June 18, 2016


News and Views


http://www.cbsnews.com/news/pennsylvania-girls-rescue-parents-gave-daughter-away/

Pennsylvania girls' rescue reveals couple allegedly gave daughter away
CBS/AP
June 18, 2016, 7:34 AM

Photograph -- Lee Kaplan is seen in this photo provided by the Lower Southampton Police Department in Pennsylvania. LOWER SOUTHAMPTON POLICE DEPARTMENT VIA KYW-TV


FEASTERVILLE, Pa. -- A Pennsylvania couple is accused of child endangerment after police said they gave away their 14-year-old daughter to a man who helped them financially. The friend has been charged with sexually assaulting the teen, who had two children with him.

Officials acting on a tip Thursday found 51-year-old Lee Kaplan at his Feasterville home, along with 12 girls ranging in age from six months to 18 years.

Neighbors said that from time to fime [sic] they would see little faces peeking out from the windows of the home, never quite knowing who the children were, Alexandria Hoff of CBS Philadelphia station KYW-TV reports. Police said that when the neighbors inquired, the man said he lived alone.

Jen Betz has been hailed as a hero for trusting the odd feeling she had about the house and calling police, Hoff reports.

"I just made the call," Betz said. "I just, I don't know. It's just an instinct. I just felt like I wasn't going through another summer where everybody should be outside kind of thing and not see those little girls again."

According to an affidavit, Daniel Stoltzfus told an officer he gave his daughter to Kaplan after he helped the family out of financial ruin. He told police he thought it was legal after he did some research online.

Kaplan faces a number of charges including statutory sexual assault and aggravated indecent assault. Daniel Stoltzfus is charged with conspiracy of statutory sexual assault and children endangerment. His wife, Savilla Stoltzfus, is charged with endangering the welfare of a child.

All three are being held on $1 million bail. No lawyer information was listed in court documents.

The girl, now 18, told police she and Kaplan have a 3-year-old and a six-month-old.

Lower Southampton Police Lt. John Krimmel said the Stoltzfuses told police they were Amish, and a criminal complaint shows their address as Quarryville, in Lancaster County. However, Krimmel said it appeared the couple had been living with Kaplan, although it was unclear for how long.

The Stoltzfuses told police they were going to lose their farm until Kaplan "came out of the blue and saved them from financial ruin," said Bucks County District Attorney David Heckler.

The couple told police the other nine girls in the house were their children, Krimmel said. No birth certificates or Social Security cards could be located to confirm they were the parents, he said.

The children have been placed in child protective custody, Krimmel said.

Investigators are still piecing together what exactly happened, Heckler said, including how Kaplan and the couple met each other.



“All three are being held on $1 million bail. No lawyer information was listed in court documents. The girl, now 18, told police she and Kaplan have a 3-year-old and a six-month-old. Lower Southampton Police Lt. John Krimmel said the Stoltzfuses told police they were Amish, and a criminal complaint shows their address as Quarryville, in Lancaster County. However, Krimmel said it appeared the couple had been living with Kaplan, although it was unclear for how long. …. The couple told police the other nine girls in the house were their children, Krimmel said. No birth certificates or Social Security cards could be located to confirm they were the parents, he said.”


This is an extreme case of people “living off the grid” by never making contact with government. No taxes, no birth certificates for their children, etc. Sometimes those who do that are “Sovereign Citizens,” and the like, often they have warrants out against them for crimes, or they are simply on the psychotic fringe. In this case they seem to be unable to fend for themselves financially and take care of their kids, which they just keep bringing into the world because they don’t use birth control. This man Kaplan “helped them” financially and they, to pay the debt, gave him their daughter. More unusually, the whole family was apparently living with Kaplan. This kind of poverty, untouched by government aid, can produce some very disturbing patterns. I am glad to see that in this case, the children have been removed from the home and placed with child protective service; and that not only Kaplan, but the parents as well have been charged with child endangerment. Since there was a statutory sexual assault involved, they will probably get “the book thrown at them!” At least I hope so.

Even in these days, we as a civilized society need to be aware of pockets in the population who are untouched by law enforcement and needed financial aid, and the things that result from that. “Conservative” places like Pennsylvania and Appalachia tend to neglect such people as being so “unworthy” that they don’t deserve help. Black people are also considered in that light, of course. My mother said that churches when she was young used to give money, food, bedding, etc. to those whom they called “the deserving poor.” I do wish I could do something about the American turn of mind. There is no place for simple empathy and concern here among those who believe strictly in the survival of the fittest as a benign philosophy.

See the following Wikipedia article on the Kallikak family, including the eugenicist Henry H. Goddard’s conclusions leading to the infrequently mentioned American Eugenics program:

“Goddard concluded from this that intelligence, sanity, and morality were hereditary, and every effort should be undertaken to keep the 'feeble-minded' from procreating, with the overall goal of potentially ending 'feeble-mindedness' and its accompanying traits. The damage from even one dalliance between a young man and a "feeble-minded" girl could create generations and generations worth of crime and poverty, with its members eventually living off the generosity of the state (and consequently taxpayers), Goddard argued.”

. . . .

“Another recent perspective has been offered that the Kallikaks almost certainly had undiagnosed fetal alcohol syndrome.[3][4] In addition to poverty and malnourishment, prenatal alcohol exposure can create craniofacial and other physical anomalies that could account for their peculiar facial features.[5] Furthermore, prenatal alcohol exposure may also damage the central nervous system, which can result in impaired cognitive and behavioral functioning similar to that described by Goddard.[5]”


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Kallikak_Family

The Kallikak Family
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Kallikak Family: A Study in the Heredity of Feeble-Mindedness was a 1912 book by the American psychologist and eugenicist Henry H. Goddard. The work was an extended case study of Goddard's for the inheritance of "feeble-mindedness," a general category referring to a variety of mental disabilities including mental retardation, learning disabilities, and mental illness. Goddard concluded that a variety of mental traits were hereditary and society should limit reproduction by people possessing these traits.

The name Kallikak is a pseudonym used as a family name throughout the book. Goddard coined the name from the Greek words καλός (kallos) meaning beautiful and κακός (kakos) meaning bad.[1]

Summary[edit]

The book begins by discussing the case of "Deborah Kallikak," a woman in Goddard's institution, the New Jersey Home for the Education and Care of Feebleminded Children (now Vineland Training School). In the course of investigating her genealogy, Goddard claims to have discovered that her family tree bore a curious and surprising moral tale.

