on Obergefell v. Hodges, a case involving whether or not state bans on marriage equality are constitutional. It is likely that the court will rule in favor of marriage equality when the decision is announced sometime in June. Since its landmark decisions overturning the Defense of Marriage Act and California's Proposition 8 in 2013, the court has refused to hear a number of appeals on state marriage equality bans, and in oral arguments, justices cited the growing public opinion in favor of gay marriage.

But among the GOP presidential field, several candidates have contended that state legislatures, not courts, should decide on whether or not to accept gay marriage. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) even introduced a constitutional amendment protecting states that define marriage as between a man and a woman.

As a social conservative, Santorum has long been a stalwart opponent of marriage equality. He has also said that he would not attend a gay wedding, even if it involved a close family member or friend.

"I just felt like as a person of my faith, that would be something that would be a violation of my faith. I would love them and support them, but I would not participate in that ceremony," he said.

Watch Santorum's interview in the video.
...................................................................................................................................................................

"... half of all Americans identify themselves as 'pro-choice' on abortion, surpassing the 44 percent who identify as 'pro-life' ..." Finally, going in the right direction.

...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
*  The abortion foes are always pushing the envelope ,with their insidious attempts to circumvent a woman's constitutional right to a legal medical procedure.
*  I've asked this question before and still have not heard a satisfactory answer. So, I'll ask again. Can you, without using any argument based on religion, provide a common sense and logical argument as to why abortions should not be permitted?
*  Don't like abortion? Don't get one. ...And please stop standing on the sidewalk hurling abuse at women who go to Planned Parenthood.
*  We don't protect the born so why worry about the non born.
*  Keep the government out of our lives, we don't want any regulations - well unless it is a uterus and then it is the domain of a bunch of watery eyed old white guys...
*  Republicans are committed to getting government out of their lives, but into everyone else's.
*  People are tired of republicans meddling in their lives. They keep telling people what they can do and what they can't and if republicans don't change it's going to be a disaster for their party..
...................................................................................................................................................................
Is the ground shifting under abortion? Polls, court rulings seem to say so

Gallup finds increasing support for the pro-choice view on abortion as liberals now match conservatives on social issues for the first time since 1999. Will this impact the 2016 presidential election?

By Brad Knickerbocker, May 31, 2015

Abortion has always been a political issue – back before the US Supreme Court made it legal (with some restrictions) in the 1973 Roe v. Wade case. And with another presidential election coming up – pitting generally antiabortion Republicans against Democrats who support abortion rights– that’s unlikely to change.

But the ground may be shifting under this key social issue.

Recent court cases have pushed back against state-imposed restrictions on abortion, and polls show that the pro-choice position among Americans now has what Gallup says is a “statistically significant lead.” Another recent Gallup poll shows abortion edging up as an important voting issue.

For the first time since 2008, Gallup reported Friday, half of all Americans identify themselves as "pro-choice" on abortion, surpassing the 44 percent who identify as "pro-life,” a near reversal of the figures from as recently as 2013.

Put another way, according to this poll, 78 percent say abortion should be legal at least under some circumstances – 29 percent say “any” circumstances, 13 percent in “most” circumstances – compared with just 19 percent who hold that abortion should always be illegal.

While public views on abortion continue to fluctuate, Gallup’s Lydia Saad writes, “the broader liberal shift in Americans' ideology of late could mean the recent pro-choice expansion has some staying power.” Earlier this month, Gallup reported that “31 percent of Americans describe their views on social issues as generally liberal, matching the percentage who identify as social conservatives for the first time in Gallup records dating back to 1999.”

In another poll out Friday, Gallup reports that 21 percent of voters – a substantial minority – “say they would only vote for a candidate who shares their views on abortion,” a figure that has been going up over the past seven years.

“Abortion is an ever-present issue in presidential campaigns – and a year before the 2016 election, more Americans than in the past say they will only vote for a candidate who shares their views on abortion,” writes Gallup’s Rebecca Riffkin. “So far, the candidates' abortion positions mostly echo their respective party lines, with Hillary Clinton and her leading potential rivals for the Democratic nomination all embracing the pro-choice label, while most of the likely Republican candidates (other than George Pataki) either call themselves pro-life or favor various limits on abortion and abortion funding.”

Meanwhile, recent decisions indicate the direction federal courts are taking.

• A Wisconsin law required the state’s four abortion clinics to get admitting privileges at local hospitals. But in March, a federal judge ruled the law unconstitutional, a blow to a major antiabortion strategy.

US District Judge William Conley, who had stayed the law last year as he deliberated its constitutionality, conceded that safety is a legitimate concern when it comes to abortion clinics, but ultimately ruled that the law’s remedy far exceeded any problem since so few abortions involved complications, the Monitor’s Patrik Jonsson reported at the time.

"In particular, the State has failed to meet its burden of demonstrating through credible evidence a link between the admitting privileges requirement and a legitimate health interest,” Judge Conley wrote in a 92-page ruling.

• Last week, the US Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit blocked an Arkansas law that bans abortion after 12 weeks of pregnancy.

"By banning abortions after 12 weeks' gestation, the Act prohibits women from making the ultimate decision to terminate a pregnancy at a point before viability,” the court ruled. “Because the State made no attempt to refute the plaintiffs' assertions of fact, the district court's summary judgment order [blocking the ban] must be affirmed."

• Also last week, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Idaho's law prohibiting abortions after 20 or more weeks of pregnancy is "unconstitutional because it categorically bans some abortions before viability." (“Viability” is the point at which a fetus has the potential to live outside the womb, described in Roe v. Wade as “usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks.”)