The book follows the genealogy of Martin Kallikak, Deborah's great-great-great grandfather, a Revolutionary War hero married to a Quaker woman. On his way back from battle, the normally morally upright Martin dallied one time with a "feeble-minded" barmaid. The young Martin soon reformed and went on with his upright life, becoming a respected New England citizen and father of a large family of prosperous individuals. All of the children that came from this relationship were "wholesome" and had no signs of retardation.[2]

But according to Goddard, a child was born by the dalliance with "the nameless feeble-minded girl". This single child, a male, went on to father more children, who fathered their own children, and on and on down the generations. And so with the Kallikaks, Goddard claims to have discovered, one has as close as one could imagine an experiment in the hereditability of intelligence, moral ability, and criminality.

On the "feeble-minded" side of the Kallikak family, descended from the barmaid, the children wound up poor, insane, delinquent, and mentally retarded. Deborah was, in Goddard's assessment, "feeble-minded": a catch-all early 20th century term to describe various forms of mental retardation or learning deficiencies. Goddard was interested in the heritability of "feeble-mindedness"—and often wrote of the invisible threat of recessive "feeble-minded" genes carried by otherwise healthy and intelligent looking members of the population (Mendel's laws had only been rediscovered a decade before; Goddard's genetic shorthand was, in its day, considered to be on par with cutting edge science). It was in tracing the family history of Deborah that Goddard and his assistants discovered that Deborah's family of drunks and criminals was related—through Martin Kallikak—to another family tree of economy and prosperity.

A set of Kallikak children on the "feeble-minded" side of the family

On the "normal" side of the Kallikak family tree, the children ended up prosperous, intelligent, and morally upstanding. They were lawyers, ministers, and doctors. Goddard concluded from this that intelligence, sanity, and morality were hereditary, and every effort should be undertaken to keep the 'feeble-minded' from procreating, with the overall goal of potentially ending 'feeble-mindedness' and its accompanying traits. The damage from even one dalliance between a young man and a "feeble-minded" girl could create generations and generations worth of crime and poverty, with its members eventually living off the generosity of the state (and consequently taxpayers), Goddard argued. His work contains intricately constructed family trees, showing near-perfect Mendelian ratios in the inheritance of negative and positive traits.

Goddard recommended segregating them in institutions, where they would be taught how to work various forms of menial labor.

Present-day evaluation[edit]

Two Kallikaks. It is possible that the boy was born with Down Syndrome, a former name of the syndrome being mongolism.

In its day, The Kallikak Family was a tremendous success and went through multiple printings. It helped propel Goddard to the status of one of the nation's top experts in using psychology in policy, and along with the work of Charles B. Davenport and Madison Grant is considered one of the canonical works of early 20th century American eugenics.

It has also been argued that the effects of malnutrition were overlooked in the Kallikak family.[citation needed] Goddard's peer, Davenport, even identified various forms of diseases now known to be caused by diet deficiencies as being hereditary.

A detail of faces from the book — Stephen Jay Gould alleged that Goddard had doctored them to make them look more sinister.

Another recent perspective has been offered that the Kallikaks almost certainly had undiagnosed fetal alcohol syndrome.[3][4] In addition to poverty and malnourishment, prenatal alcohol exposure can create craniofacial and other physical anomalies that could account for their peculiar facial features.[5] Furthermore, prenatal alcohol exposure may also damage the central nervous system, which can result in impaired cognitive and behavioral functioning similar to that described by Goddard.[5]

Alteration of photographs[edit]

The paleontologist and science writer Stephen Jay Gould advanced the view that Goddard—or someone working with him—had retouched the photographs used in his book in order to make the "bad" Kallikaks appear more menacing. In older editions of the books, Gould said, it has become clearly evident that someone has drawn in darker, crazier looking eyes and menacing faces on the children and adults in the pictures. Gould argues that photographic reproduction in books was still then a very new art, and that audiences would not have been as keenly aware of photographic retouching, even on such a crude level. The 14 photos were subsequently studied further to show the nature of the retouching and subsequent use to help make Goddard's points.[6]

The psychologist R. E. Fancher, however, has claimed that retouching of faces of the sort which is apparent in Goddard's work was a common procedure at the time, in order to avoid a "washed out" look which was common to early photographic printing methods (poor halftones). Furthermore, Fancher argued, malicious editing on Goddard's part would take away from one of his primary claims: that only a trained eye can spot the moron in the crowd.



http://www.cbsnews.com/news/orlando-shooting-omar-mateen-florida-department-of-corrections/

Orlando shooter was kicked out of jail guard training
CBS NEWS
June 17, 2016, 6:55 PM

Play VIDEO -- Shooter and wife exchanged texts during nightclub rampage
Play VIDEO -- Did killer's wife help plan the Orlando attack?


ORLANDO -- The Florida Department of Corrections said Friday that Orlando nightclub shooter Omar Mateen was "involuntarily dismissed" from a corrections officer training program in 2007 after six months in the academy.

The corrections department told CBS News Mateen started the program in October 2006 and was asked to leave in April 2007.

"He did not complete his academic program and was not certified as a correctional officer," the department said in a statement.

During those six months, Mateen was disciplined for sleeping in class and sleeping on the firearms range, according to corrections records obtained by CBS News. He also had unexplained absences and was late to class.

Another student reported Mateen had asked if he would tell anyone if Mateen brought a gun to school.

He was dismissed shortly after the mass shooting at Virginia Tech, which left 32 people dead. The shooting was referenced in a recommendation Mateen be let go from the program, with a supervisor saying Mateen's behavior "is at best extremely disturbing."

"Omar Mateen was not fit to serve as a member of the FDC team, as he was unable to meet the basic requirements of the correctional officer academy," the corrections department said.

On Sunday, Mateen shot and killed 49 people and wounded another 53 before he was killed in a shootout with police at the Pulse nightclub, a gay bar in Orlando. Investigators say it was an act of terrorism and a hate crime.

The FBI continues to dig into Mateen's background. What they are uncovering is the 29-year-old's erratic behavior.

The St. Lucie County Sheriff's Office has confirmed that it wanted Mateen transferred out of a Florida courthouse in 2013 after they said he made inflammatory remarks about women and Jews and then praised the Fort Hood shooter.

Mateen's school records paint a picture of a troublesome, angry and inappropriate young boy, who struggled both academically and behaviorally.

The records show that he talked frequently about sex and violence as early as the third grade and was suspended for a total of 48 days during middle and high school.

When he was in 5th grade, a teacher at Mariposa Elementary School wrote of Mateen's inability to stay focused, his "lack of remorse," and his oppositional behavior.

High school classmate Robert Zirkle remembers being on a school bus with Mateen on September 11th.

"When he came up the stairs, he was acting like a plane, like had his arms out, he was making a plane noise," Zirkle told CBS News. "And he would -- he made like a boom sound or an explosion type sound, fell in his seat and was like laughing about it -- like it was a joke or something. And he did that a few times more on the bus, like when the bus would go, he would start doing it again, and when we would stop, he would make a boom again."

Investigators continue to look into Mateen's wife, who they say was with him on surveillance trips to the nightclub and Disney World.

Law enforcement sources told CBS News the couple exchanged text messages during the shooting. Authorities say it is likely she will face some charges.

'You have to go back and find out where she has been, how often she was with her husband, and what they were doing," former U.S. Attorney Vincent Cohen told CBS News. "When you put those two together, the knowledge and the possible act, then you have the possible charges."

Investigators have not found evidence that the Mateen was directed by ISIS, although he pledged allegiance to the group in a Facebook post just before the shooting and ISIS took credit for the attack.



Here is more evidence that Mateen was pretty severely disturbed as a child, and had learning difficulties also. According to one of yesterday’s articles he was put into a school for the autistic after being expelled from the local school for his behavior problems. Another article from the last few days (“Former coworker of Orlando shooter on his steroid use, dad issues,” CBS NEWS, June 16, 2016) quoted a supervisor of his as saying that his father was dismissive and unavailable to him during his life. The exact quote is that "He could do nothing right in his father's eyes." This kind of parental “withholding of love” is a common thread when children have multiple mental and emotional problems early in life. It won’t cause autism, but it will make it worse.

A gay male friend of mine from 20 or so years ago said that his father had always been that way toward him. I think too many parents, male and female, reject their children because they are “a disappointment” or “an embarrassment,” or simply “too much trouble to deal with.” In other words, they have some special problems that need care. Such parents will rarely ask for help, and view emotional/mental issues as shameful, a punishment from God, or a sign of genetic weakness in the family. I say that particularly in this case because in yet another article earlier in the week it said that Mateen’s parents “refused permission” for him to undergo professional testing. Some people shouldn’t be parents.

I will just mention that the elder Mateen has some odd quirks also. He is apparently a would be guru in his own mind, and possibly in the eyes of others as well, aided by a foreign language TV station in California, which is supposedly intended to help such immigrants as himself adjust to life in the US. There is little foreign language broadcasting available to them, and the station gives life advice to those in this country.

Seddique Mateen’s videos are a cross between religion and politics, apparently. He makes ranting videos about the affairs in Afghanistan in which, 1) he claims to be “running for president” of Afghanistan, and 2) inciting his followers over there to rebel against the US sponsored government and incarcerate the leaders. Does he believe all that, or is he just running a scam to raise money? I don’t understand why the news outlets aren’t saying more about the father as a probable source of damaging indoctrination and as a generally debilitating force in Omar’s childhood.

Parents don’t seem to think of constant criticism and lack of warmth as being cruel, but they are, and can cause genuine mental problems. As children are developing they need a warm, demonstrative kind of love. They have to LEARN to love. The few known and documented cases of feral children show a child who shows little intelligence as we know it, or empathy and warmth toward others, much like the neglected and abused children who grow up here in the US, especially in very poor families and parts of the country.

Fundamentalist religious cults are often involved also. I am thinking particularly of the preteen child in the article above who was beaten to death by her mother because she was “possessed by a demon.” Warm love, on the other hand, not only shows them by example – the best teaching method -- of how to feel toward others, but it also heals the wounds that life will inevitably deal out to them. Growing up is not an easy process, and it is not totally “natural” either. Nurture is at least as important as nature in producing “good” children.



ON THE EVALUATION OF POLICE AND MILITARY OFFICERS:

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/orlando-nightclub-massacre/psychologist-i-never-evaluated-orlando-shooter-mateen-n594976

Psychologist: I Never Evaluated Orlando Shooter Mateen
by JOSH MEYER, ANNA R. SCHECTER and TOM WINTER
JUN 18 2016, 2:43 PM ET

Play -- What was Omar Mateen doing months before Orlando shooting? 2:46
Photograph -- Orlando Police identified the suspect in the Pulse Nightclub shootings as Omar Mateen, 29, a U.S. citizen born in New York. via Orlando Police
Play -- Are 'lone wolves' hard to detect? 5:51


The global security firm that employed Orlando shooter Omar Mateen is facing additional scrutiny over whether it adequately screened his fitness to be a gun-carrying licensed security guard, this time from a psychologist who says she never administered a key mental health evaluation of him when he was hired in 2007.

Dr. Carol Nudelman said in a statement to NBC News that she had nothing to do with the psychological evaluation of Mateen that the security firm submitted to the state of Florida on Sept. 6, 2007. The firm stated in its submission that Nudelman had conducted the test.

The form, which certifies that "the employee is mentally and emotionally stable" is required under state law, and cleared the way for Mateen to obtain a Class G permit and carry a firearm as part of his duties as a private security guard. Last Sunday Mateen mowed down more than 100 people at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, killing 49 in America's worst mass-shooting attack.

In her statement, Nudelman said she never administered the test to Mateen, that she was no longer practicing at her Florida office at the time of the test, and that she had sold her practice more than a year prior to the test.

"I was not living or working in Florida [in Sept. 2007]," she said. "I was not performing any work for Wackenhut, and I did not administer any type of examination to Omar Mateen. Any statement to the contrary is absolutely false." The Wackenhut Corporation was the security company that hired Mateen prior to G4S Secure Solutions USA buying the firm.

But the form that G4S submitted to the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services in Sept. 2007 lists Nudelman as the doctor administering the test, called an MMPI.