In addition to ruling on the 20-week time period, the court said Idaho's requirement that all second-trimester abortions take place in a hospital is also unconstitutional, "because it places an undue burden on a woman's ability to obtain an abortion,” NPR reported.
...................................................................................................................................................................

The GOP "committed itself to a long campaign to dilute the power of the new voters to whom it could not fundamentally appeal."

...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
*  Correct me if I am wrong here, but in the long term, it won't matter, as the rural demographic get older and whiter (aka, the Faux Noise audience) and passes from the scene and this country becomes majority minority.  I guess I should not put it past these fkrs to then attempt limit the vote only to to those who actually own land because that will be their last resort.
    *  Since they have brought back de facto the poll tax (voter ID requirements) even in the face of a constitutional amendment (the 24th) abolishing it, I see no real reason to think that a property qualification is unthinkable.
*  I just want to say for the record that I wish the fking Rapture would finally arrive and take all of these assholes away once and for all.
...................................................................................................................................................................
The Supreme Court and the Meaning of 'One Person One Vote'
In which we see the Supreme Court begin to close the circle.
By Charles P. Pierce, May 27, 2015

The modern Republican party, and the conservative movement that gives the party its only real energy, never has been down with this whole right-to-vote business—except, of course, as an equal-protection dodge in Bush v. Gore. The current Chief Justice, John Roberts, kick-started his rise in conservative politics by working to undermine the Voting Rights Act as a lawyer in Ronald Reagan's Justice Department.

(Roberts's immediate predecessor, William Rehnquist, got his start as a voter-intimidation specialist in Arizona. As a clerk, Rehnquist argued against the majority in Brown v. Board of Education, writing in one memo: "I realize that it is an unpopular and unhumanitarian position, for which I have been excoriated by "liberal" colleagues, but I think Plessy v. Ferguson was right and should be reaffirmed. To the argument that a majority may not deprive a minority of its constitutional right, the answer must be made that while this is sound in theory, in the long run it is the majority who will determine what the constitutional rights of the minority are." Oy.)

You really have to admire how they've done it. First, they turn our elections into a plutocrat's playground (Citizens United, McCutcheon). Then they uphold in the main voter-suppression tactics designed by the candidates the newly corrupt system produces out in the states (Crawford). Then, they gut any remedy that the people against whom these new laws discriminate have in federal court (Shelby County.) And now, it appears, the day of Jubilee having been declared, the circle may be closing for good.

The court's ruling, expected in 2016, could be immensely consequential. Should the court agree with the two Texas voters who brought the case, its ruling would shift political power from cities to rural areas, a move that would benefit Republicans. The court has never resolved whether voting districts should have the same number of people, or the same number of eligible voters. Counting all people amplifies the voting power of places with large numbers of residents who cannot vote legally, including immigrants who are here legally but are not citizens, illegal immigrants, children and prisoners. Those places tend to be urban and to vote Democratic. A ruling that districts must be based on equal numbers of voters would move political power away from cities, with their many immigrants and children, and toward older and more homogeneous rural areas.

(Obviously, a decision in this case would have widespread repercussions. Won't someone please think of Yakima?)

And who are the two ordinary folks from Texas whose names are on this action? Glad you asked.

But in their 2014 lawsuit, lawyers for Titus County GOP chairwoman Sue Evenwel and Edward Pfenninger of Montgomery County argued that only the number of eligible voters, not total residents, should count when deciding how to draw a voting district. Those ineligible to vote — children, immigrants, felons and the mentally incapacitated — shouldn't count, they said. "The equal protection right secures more than ballot access," their lawyers argued. "It also ensures that the vote of any one voter once cast is accorded equal weight relative to every other voter."

Back when Roberts was a rising young lawyer, the Republican party didn't have a problem with what "one man, one vote" meant. Then, the country started to brown up a little bit and the Republican party found itself trapped within the strategy whereby it had allied itself with the remnants of American apartheid. It couldn't appeal to this changing demographic because its base would go indiscriminately bananas. So, instead, it committed itself to a long campaign to dilute the power of the new voters to whom it could not fundamentally appeal. And it's now damned close to enshrining in law the principle that any electoral disadvantage—self-inflicted or not—that conservatives face is prima facie unconstitutional. It really is quite something.
...................................................................................................................................................................

Three "pots" who called the kettle black.... guess who was really the blackest?

...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
*  So the speaker of the house while having an affair with a young intern spends $40 million dollars to prove Clinton got a blow job in the Oval office.
    *  And how ironic, Clinton is the one who is still married to the same woman.
    *  Tax payer money. Ah the right wing "Family Values" party sure knows how to show their true colors. They are a Honey Boo Boo train wreck on steroids.
    *  Yep, then they complain because someone on food stamps buys a candy bar.
*  republican and hypocrite just seem to go together.
*  These aholes who present themselves as holier than thou will always fail. We had Newt who had to resign because of ethical shortcomings, not to mention his illicit affair, his 2nd in command was DeLay who had ethical problems of his own, then came Livingston who apparently had two entirely separate families, and then there was one.......Hastert. A wonderful homage to our so-called representatives in congress. You would think that the entire congress came out of Illinois.
...................................................................................................................................................................
What We Now Know About The Men Who Led The Impeachment Of Clinton
By Judd Legum, May 30, 2015

On December 19, 1998, the House of Representatives impeached Bill Clinton on two charges related to his extramarital affair with Monica Lewinsky. (The charges were for perjury and obstruction of justice.) The historic vote, and subsequent trial in the Senate, involved the work of three men who were elected Speaker of the House Of Representatives by the Republican majority, Newt Gingrich, Bob Livingston and Dennis Hastert.