G4S, which does work in more than 100 countries, has come under criticism in the past for allegations of lapses in the way it screens its employees.

On Saturday, G4S issued a statement describing the use of Nudelman's name as a clerical mix-up, and said a different third-party vendor had actually done the evaluation.

"Dr. Nudelman did not score Mateen's evaluation," the G4S statement said. "She sold her practice in 2007. Mateen's MMPI was scored by HQPE (Headquarters for Psychological Evaluation). A clerical error failed to note the change in vendors scoring the exam."

The MMPI is a psychological evaluation that is commonly used to evaluate police officers and is the benchmark for psychological assessments. The G4S spokesman described it as a written test that is a scored by a psychologist, but that does not include an in-person interview.

Mateen achieved an above average rating on the MMPI and had a favorable recommendation for employment as an armed security officer, the spokesman said.

G4S did not name the individual who did administer the test to Mateen, or say whether Nudelman's name appears on any other forms for other guards submitted after she wasn't doing exams for the firm.

"A test was administered," a G4S spokesman said. "The name of the reviewing psychologist was wrong on the firearms license, due to a clerical error."

NBC News reported on Thursday that G4S didn't make Mateen undergo any additional psychological exam at any time after he was hired, even after two FBI inquiries into his claims of terror ties and complaints about odd behavior.

NBC News also reported earlier in the week that complaints about Mateen's inflammatory comments in 2013 prompted G4S to transfer him from an armed security position at St. Lucie County Courthouse to one as an unarmed ID checker at a South Florida gated retirement community.

The G4S spokesman said that while applicants for Armed Security Officer positions are required by G4S to complete the MMPI test, there is no requirement for them to undergo one after they are hired.

"G4S does not do psychological exams of Protection Officers after they are hired. Mr. Mateen complained of harassment and acknowledged to G4S and the FBI that he made inflammatory remarks in anger. It is not our policy — nor the policy of any security provider or law enforcement agency that we are aware of — to demand psychological exams in such situations.''

Several security experts told NBC News that even if such a test is not required, that G4S should have conducted one given Mateen's behavior.

Mateen claimed to colleagues that he not only had ties to the Al Qaeda and Hezbollah terror groups, but that he also had ties to the Tsarnaev brothers, who detonated bombs at the Boston Marathon in 2013.

Mateen admitted making at least some of the comments, but claimed he made them in anger after courthouse colleagues harassed him about his "Middle Eastern" background, the G4S spokesman said. He said Mateen claimed he was the victim of workplace harassment.

In 2014, the FBI investigated Mateen's ties to another South Florida man who became an ISIS sympathizer and blew himself up in a suicide attack in Syria.

The FBI closed both probes without filing criminal charges and GS4 said it never knew of them until Mateen mentioned his interviews with the FBI as part of his workplace harassment complaint.



We are a country, and perhaps a world, that does not take mental illness seriously until it becomes extreme and blatantly obvious to any observer. The child or adult who is overly quiet and will not meet another’s eye is very likely psychotic, or at the very least so painfully shy that it amounts to a mental problem.

In a similar pattern of thought, many health insurance companies do not pay sufficient if any benefits for mental health treatment, which our liberal Democratic people have addressed in just the last few years. That problem was rectified, at least partially, in “ObamaCare.”

In a similar issue, the army, police force, and at least G4S used “benign neglect” to guide their actions here. They chose to view his background and behavior as normal, when it wasn’t. The tendency in our society to consider group hatred as normal is a real problem, from the KKK and Militia movement to local police departments to mandatory military screening procedures. True EVIL is also a form of mental illness. We must understand that many people who are seriously unbalanced are able to appear “normal,” at least to the untrained eye.

In all these rage shootings, the FBI has found at their homes small to large arsenals of dangerous weapons, a history of hate speech, wife beatings for no reason whatsoever, unpredictable violent outbursts or the even more disturbing bizarre delusions, such as Son of Sam’s belief that a neighborhood dog, through its’ relentless barking, was telling him to go out and kill. When we hear something like that, we know immediately that the person is insane, but until that time he is probably walking down your street in the dark casing your house.

Even the latter cases may go unremarked, however, if it is an accepted part of a set of religious beliefs. The woman I mentioned in my comment to today’s first article, who “believed” that her daughter was possessed by a demon, so she beat the girl to death, is one such case. Our right to the religion of our choice can go too far, sometimes. As the “several security experts” have said, his behavior was of the sort that should have caused him to be reevaluated. Who’s watching the watchers?



My almost totally undesirable second husband had a motto – “There are winners and there are losers.” Think of that in the light of this article:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-epic-rant-winning-election-2016/

Donald Trump goes on epic rant about winning
By REBECCA SHABAD CBS NEWS
June 18, 2016, 9:38 AM

Play VIDEO -- Donald Trump says he thinks GOP is starting to like him


Donald Trump went on a rant at a rally in Woodlands, Texas, Friday night about winning.

"Folks, we don't win anymore. Right? We don't win anymore. We don't win! We don't win on anything. We don't win on trade. We don't win with the military. We're gonna knock the hell out of ISIS. By the way, we have no choice. We have no choice," Trump yelled.

Trump said that the U.S. will "start winning again" under his leadership to the point where "people are gonna get sick of it."

"You're gonna come up, and they're gonna call me up from Texas, 'Mr. Trump, sir, you have thousands and thousands of calls from Texas. They're all your friends. They heard you speak one night. Mr. Trump! They're very upset. President Trump, they're very upset,'" Trump said.

He said he will get "thousands and thousands of calls from Texas" from people upset with him because he will be "winning" every single issue.

He said people will say, "'Everything is a win. You're winning on trade. You're winning at the border. You're winning with your military. You're winning on health care.' We're gonna repeal that horrible stuff and replace it," Trump said.

At the rally, Trump said he thinks the GOP is starting to like him.

According to a CBS News poll released this week, 43 percent of registered voters back Hillary Clinton and 37 percent support Trump for president.