Almost 17 years later, with the federal indictment of Hastert for illegally concealing up to $3.5 million in hush-money, we finally have a more complete understanding of the men who led this effort.

Newt Gingrich

Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA) led the push for Bill Clinton’s impeachment. Following a disappointing election in November 1998, he announced he was stepping down as Speaker and resigning from Congress.

Gingrich later admitted that, while he was pushing for Clinton’s impeachment, he was engaged in an affair with a Congressional aide. “There were times when I was praying and when I felt I was doing things that were wrong. But I was still doing them,” Gingrich said in 2007. He later said the situation was “complex and, obviously, I wasn’t doing things to be proud of.”

Bob Livingston

After Gingrich announced his resignation, Republicans unanimously selected Rep. Bob Livingston (R-LA) to succeed him. Livingston represented the party as Speaker-elect in the led up to the impeachment vote.

On the day of the impeachment vote, Livingston announced he was resigning following revelations that he had engaged in an extramarital affair. According to Hustler Magazine Publisher Larry Flint, who offered a reward for information about the sex lives of members of Congress, he “found four women who said they had been involved with Mr. Livingston over the last 10 years.”

Dennis Hastert

Following Livingston’s resignation, which occurred on the same day the House voted on impeachment, Rep. Dennis Hastert (R-IL) quickly gained support of the Republican leadership to succeed him as Speaker-designate. He began formally serving as speaker in January 1999, and held that role while the Senate conducted their trial on the articles of impeachment.

On Thursday, Hastert was indicted on charges that he illegally structured $1.7 million in payments to an individual in an attempt to cover up prior misconduct. According to reports, the payments were allegedly intended to “conceal sexual abuse against a former male student he knew during his days as a teacher in Yorkville, Ill.” The LA Times also reported that “investigators also spoke with a second man who raised similar allegations that corroborated what the former student said.”
...................................................................................................................................................................

Hey, Cruz, it all depends on whose ox is being gored, doesn't it?

...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
*  Texas HATES the Federal government, HATES the idea of the Federal government, Wants to cede from the union, scared the feds are going to take over and jail them in Walmart. I think now is the time to Let them have their own Nation, their own Government, before they cost us a bundle. Ted Cruz can be their NEW President , WE don't want him!!
*  There's only one word to describe little teddy cruz: HYPOCRITE.
*  Typical Conservative thinking.  I count, I am important, God speaks to ME,  I should have everything, NO SOUP FOR YOU!
*  My deepest condolences to those who have lost loved ones.  However, I'm remembering the 100 years flood that hit the residents living along the Mississippi River  (1993?)--they were told at the time by the Repubs they should know better than to live along the river. And a few of those towns did move though their homes had existed for decades, some a hundred years before the flood.  And year after year taxes from midwest citizens help those, particularly along the East and Gulf coasts, re-build after hurricanes.  Now we have a situation of Texas who hates the fed. government, hates POTUS Obama, hates the 47%, whom they qualify as the "takers", yet now those same haters have their hand out...  from the Christian Science Monitor 5/27--  "Emergency officials in Texas are struggling with the fact that they appeared to do everything by the book--and yet 21 people are still confirmed dead....But on Saturday night, hours before the height of the flood, the National Weather Service was trying to get the message out every way possible: "MOVE TO HIGHER GROUND NOW."  "...in one tragic case, 12 people in a local vacation rental reportedly got the warning only when it was delivered in person by the homeowner. By then, the flood waters had risen so high that they could not be crossed on foot.  The house was swept from its pilings". ---  Be careful of whom and what you hate, citizens of Texas should be grateful that we are a benevolent nation, a benevolent federal govt--NPR just announced that POTUS Obama has just declared several Texas counties disaster areas qualifying them for FEMA assistance.   How's all that hate serving you now, Texans?
*  As far as I'm concerned this piece of work still owes the taxpayers 24 billion dollars for that silly government shutdown a couple of years back. How much would that 24 billion dollars help out Texas right now, you stooge?
...................................................................................................................................................................
Ted Cruz adopts a new posture on disaster aid
By Steve Benen, May 29, 2015

The storms in Texas this week have caused deadly flooding, affecting communities across much of the state. According to NBC News’ latest reporting, “at least 23 people have died in flooding across the state this week.”

Given the disaster, it’s hardly surprising to see members of Texas’ congressional delegation speaking up in support of federal disaster relief. TPM reported yesterday:

“There are a series of federal statutory thresholds that have to be satisfied. Initially, it appears those thresholds are likely to be satisfied by the magnitude of the damage we’re seeing,” Cruz said while touring the flooding in Wimberley, Texas, according to Texas television station KSAT.

“Democrats and Republicans in the congressional delegation will stand as one in support of the federal government meeting its statutory obligations to provide the relief to help the Texans who are hurting.”

This is, of course, exactly what one expects of a senator after his state is confronted with a crisis. Indeed, note the senator’s specific phrase: “statutory obligations.” For Cruz, it’s not even optional – Americans have a duty under the law to come to Texas’ aid.

But as the TPM report added, Cruz took a very different posture in the wake of Hurricane Sandy, when he opposed federal disaster relief.

“This bill is symptomatic of a larger problem in Washington – an addiction to spending money we do not have,” the Texas Republican said at the time. “The United States Senate should not be in the business of exploiting victims of natural disasters to fund pork projects that further expand our debt.”

As best as I can tell, he made no references to “statutory obligations” at the time.

If this seems like a familiar dynamic, it’s probably because it’s far more common than it should be.

Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), for example, voted against emergency aid to Hurricane Sandy victims, arguing at the time that he didn’t “think Arkansas needs to bail out the Northeast.” But last July, Cotton was quick to seek federal aid for Arkansas when it suffered severe flooding.