“At the rally, Trump said he thinks the GOP is starting to like him.” The way I see their behavior and responses to him, I don’t think so. I think they are willing to give him a try if he can get the Republican Party a win in this election, but the better ones don’t like or trust him at all. He is clearly at least borderline insane, and they know it.



http://www.cbsnews.com/news/bernie-sanders-gave-hillary-clinton-the-primary-she-needed/

Bernie Sanders gave Hillary Clinton the primary she needed
By EMILY SCHULTHEIS CBS NEWS June 17, 2016, 6:00 AM

Play VIDEO -- Clinton vs. Trump on economy
Play VIDEO -- Political divide as Clinton, Trump duel over gun laws


Bernie Sanders may not have won the Democratic nomination--but he gave Hillary Clinton exactly the primary fight she needed.

Sanders did not concede the Democratic primary Thursday night, telling his supporters via live-stream that he is working to come to an agreement with Clinton "in the coming weeks."

"It is no secret that Secretary Clinton and I have strong disagreements on some very important issues. It is also true that our views are quite close on others," he said. "I look forward, in the coming weeks, to continued discussions between the two campaigns to make certain that your voices are heard and that the Democratic Party passes the most progressive platform in its history and that Democrats actually fight for that agenda."

At this point eight years ago, the consensus among Democrats was that the primary sharpened both candidates' skills, making Mr. Obama a better candidate for the general election. That sentiment was strong enough in the party that last spring, when Clinton first announced and it wasn't clear whether any of her challengers could put up a real fight.

As a result, some Democrats lamented the prospect of a primary that would be more coronation than competition. Some worried Clinton's crown would be a little rusty from lack of practice if she went unchallenged in the primaries. According to Gallup polling at the time, 54 percent of Democrats said they wanted to see a competitive primary.

As Sanders noted Thursday night, his campaign went much further and did much better than anyone could have expected when he announced last spring. The Vermont senator, a 74-year-old self-described "Democratic socialist," was an unlikely poster boy for the progressive movement at the outset of his bid.

But Sanders had an impressive showing: he won 22 states and approximately 45 percent of the pledged delegates in the primaries. He galvanized a group of supporters that included young people and many others who were new to the political process. And he consistently emphasized a set of progressive issues and policies that otherwise might not have made it front and center in the campaign.

Thursday's speech to supporters was yet another step in the winding down Sanders and his campaign have done over the last 10 days, since Clinton's bigger-than-expected victory in California, which coincided with her reaching the 2,383 delegate threshold necessary to clinch the Democratic nomination.

Though he came up short, Sanders played an important role in the race in more than just the policies he highlighted: he gave Clinton exactly the kind of primary she needed. On policy, he pushed her left on a handful of issues that clearly strike a nerve with a big segment of the Democratic electorate. By waging a campaign to the very end, he gave Democrats a chance to build up operations and a supporter base in all 50 states that can serve as the basis for the general election. And he gave Clinton a real sparring partner on the debate stage who helped her hone her skills to face off against Donald Trump.

What's more, he did this without the kind of intense damage competitive primaries often inflict, avoiding handing Republicans any additional ammunition to use against Clinton, now that it's time for the general election.

The influence of the progressive wing of the party on Clinton has been clear since she launched her campaign: even last April, at her first campaign events, she was talking about how the "deck is stacked in favor of those at the top," railing against money in politics.

But as the primary season went on, it was clear that Sanders was putting pressure on Clinton on other progressive issues as well. In the fall, Clinton announced her opposition to the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal as well as the Keystone XL pipeline--two things she'd favored during her four years in the Obama administration, but which are big flashpoints for the progressive community.

The two sparred over those policy issues and more at the Democratic debates, with Sanders suggesting Clinton was late to the party on a host of issues important to progressives. While Clinton supported legislation to raise the federal minimum wage to $12 per hour, Sanders was pushing hard for a $15-per-hour minimum wage--an issue he's hoping to get into the Democratic platform in Philadelphia this summer at the convention. And his influence extends beyond just Clinton: Mr. Obama recently called for an expansion of the Social Security program, which was widely seen as evidence of Sanders' clout in the party.

In spite of all that, Sanders focused almost exclusively on policy-based critiques of Clinton--and avoided the sometimes personal attacks that characterized her 2008 race against then-Sen. Barack Obama. That year, Mr. Obama went after Clinton for suggesting she'd once landed in Bosnia under sniper fire and said Clinton was "likable enough"; Clinton ran her infamous 3 a.m. phone call ad, called out Mr. Obama's comments about "bitter" Americans who "cling to guns or religion," and in South Carolina, her husband called his campaign "the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen."

In this race, though, not a single explicitly negative ad was run by either candidate. The closest Sanders got to criticizing Clinton directly on the airwaves was talking about "two Democratic visions" for dealing with Wall Street, saying one vision "says it's okay to take millions from big banks and then tell them what to do."

It wasn't until April that there was any semblance of the nastiness that sometimes comes with tough primaries. That was when Sanders said at a rally that Clinton isn't "qualified" to be president, a comment he soon walked back.

Besides that, however, Sanders stayed away from the private email server scandal which Republicans have seized upon, famously declaring at the first Democratic debate in October that voters were "sick and tired of hearing about your damn emails." He didn't touch the questions raised about foreign donations and influence at the Clinton Foundation. In fact, the closest he came to personal criticism was his focus on Clinton's reluctance to release the transcripts of her paid speeches on Wall Street.

What's next for Sanders is still unclear, but what is clear is that the movement he's created isn't going anywhere. In 2008, Clinton formally conceded the race on June 7, four days after Mr. Obama clinched the nomination. She first appeared with him on the campaign trail, at an event in Unity, N.H., just under three weeks later on June 27.

Whether that joint Clinton-Sanders appearance will happen any time soon remains to be seen.

"My hope is that when future historians look back and describe how our country moved forward into reversing the drift toward oligarchy," Sanders said Thursday, "and created a government which represents all the people and not just the few, they will note that, to a significant degree, that effort began with the political revolution of 2016."