And in Colorado, every Republican in the state’s congressional delegation voted against post-Sandy relief, and then every Republican in the state’s congressional delegation wanted emergency funding for their own state in September 2013.

Update: I heard this morning from Brian Philips, a senior communications aide to Sen. Cruz, who said the senator’s opposition to post-Sandy aide was based on what Cruz saw as “pork” in the bill, not opposition to federal assistance itself. Cruz eventually called the federal response “appropriate.”
...................................................................................................................................................................

"Is there no one left in public life in Illinois who knows the difference between right and wrong and will follow the former?" It sure wasn't Hastert!

...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
*  Look at the kind of people who run for these offices. They are essentially professional fundraisers. They have to be, in order to pay for the ads and mail.  The answer is to shrink the size of campaigns. Make them so small, they have to be done door to door, person to person. We need people elected on character and issues, not fundraising.  How? Subdivide the districts into 100 tiny ones. Those 100 then send a member of a Working Committee to Springfield. Give the 99 back home a vote for accountability.  Check it out at Neighborhood Legislature
*  While I'm at it, Greg, you are part of the problem. You - the media - give plenty of attention to the fundraising. You disdain people, such as myself, who spend their own money to get elected because they feel an obligation as a citizen and someone who has done well to give back. You think people like me or Rauner, for that matter, are in it for the power trip. I can't speak for Rauner but I got involved because I wanted to change the kind of leadership we have. Like you, I too am disgusted with the type of leadership we get - from Obama to Blago. Empty suits who mouth rhetoric but haven't really had to produce anything of value in their life.  When the media starts to encourage those who have been successful, instead of the used car salesmen we get, then we may get some leadership we can be proud of.  By the way, Hastert is indicted for the wrong crime. His bigger crime was being complicit with Bush in running up the national debt and the size of government, from NCLB to Medicare part D to Sarbanes Oxley to McCain Feingold, etc etc. It should also be noted that Hastert did nothing after his speakership but cash in, a la the Clintons - sitting on boards, lobbying and giving speeches for big $$. Disgusting is too nice a word to use.
*  Corruption is the human condition. It takes character not to succumb.
*  I am sure there are plenty of people who know "right from wrong" though it may be a good question why the best people are not the ones choosing to run for office. Seems the leadership of both parties in the state and the entire system of recruiting people into politics in IL needs to be overhauled (e.g., who in party leadership assesses the character of someone running for office for the first time?).
...................................................................................................................................................................
And now it's Hastert. When will it ever end?
By Greg Hinz, May 29, 2015

At core, you'd be hard-pressed to come up with two more engaging stories of the American dream successfully at work than those of Denny Hastert and Aaron Schock.

Hastert was the revered high school wrestling coach, an affable, ordinary guy from the sticks who somehow ended up in Congress and, when his party called, in the speaker's chair, two heartbeats away from the presidency. Schock was the young man on the make, a motivated mover who was on his local school board in his teens, the House Ways and Means Committee in his 20s, and who knows how high in his 30s or 40s.

Now, in a puff of that lovely Illinois cultural air—as fresh and inviting as the back lot at a pig farm—both are gone, Schock forced from office in disgrace and under any number of investigations, and Hastert facing the end of his life in prison after allegedly agreeing to pay $3.5 million in apparent hush money to an acquaintance of his back from his high school days. The Los Angeles Times is now reporting that Hastert was paying to conceal sexual misconduct.

Does it never end? Is there no one left in public life in Illinois who knows the difference between right and wrong and will follow the former?

To say I'm disgusted is a gross understatement. Who gets indicted next, the Roman Catholic archbishop of Chicago?

I've been covering this stuff for 40 years, back when then-Ald. Paul Wigoda, 49th, got pinched in a zoning bribery scandal, and then-state Sen. Edward Scholl was found guilty of bribery. The former was a Democrat, the latter was a Republican, and that's apt, because when it comes to corruption chicanery, both major parties are involved up to their armpits.

Big Democrats: Dan Rostenkowski and Ed Rosewell, Jesse Jackson Jr. and Rod Blagojevich. And equally big Republicans: first George Ryan and now Hastert and Schock. All fully aware of what happened to the lives of those who preceded them when they broke the rules, but all (saving Hastert, who has yet to go to trial) blissfully ignorant.

MONEY OVER SERVICE

In prior cases of public misconduct, I've offered some theories as to why things never seem to change in this city and state.

One is that too many of our public officials are in it not to serve the public but to get things for themselves, be it money, power or sexual favors.

Even now, though they're careful to stay on this side of the law, both Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan and Senate President John Cullerton profit from tax appeals legal practices representing people who need something from government. Even now, reform Gov. Bruce Rauner pursues policies that will cut tax bills and fatten profits for him and his rich friends while simultaneously asking other groups to take it in the ear. In his case, such policies surely are legal but risk deepening the us-versus-them quality that is at the core of Illinois' political culture.

Another part of the problem is that we the people keep putting up with it. Only a few days ago, the ex-chief of staff to Ald. Howard Brookins was sentenced to 15 months in jail for taking a bribe to get his boss to sign off on liquor licenses. The alderman denies he's done anything wrong, and he faces no charges. But he hired the chief of staff and, guess what? He was just elected to a new four-year term.

To give a couple other examples, Dan Rostenkowski became a local hero after he got out of the pen, actually hired by a TV station to be a commentator. And Rod Blagojevich was easily re-elected as governor, even though the signs of what he'd done were almost everywhere.

But the rest of the answer of why this keeps occurring, time after time after time, is a mystery to me. It happens in the city and the suburbs, metropolitan Chicago and downstate. Among young officials and old veterans, Democrats and Republicans. Maybe it's just that it keeps happening because it did happen, sheer evil momentum.

I don't know.

I was supposed to go to the closing luncheon of the Chicago Forum on Global Cities today. I wanted to hear the discussion about whether cities ought to have their own foreign policy.

I obviously missed it, caught up in the Hastert scandal. But I say Chicago should have its own foreign policy. That is to pay some island nation in, say, the far, far south Pacific, to agree to take our crooked pols after we banish them.

It had better be a big island. And it ought to have lots of expansion capacity for decades to come.
...................................................................................................................................................................

"Nowhere is the darkness of this destructive force on the right more evident than in its willingness to sacrifice the most vital needs of our children and grandchildren for its own short-term enrichment."

...................................................................................................................................................................
ALEC’s threatened SLAPP suit against the LCV: Another part of the assault on our democracy
By Andy Schmookler, May 29, 2015

Some thoughts about the press release that my wife, April Moore, put out earlier this week. In it, she challenged her opponent – Virginia State Senator (and apparent would-be-Virginia’s Scott Walker), Mark Obenshain – to condemn the suit threatened by corporate powerhouse ALEC against the League of Conservation Voters.

ALEC’s attempt to intimidate the LCV represents should be understood as part of the larger picture of how the Big Money Power is subverting American democracy.

This particular abuse of money power is not directly connected with the electoral process. Rather it is an attempt of Big Money to strangle the public discourse on which a healthy democracy depends, the flow of information and ideas that helps the American people give informed consent to their government.

Bringing such a suit – or even just threatening it – represents a serious abuse of the legal system to silence those people who are doing for the nation precisely what our founders had in mind when they constructed the American system of liberty: telling the public the truth about what’s going on.

This kind of abuse of the legal system has a name: SLAPP, Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation.

Although America’s founders set up the court system as a means for achieving justice, in suits like this, that purpose is turned on its head. “Justice for all” is what is implied by the blindfold that Lady Justice wears. When Justice weighs the facts and the law in its scales, it is blind to who is powerful and who is weak. Thus the Courts are supposed to be the one place – besides also the ballot box – where the weak have equal standing.

A SLAPP suit works to bring inequality of power to bear even in that legal system. Because it takes money to conduct a protracted legal struggle, the Big Money Power can defeat – through a war of attribution — those who lack such deep pockets who would stand up against it.

This perversion of our fundamental democratic values is part of the same picture as the buying of elections. ALEC’s effort to intimidate the League of Conservation Voters should be seen as part of the same pattern of plutocratic abuses as the Citizens United decision, voter suppression, and the propaganda work of Fox News et al. by which the Big Money Power drives millions of our countrymen into fear and confusion and misunderstanding.

As bad as all SLAPP suits are, this one — even the threat of this one — is particularly egregious. For it is on the subject of climate change that ALEC is seeking to silence its critics. Not, of course, by cleaning up its own act, but by intimidating those who are calling out their dirty ways. Nowhere is the darkness of this destructive force on the right more evident than in its willingness to sacrifice the most vital needs of our children and grandchildren for its own short-term enrichment.

(This is the force that is the focus in my forthcoming book What We’re Up Against: The Destructive Force at Work in Our World– and How We Can Defeat It.)

April’s campaign against Mark Obenshain is a clear microcosm of the large battle that we must fight and win. April Moore is running to restore power to the people, and Mark Obenshain has a record of being an apparently willing servant of the Big Money force that is destroying government for and by the people. (Mr. Obenshain has introduced ALEC’s bills into the legislature, he’s received a $60,000 campaign contribution from the Koch Brothers, he’s done the bidding of Dominion Power.)

It will be interesting to see how Senator Obenshain responds to this challenge. Will he meet the challenge, and denounce the corporate power that seems to have picked him to be their guy (perhaps in the Virginia Governor’s mansion)? Or will he hold fast to that allegiance, and bring into clearer public view his service to Big Money in its degradation of the gift of democracy that our founders bequeathed to us?
...................................................................................................................................................................

"... if there’s anything voters should fear about Clinton, perhaps, it’s not that she’s rich but that she doesn’t seem to regard herself that way."

...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
*  One thing to keep in mind is that no president governs alone. The wealthy have the opportunity to accustom themselves to receiving advice from their staffs. People from modest backgrounds, especially those with deep self-doubts, may tend to micromanage and second guess their staffs, throw them into turmoil, and wind up with little continuity and lots of turmoil. If any candidate is as smart as his or her background would have you believe, they will choose their staffs wisely -AND- listen to them.
*  It's a fair point I suppose, but one that isn't limited to just Clinton. I don't think there are any candidates, or any other politicians for that matter, that know what it's like living as an average American. And somewhere along the way, someone duped most of us into believing rich people = smart people. But thanks to social media like Twitter, I think people just may finally realize that isn't the case at all - and all we get from having rich politicians is a government that cares only about the small rich population in the nation.  What I wouldn't give for just one year where people abandon the hopeless and pointless left vs right argument and just once consider the possibility of voting for people that understand and care about us; the normal Americans.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Hillary Clinton’s not like the rest of us? Good!
By Matt Bai, May, 28, 1015

After more than 200 years of contributing pretty much nothing to American democracy other than some inspired ice cream and a buffer against Canadian aggression, Vermont has apparently decided that once a decade it should send out some scrappy, leftist presidential candidate who will take it to the elitist Democratic establishment. This time it’s Bernie Sanders’s turn.

In an interview with CNBC’s John Harwood this week, Sanders assailed the party’s presumed nominee, Hillary Clinton, for having accumulated the kind of wealth that can “isolate you from the reality of the world.” He said she probably spent hundreds of dollars on dinner rather than eating “in restaurants like this.”