“Sanders did not concede the Democratic primary Thursday night, telling his supporters via live-stream that he is working to come to an agreement with Clinton "in the coming weeks." "It is no secret that Secretary Clinton and I have strong disagreements on some very important issues. It is also true that our views are quite close on others," he said. "I look forward, in the coming weeks, to continued discussions between the two campaigns to make certain that your voices are heard and that the Democratic Party passes the most progressive platform in its history and that Democrats actually fight for that agenda." …. The Vermont senator, a 74-year-old self-described "Democratic socialist," was an unlikely poster boy for the progressive movement at the outset of his bid. But Sanders had an impressive showing: he won 22 states and approximately 45 percent of the pledged delegates in the primaries. He galvanized a group of supporters that included young people and many others who were new to the political process. And he consistently emphasized a set of progressive issues and policies that otherwise might not have made it front and center in the campaign. …. Though he came up short, Sanders played an important role in the race in more than just the policies he highlighted: he gave Clinton exactly the kind of primary she needed. On policy, he pushed her left on a handful of issues that clearly strike a nerve with a big segment of the Democratic electorate. By waging a campaign to the very end, he gave Democrats a chance to build up operations and a supporter base in all 50 states that can serve as the basis for the general election. And he gave Clinton a real sparring partner on the debate stage who helped her hone her skills to face off against Donald Trump.”


"My hope is that when future historians look back and describe how our country moved forward into reversing the drift toward oligarchy," Sanders said Thursday, "and created a government which represents all the people and not just the few, they will note that, to a significant degree, that effort began with the political revolution of 2016." This makes the point that I have noticed a great deal during Sanders’ campaign. The American people are not all neo-Fascists and other “conservatives,” but a mixture, and an eloquent and courageous leader like Bernie Sanders has put together a voter basis for real and important change. I have strong ,if not extremely strong, hopes that Clinton and the DNC will live up to our party’s traditions, rather than following the Koch brother’s lead. If they do not and Sanders doesn’t lead us into a new party, I will very possibly move my membership to the Green Party. Look them up. They have almost totally the same views as Sanders, and are stronger than I would have expected in membership also. Even if they don’t win big in presidential races, they do have a following. They are very appealing to me. See the following excerpts from Wikipedia.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Party_of_the_United_States

Green Party of the United States
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Green Party of the United States (GPUS or Greens) is a green, left-wing political party in the United States.

The party, which is the country's fourth-largest by membership, promotes environmentalism, nonviolence, social justice, participatory grassroots democracy, gender equality, LGBT rights and anti-racism.

The GPUS was founded in 2001 as the evolution of the Association of State Green Parties (ASGP), which was formed in 1996. After its founding, the GPUS soon became the primary national green organization in the country, eclipsing the Greens/Green Party USA (G/GPUSA), which formed in 1991 out of the Green Committees of Correspondence (CoC), a collection of local green groups active since 1984. The ASGP had increasingly distanced itself from the G/GPUSA in the late 1990s.

The Greens gained widespread public attention during the 2000 presidential election, when the ticket composed of Ralph Nader and Winona LaDuke won 2.7% of the popular vote.

. . . .

The GPUS had several members elected in state legislatures, including in California, Maine and Arkansas. A number of Greens around the United States hold positions on the municipal level, including on school boards, city councils and as mayors.

Fundraising and position on Super PACs[edit]

In the early decades of Green organizing in the United States, the prevailing U.S. system of money-dominated elections was universally rejected by Greens, so that some Greens were reluctant to have Greens participate in the election system at all, because they deemed the campaign finance system inherently corrupt. Other Greens felt strongly that the Green Party should develop in the electoral arena; many of these Greens felt that adopting an alternative model of campaign finance, emphasizing self-imposed contribution limits, would present a wholesome and attractive contrast to the odious campaign finance practices of the money-dominated major parties.

Over the years, some state Green parties have come to place less emphasis on the principle of self-imposed limits than they did in the past. Nevertheless, it is safe to say that Green Party fundraising (for candidates' campaigns and for the party itself) still tends to rely on relatively small contributions, and that Greens generally decry not only the rise of the Super PACs but also the big-money system, which some Greens criticize as plutocracy.

Some Greens feel that the Green Party's position should be simply to follow the laws and regulations of campaign finance.[11] Other Greens argue that it would injure the Green Party not to practice a principled stand against the anti-democratic influence of money in the political process.

Candidates for office, like Jill Stein, the 2012 and 2016 Green Party nominee for the President of the United States, typically rely on smaller donations to fund their campaigns.[12]



http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/four-questions-could-decide-who-wins-2016-election-n588406

Four Questions That Could Decide Who Wins 2016 Election
by DANTE CHINNI
JUN 18 2016, 6:46 AM ET

Related: NBC News, How Many White Voters Are There?
Related: NBC News, What's more, even if Trump bumped up his margin with white voters to 24 points - 62 percent to 38 percent - he still would not win the popular vote if the rest of the electorate voted the way it did in 2012.
Related: NBC News, Of course, the popular vote does not decide the winner of the election. You have to win states to get the necessary 270 electoral votes to win. By the measure Trump's strength with white voters could help him in some close states, such as Ohio, but hurt him in more diverse battlegrounds, such as Florida.


With a grueling primary season almost in the rear-view mirror and the presumptive nominees in place, the campaign's attention shifts fully toward the general election. And that means a renewed focus on large, influential groups and the issues that motivate those voters both nationally and in the battleground states where presidential elections are decided.

Elections in the end are about stitching together coalitions to get to 270 electoral votes and the teams for Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are now pouring through maps and voter files trying to find winning combinations.

With that in mind, here are four questions that could help determine who wins in November:

Can Trump Do Better in the Suburbs?

In the last few presidential elections the suburbs have not been great turf for Republican presidential candidates. That needs to change if Trump is going to win.

In 2004, dense Urban Suburb counties voted Democratic, but not by a lot. Sen. John Kerry beat President George W. Bush there only by about 7.7 percentage points, according to data for the American Communities Project. And, of course, Bush won the election.

In 2008, Barack Obama won the Urban Suburb counties by 18 points against Sen. John McCain. In 2012, Obama beat former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney by 16 points in the Urban Suburbs. And Obama is finishing up eight years in the White House largely because of those figures.

About 22 percent of the 2012 presidential electorate came from those Urban Suburb counties. That's a lot of votes.

For Trump to win he's probably going to need the Urban Suburb vote to look a lot more like Bush's 2004 figure. And the numbers suggest he has work to do. In the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, Clinton leads Trump 57 percent to 32 percent in a head-to-head vote. That's a 25-point margin.

Race and ethnicity will be big points of discussion in this campaign, witness the Trump comments about Judge Gonzalo Curiel and his problems with Hispanics in polls. But polls and analysts have also noted Trump's strength with white voters as a possible point in his favor.