Senator Sanders made this comment while sitting in what CNBC described as a “bistro near the Capitol,” which doesn’t exactly sound like Applebee’s, but you get the point: Clinton is out of touch with regular Americans because she doesn’t buy used cars or stockpile CVS coupons or save up for Disneyland like the rest of us do.

To which I would only ask: why on God’s earth would we want a president like us?

I see why Sanders thinks he can get some traction with this. The “out of touch” mantra has been a perennial line of attack in our campaigns for several decades, at least. George H.W. Bush didn’t know the price of milk, John McCain had more houses to keep track of than the ancient tribes of Israel, and John Kerry got caught windsurfing off Nantucket when he should have been, you know, playing darts or something. Mitt Romney admitted to building a multilevel garage for his private car collection in La Jolla, Calif.

The “out of touch” theme grows more pronounced every cycle, mainly because our politics looks more and more like a hobby for the superwealthy and superbored. This year’s Republican field includes another multimillionaire Bush scion, a multimillionaire heart surgeon, a multimillionaire business executive, and so on down the line.

You want to know who’s not an out-of-touch multimillionaire? Marco Rubio. Last year, apparently, Rubio, who makes more than $200,000 per year and sends four children to private school, cashed in more than $68,000 in retirement accounts because he needed to buy a $3,000 refrigerator and replace his air conditioning.

I get it. This is precisely the kind of thing the rest of us might do if we really, really wanted that sweet side-by-side with the crushed-ice dispenser. But if you think cashing in your IRAs to spruce up the kitchen is a sound financial decision, I’m not sure I want you tinkering around with the Social Security Administration, you know what I mean?

We have this obsession in our politics with what we’re always calling the Horatio Alger story, even though, truth be told, most Americans under 60 wouldn’t know Horatio Alger from Alger Hiss. Basically, it means we think our presidents should be self-made, “everyday Americans,” to use the language of the Clinton campaign. (Apparently, the more affluent among us are only American on certain days of the week, like Tuesday.)


This is why we have this irritating cliché about the candidate with whom you’d most like to have a beer. It’s why pollsters routinely ask the question about whether their candidate understands “people like me,” then force their clients to go eat at Chipotle or wear a flannel shirt.

The thing is, 20th-century history tells a very different story about what constitutes compassion and what qualifies a president to lead. Theodore Roosevelt was so elitist and out of touch that he waged an all-out war against corporate monopolies at a time of rapid industrialization (not to mention inventing the concept of public land conservation). His privileged cousin Franklin created what we now know as the social safety net, amid fierce opposition from most in his own financial and social strata.

John Kennedy inherited the ill-gotten wealth of a bootlegging empire, to the point that he joked in 1960 about how his father was willing to pay for a victory but not for a landslide. He wound up advancing the civil rights movement and inspiring a generation of social activism.

What history tells us is that wealth doesn’t actually have much to do with making presidents callous or self-absorbed; insecurity does. Richard Nixon was one of those classic Horatio Alger characters, and yet his clinical inferiority complex destroyed his presidency and much of our political culture, too.

Lyndon Johnson came from nothing and burned to be seen as the social and intellectual equal of the Kennedys. If he hadn’t been so consumed by that neediness, he might have seen clearly the folly of Vietnam.

Don’t get me wrong: Wealth by itself is hardly a guarantor of great judgment or integrity. George W. Bush had all the breeding and money a man could want, but his own insecurity — the sense that, as the written-off son, he had something to prove to his father and the world — probably blinded him to his own tragic missteps in Iraq.

But if you’re asking me to choose between the self-made man or woman with resentments and identity issues, on one hand, and some arrogant oligarch who serves no financial master and is compelled to seek office mostly by some patronizing sense of altruism on the other (Michael Bloomberg, New York’s former mayor, comes to mind), then I’ll take out-of-touch every time, and so should you.

In fact, if there’s anything voters should fear about Clinton, perhaps, it’s not that she’s rich but that she doesn’t seem to regard herself that way. Having come from modest means and devoted most of their lives to public service, the Clintons seem to spend an awful lot of time these days focused on accumulating money, as if they still don’t have very much of it.

The speeches that have recently netted them $30 million, the foundation that sucks up cash from foreign governments, the first-class tickets for a two-hour flight from New Hampshire to Washington — all of it speaks to some underlying need to live in the rarified world they could only hope to glimpse as career politicians.

I don’t buy that Clinton is hopelessly out of touch with the lives of these “everyday Americans,” and I doubt that voters will, either. But I do wonder if she harbors some persistent insecurity about her own financial wherewithal after all these years spent in the company of staggeringly rich contributors.

Where insecurity lurks, bad decisions follow.
...................................................................................................................................................................

"... child molesting is never a mistake. No matter who does it, it’s always a felony."