As a group, "white voters" are difficult to pin down. They are the least homogeneous of any demographic segment and there are big splits between urban and rural whites and those with and without a college education.

But in the broadest sense, the latest NBC/WSJ poll shows Trump with a sizeable lead among whites - 52 percent to 36 percent over Clinton. That 16-point edge, however, is still not as large as Mitt Romney's 20-point edge with white voters against Obama in 2012, according to exit polls. And Romney still did not win.

If Trump is going to ride white voters to the White House, he's probably going to need to increase the percentage of the vote coming from whites. That would be a challenge in a country that is diversifying the way the United States is.

Whites made up 77 percent of the electorate in 2004, according to exit polls. They made up 74 percent in 2008. They made up 72 percent in 2012.

If the white vote declined to about 70 percent of the electorate in 2016, and it could easily dip below that, Trump would likely need to win white voters by around 26 points to essentially tie Clinton.

Whither Evangelical Voters?

Cultural and religious conservatives are a key part of the Republican coalition. In 2012, Republican voters from places with strong religious convictions, Faith Driven counties, gave Romney a 37-point edge over Obama - 68 percent to 31 percent.

Currently Trump is having a harder time bringing those voters together. In the latest NBC/WSJ poll he's winning those places, but by much smaller margins, 52 percent to 31 percent. The problem Trump is facing among those voters likely has two sources.

First, evangelical voters, particularly those from upper incomes, were supporters of Texas Sen. Ted Cruz in the GOP primaries and caucuses. There still may be hard feelings among some of them. Second, some Republicans are not sure that Trump, the New York businessman who has been married three times and who once considered himself pro-choice in the abortion debate, is a true cultural conservative.

Evangelical voters are very unlikely to support Clinton, but some could decide to stay home and not vote in the fall if their choices are Trump or Clinton. Trump needs to bring these voters more solidly into the fold. Evangelical Christians make up big parts of the population in swing states such as Virginia and North Carolina.

Will Young People Show Up?

For Democrats, young people are a key constituency. In 2012 Obama won 18- to 29-year-old voters by 23 points, according to exit polls. And the college town vote in battleground states such as Virginia, Ohio and Wisconsin were a big part of his victories in those places.

But in the Democratic primaries, those younger voters were strongly behind Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders. According to primary and caucus exit polls he won 72 percent of voters between the ages of 17 and 29 (voters who will be 18 by Election Day are allowed to vote in most states).

As with cultural conservatives and Republicans, these younger voters aren't likely to cross the partisan aisle to vote for Trump. But the question is whether they will come out to support Clinton. Right now feelings are raw on the Democratic side, with many younger Sanders supporters saying they will not vote for the Clinton in November.

In the latest NBC/WSJ poll Clinton leads Trump among 18- to 29-year-olds 55% to 32%. But in the same poll Sanders leads Trump 69 percent to 26 percent in that age group. Again, there is time for Clinton to act, but she has work to do with young people. Clinton or other campaign surrogates may be spending some time on college campuses this fall.



“About 22 percent of the 2012 presidential electorate came from those Urban Suburb counties. That's a lot of votes. For Trump to win he's probably going to need the Urban Suburb vote to look a lot more like Bush's 2004 figure. And the numbers suggest he has work to do. In the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, Clinton leads Trump 57 percent to 32 percent in a head-to-head vote. That's a 25-point margin. …. As a group, "white voters" are difficult to pin down. They are the least homogeneous of any demographic segment and there are big splits between urban and rural whites and those with and without a college education. …. That 16-point edge, however, is still not as large as Mitt Romney's 20-point edge with white voters against Obama in 2012, according to exit polls. And Romney still did not win. If Trump is going to ride white voters to the White House, he's probably going to need to increase the percentage of the vote coming from whites. …. The problem Trump is facing among those voters likely has two sources. First, evangelical voters, particularly those from upper incomes, were supporters of Texas Sen. Ted Cruz in the GOP primaries and caucuses. There still may be hard feelings among some of them. Second, some Republicans are not sure that Trump, the New York businessman who has been married three times and who once considered himself pro-choice in the abortion debate, is a true cultural conservative. Evangelical voters are very unlikely to support Clinton, but some could decide to stay home and not vote in the fall if their choices are Trump or Clinton. …. But in the Democratic primaries, those younger voters were strongly behind Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders. According to primary and caucus exit polls he won 72 percent of voters between the ages of 17 and 29 (voters who will be 18 by Election Day are allowed to vote in most states). As with cultural conservatives and Republicans, these younger voters aren't likely to cross the partisan aisle to vote for Trump. But the question is whether they will come out to support Clinton. Right now feelings are raw on the Democratic side, with many younger Sanders supporters saying they will not vote for the [sic] Clinton in November.”


“Whites made up 77 percent of the electorate in 2004, according to exit polls. They made up 74 percent in 2008. They made up 72 percent in 2012.” Assuming that most citizens of voting age will vote – or is this count of “the electorate” based only on exit polls at past elections and not from the federal census – these figures do seem to indicate that indeed nonwhite voters are beginning to dominate American society now, as the rightwing radicals seem fearfully to believe. If so, this could mean a trend of political change much bigger than merely how well a candidate can market himself/herself.

As long as nonwhites continue to be treated as an underclass, they are relatively unlikely to join ranks with Republicans except in a few instances – Cubans for instance, and not all of them. Most Spanish heritage people are liberal. Our trick is to get as many of us Democrats as possible to the polls, or mail in their ballots if necessary. The other part is to give our votes to even if we have to hold our noses to do it. Okay. I’m ready. I still basically believe that almost any Democrat is almost always better than any Republican, when it comes to running a government that helps the 90%.



http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/orlando-nightclub-massacre/lgbt-gun-rights-group-sees-membership-spike-after-orlando-shooting-n594701

ORLANDO NIGHTCLUB MASSACRE LGBT Gun Rights Group Sees Membership Spike After Orlando Shooting
by BRADLEIGH MIRANDA CHANCE
JUN 18 2016, 2:48 PM ET

Video -- Pink Pistols Group Takes Up Arms in Georgia 1:32
Photograph -- A member of Pink Pistols shoots at targets in Atlanta, Georgia. NBC News


The Pink Pistols, a national gun club for gays and lesbians, wants their community to take up arms in self defense in the wake the [sic] a deadly shooting massacre at a gay nightclub in Orlando.