...................................................................................................................................................................
I realize that the quoted comments are long, but they represent some of the best thoughts posted about Duggar's crime (to hell with his "sin").
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
*  Sorry, Tamara, but first of all, the family didn't deal with it until long after it started, and then they sent him to do construction work for three months. Second, Josh molesting his sisters wasn't just a sin that God can forgive, it was a CRIME and should have been dealt with by law enforcement, the same as other molesters do. His parents cared more about their commercial success than they did about their own daughters by covering for their son. Parents don't get to choose the punishment for criminal acts.....that's what the judicial system is for. The Duggar family needs to stop sitting in judgment of others when they have family members who are no better than the people they constantly judge. In all their scripture quotes, the seem to forget this one: Judge not, lest ye be judged. I think they're learning that Karma is a b****.
*  Maybe a lot of you just hate the law but child abuse is illegal. No matter who you are, no matter how much money you may have, or your family may have, or how much political power, the law must be applied equally to everyone. Furthermore, one of the most important principles of our republic has been that the United States of America is (or at least, should be) governed by the rule of law, not the rule of men. Richard Nixon (resigned before being impeached) was not above it. Bill Clinton (impeached) was not above it. Bernie Madoff, Martha Stewart, OJ Simpson, Scott Peterson - none were above it. We have a legal system to protect the rights of abuse victims, as well as alleged perpetrators. By bypassing this system, by showing nothing but pure contempt and outright hatred for it, is to show the same for America. How different is this from sharia law, which bypasses any nation's laws and imposes its own set of values? This is the kind of thing that Daesh (aka ISIS) loves. Real Americans should not. The victims need their day in court.
*  Finally!! A response that doesn't confuse the Christian mandate to 'forgive', with the Christian mandate to obey the laws of the land, and when necessary, prosecute and convict the criminal to prison. We are to forgive the sinner (thank God, because we are all sinners). BUT, we must also uphold the law and prosecute felony crimes. YES, we can walk in forgiveness and even reconciliation with the person that commits the crime, but we do this while they go through the process of prosecution and restitution. Christians have a hard concept with this. Sexual abuse is not a moral failure. It is a violent crime against innocent children, the same as rape and murder. Usually perpetrated by a trusted family member or friend. Even more tragic and such a grotesque violation of trust. For some reason, people get all tied up when it comes to a fellow Christian who is caught in this particular kind of sin. They blather on about out how young he was etc. Well? Most Pedophiles begin to act out on their sexual preference when they are young. Usually at puberty, and usually in a place where they have free access to kids. They typically choose younger kids that they can control, and then move on to experiment with as many kids as they can. In this sad case, Mr. Duggar mollested 4 or 5 young girls. That's what we know so far anyway. Committing this act inside of his own family leads me to believe he had to take a lot of effort to control and plan this out. He also had to silence the girls. I doubt that any of them knew that others were being mollested as they were. Divide and conquer is a very effective approach. The fact that he went on to marry and have children, is completely normal for a Pedophile. As they grow in to adulthood, unfortunately, their preference for children does not change. The fact that his family covered it up is NOT a surprise either. Most do. Even friends cover it up because they just can't fathom that the person in question is that evil. Another misconception? Pedophiles are not gay. They are sexually attracted to children and young adults. Some prefer girls and some prefer boys (or both). My personal belief and experience has been that the Pedophile is hard wired to prefer sexual contact with kids. They grow in to adulthood and may live a relatively normal life. Even marrying and having kids of their own. But, they continue to struggle with their sexual bent and cover it up as best they can. In part, because they know it's wrong. In almost every case, Pedophiles are very likable, trustworthy and upstanding members of their community and church. They maintain an incredible facade to cover their real selves. Christians are no more less likely to be a Pedophile. In fact, I would suggest that they are among the worst because their faith community and family refuse to confront them as a criminal and not 'just a sinner'. Wake up!!
*  "reality" shows that TLC shove at us are a mixture of bizarre, weird and sometime border on perversions like Toddlers in Tiaras that glorified little girls being judged on their sophistication, makeup, dance gyrations and sexy costumes. Know what, it's just wrong and we support it by watching. If TLC doesn't pull the plug from 19 Kids and Counting then I hold them responsible as enablers of this behavior. Yes it was a sin and he admitted and repented in Christian camp at age 15. But this is also a crime and should have been treated as such. The girls will have to carry this all their lives and trust me, it's guilt they carry because that's what the cult has taught them. They were molested, but it must have been their fault. It wasn't merely a "bad" thing that he had done to many children repeatedly, it was a damn CRIME.
...................................................................................................................................................................
CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIANS MISCOUNT
By Michael Reagan, May 28, 2015

I don’t care how popular the Duggar family and their TLC reality show “19 Kids & Counting” is with Christian conservatives.

I don’t care how many Republican presidential hopefuls Josh Duggar posed with in Iowa, or how important his celebrity was to the Family Research Council, the conservative Christian lobbying group.

When the Duggar family’s oldest son admitted he had molested and fondled five little girls — including some of his own sisters — when he was 14, it was time for conservative Christians to hold Josh and the Duggar family accountable for their actions.

Most didn’t.

Also, I noticed, most of those who want to be the GOP’s president in 2016 bit their tongues and pretended they hadn’t heard the shocking news.

But not Mike Huckabee, the ordained Southern Baptist minister. He really blew it.

Rushing to his Facebook page, he said he and his wife affirmed their support for the Duggar family. He said what Josh did was “inexcusable” but not “unforgivable.”

“Good people make mistakes and do regrettable and even disgusting things,” Huckabee wrote.
Almost 70,000 of Huckabee’s Facebook followers “liked” what he said, but he was completely wrong.

Child molesting is not a “mistake” you make when you’re young. It’s a crime against the innocent that should be prosecuted — and one I believe that should have no statute of limitations. In fact, the statute of limitations is only there to protect the guilty, not protect the innocent.

As we wait for more shoes to drop in this scandal, I have some uncomfortable questions people should be asking.

Let’s start with Josh, who’s now 27, has three kids and is no longer the executive director of the Family Research Council.

Was he a born a molester? Was he molested as a child?

Were other members of Josh’s huge family molested? Should he be in therapy now? Are his own kids safe?

Child molesting is evil, sad, disgusting stuff. I know. I was molested by a camp counselor when I was eight. Though my father wanted to kick his butt when he found out 34 years later, my molester never paid for his “mistake.” But I did.

Child molesting is often covered up — and most often it’s the family itself that protects the molester.

Did Duggar’s parents put their commercial success ahead of holding Josh accountable? Were they afraid to lose the national platform TLC gave them for their strict brand of Christian family values?

And speaking of TLC, shouldn’t we be asking its executives what they knew about Josh’s “mistake” and when they knew it? Did they care more about ratings and revenues than doing what was right?

Republicans and conservatives should be asking the people who run the Family Research Council the same tough ethical questions.

If it turns out they knew about Josh’s past and were still willing to hire him because of his celebrity, the FRC’s credibility is finished. Everything it believes in and has fought for will be lost.This scandal was a good time to do more than just fire Josh Duggar from the FRC and put the TV show on hold. It was also an opportunity to hold Josh accountable for his actions. But that didn’t happen.

As for Huckabee, I also have some questions.

If you found out tomorrow that Barack Obama had molested his young nieces when he was 14, would you call that “a mistake” and say you were willing to forgive him?

What if teen-age Barack had been caught molesting, was reprimanded and was then caught molesting again a year later?

Would you still say no purpose would be served by discrediting Barack Obama or his family by “sensationalizing” the story? I bet not.

We all know why Huckabee blew it. He had Iowa on his mind, not God.

He didn’t want to lose the support of the Duggar family or his Christian base, so he decided to call Josh Duggar’s child molesting a “mistake.”

But child molesting is never a mistake. No matter who does it, it’s always a felony. And it’s not something a cable network or a family is ever entitled to cover up.
...................................................................................................................................................................

What is worse than an air bag? The nut behind the wheel!!

...................................................................................................................................................................
Hey, we may not always be able to do anything about politicians, but here's something we CAN do to make ourselves safer!
...................................................................................................................................................................
Three Ways to Avoid A Dangerous Air Bag
By Sharon Carty, May 21, 2015

Earlier this morning I was on a radio talk show chatting about the Takata airbag recalls, and the host asked me if it made sense for people to get their airbags disabled rather than face the possibility of being hit in the face and body with shrapnel if they ever crashed.

The answer is simple: Absolutely not. First, you probably won’t be able to find any mechanics willing to do that for you. Second, the chance that it’s your air bag that will turn into a grenade is very, very slim. Relying on just your seatbelt in a serious accident is a huge gamble that I don’t advise anyone take.

Still, it’s going to take a long time for these airbag parts to be replaced — up to five years by some estimates. That’s a dog’s age to drive around with something dangerous living behind your steering wheel.

Yet most of us put up with just such a threat every day.

My advice? Stop being a shitty driver. The best way to stay safe in a crash is to not get in one in the first place.

“But Sharon,” you might argue, “I am an excellent driver!” I’m sure you are. Or at least, I’m sure you think you are. But studies show that people engage in risky behavior behind the wheel all of the time. And they trick themselves into believing they are able to do these behaviors well because, most of the time, they don’t get into accidents. Until they do.

Here are some common, frustrating driver behaviors you could stop doing today that will slash the likelihood that you will get blasted in the face by a faulty airbag:

1. Stop texting and driving.

OK people. Let’s be frank. A lot of us don’t see any problem with looking at our texts, checking our email, or even popping on to Facebook for a minute while we’re speeding down the highway.

Just this week, AT&T released a report saying that, despite its efforts and other awareness campaigns, drivers are increasingly using their phones for things besides texting while driving. AT&T says that 30 percent of people who post to Twitter claim they do it while driving “all of the time.” Another 10 percent of people will even video chat while driving.

Want to avoid a crash? Stop doing that.

2. Stop drinking and driving.

As a society, we have gotten better about lowering our alcohol consumption and taking more care before we get behind the wheel. Mothers Against Drunk Driving says the number of deaths caused by impaired drivers has been cut in half since the organization was founded in 1980. But people are still doing it. The Center for Disease Control says that the average drunk driver has driven impaired 80 times before he or she gets arrested.

Let that sink in for a minute. Eighty times.

Most people aren’t really aware of their blood alcohol content before getting behind the wheel. Having just one or two drinks can put you over the limit, and increase your likelihood of getting into a crash.

Even though we should all know how dangerous this behavior is, people are still doing it. To date, six deaths around the world have been linked to Takata air bags; in 2013 in the United States alone, the death toll from drunk drivers surpassed 10,000 victims. So if you are one of those people who is scared of getting hit with a Takata airbag, don’t drink and drive, or use drugs of any kind – prescription or illegal – before driving.

3. Stop driving like an idiot.

And by driving like an idiot, I mean tailgating on the highway. Driving too fast. Swerving through traffic. Not paying attention while driving through intersections. Multiple surveys over the years have shown that the vast majority of drivers think it’s someone else’s fault when they get into an accident. And yet researchers know there are common driving behaviors that lead to accidents.

Speed is, by far, the biggest factor that can determine whether an accident turns fatal. It’s just basic physics that tells us that when a body moving at a high rate of speed comes to a sudden stop, the forces on the human body are multiplied.

But beyond that, driving slower lets you react to the changing landscape better. And it makes it easier to bring your car to a stop. Plus, when you’re not tailgating and you’re leaving enough space between you and the car in front of you, you have ample room to brake if the person in front doesn’t have a Takata airbag and isn’t so worried about shrapnel in the face and torso. Be aware of those drivers. There are plenty of them out there on the roads.

The Takata recall is one giant mess at the moment, and it will take a long time to clean up. The best thing you can do is make sure you know if your car is involved, and do what you can to keep yourself out of a crash. Keep using your seatbelt, too, and pile on the common sense when you’re driving.
...................................................................................................................................................................