Spokesperson Gwendolyn Patton, who argues that the LGBT community needs to exercise their Second Amendment rights in order to defend themselves, says the group saw membership soar from about 1,500 members before the Orlando shooting on Sunday to 3,500 on Monday.

The spike in interest comes after at least 49 people were killed and at least 53 were wounded when gunman, Omar Mateen opened fire and took hostages at a LGBT-friendly nightclub in Orlando last weekend. The massacre was the worst mass shooting in American history and Patton says the interest in LGBT gun rights is at an all-time high.

The Pink Pistols says they have gained 1,000 more members over the course of the week, putting their total membership at approximately 4,500. The group continues to see dozens of new chapters pop up across the country.

"We've had the greatest response in three areas, our Facebook page, which has tripled in size, our chapters, we have so many requests for information on starting new chapters I've lost count, and the sheer number of people offering services such as training to our members," Patton said.

The group claims 45 active chapters across 33 states in the U.S. and three more in other countries. Patton says that in addition to that there are many inactive chapters that may be reopening soon.

The Pink Pistols describes itself as "an international LGBT self-defense organization" that advocates for gay people to acquire concealed carry permits. Group activities include bringing in NRA-certified instructors to help train members at shooting ranges and engaging in political activism. Pink Pistols is generally made up of gun-loving LGBT individuals, but also includes straight ally members.

Follow
Pink Pistols @PnkPistol
"GUNS did not do this. A human being did..." via http://PinkPistols.org
8:03 PM - 15 Jun 2016
140 140 Retweets 108 108 likes

Founded in 2000, the Pink Pistols was inspired by author, Jonathan Rauch of the Brookings Institute. Rauch urged LGBT people to exercise their Second Amendment rights to prevent "gay-bashers" from attacks. "They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry," Rauch wrote in a Salon magazine article that year. "If it became widely known that homosexuals carry guns and know how to use them, not many bullets would need to be fired"

Last Sunday was not the first time LGBT community members were targeted based on sexual orientation or gender.

According to the FBI, there are nearly 1,600 hate crimes committed against LGBT individuals each year. In 2011, the nation's law enforcement agencies reported that there were 7,713 victims of hate crimes and of those victims 1,572 were targeted due to a sexual-orientation bias.

The Pink Pistols say they are fighting back.

According to the group, if more people know that members of the LGBT community may be armed, the less likely they will be to single LGBT people out for an attack. The day after the Orlando shooting, the group released a statement calling on LGBT community members to arm themselves. In the statement, Patton told readers to blame the gunman not the gun.

The Pink Pistols have also filed amicus briefs on high-profile gun-rights cases, including Silviera v. Lockyer and Heller v. District of Columbia.

"We have a vested interest in promoting an environment in which our members can exercise their rights. If they don't have that right, they can't carry lawfully to defend themselves," Patton said. "So we promote an environment in which they can. It's that simple."

Follow
Pink Pistols @PnkPistol
Let's not blame the killer's guns. #Pink Pistols #OrlandoShooting @Everytown @GunOwners @POTUS @HillaryClinton
8:53 PM - 15 Jun 2016
33 33 Retweets 23 23 likes

LGBT rights is a historically liberal issue, while gun rights is a historically conservative issue, said Craig Rimmerman, a professor who teaches a course on sexual minority movements and public policy at Hobart and William Smith Colleges.

He added that he isn't surprised that a national organization like the Pink Pistols exists.

"After all this is America. Just because people consider themselves members of the LGBT community doesn't mean they don't want gun rights," Rimmerman said. "It makes sense that some LGBT people would embrace that perspective as well, although not everyone in the community would agree with this perspective."

He believes people are looking for ways to respond to the Orlando shooting violence and one response could be owning a firearm. Many equate Second Amendment rights with personal freedom, liberty, and safety.

"There is little confidence now for people in the LGBT community to feel safe and as a result organizations like this feel the need to take matters into their own hands by championing gun rights," Rimmerman said.

Nicki Stallard is a transgender woman and the head of the San José, California chapter of the Pink Pistols. She's been shooting since 1979 and affiliated with the Pink Pistols since 2006.

"I got involved because I like to shoot and I like to share what I know with others. I found out about them from an article online, visited their website and saw that San José had an inactive chapter," Stallard said. "I thought, why not open it back up? And I just jumped in!"

Her chapter has gained 32 new participants since the Orlando shooting and is now 302 members strong. The group runs at least two events a month of coordinated outreach training for new shooters, as well as social shoots. The activities are meant to be fun ways to promote self-defense and exercise Second Amendment rights.

"The sad reality is that members of the LGBT community are targeted for violent assaults by sadistic predators," Stallard said. "Firearms give you a fighting chance. Mace, pepper spray, stun guns and other non-injury devices are inadequate tools. To stop a violent encounter you need to seriously injure your attackers so they're incapable of attacking you."

"The intent isn't to kill. The intent is to stop," she said. "I don't shoot to kill, I shoot to stop."

Stallard says that those who are against people of the LGBT community have an "us" and "them" mindset. She equates the violent hate to that of Nazi Germany, when Jewish people were killed based on religious discrimination. The Orlando attacks were an example of this and were no surprise to Stallard. She says after the attacks, her mission to teach self-defense to those targeted is the same.

"In the back of my mind I knew something like this could happen, but when it does happen, it's like wow," Stallard said. "Reality is that in large groups we're a target for these animals."

Despite the tragedy, Stallard is looking for the positive. She says that after the attack, the American people didn't see the victims as gays or as "them." Instead they saw the victims as fellow Americans. She's noticing gun owners helping gays arm themselves against violent attacks - many conservatives are helping the people that they disagree with on social issues.

"They're setting aside their differences. An attack on this gay guy is an attack on a fellow American," Stallard said. "This evil hate, ironically, is uniting America and eliminating hate amongst everyone else."



“Spokesperson Gwendolyn Patton, who argues that the LGBT community needs to exercise their Second Amendment rights in order to defend themselves, says the group saw membership soar from about 1,500 members before the Orlando shooting on Sunday to 3,500 on Monday. …. The Pink Pistols says they have gained 1,000 more members over the course of the week, putting their total membership at approximately 4,500. The group continues to see dozens of new chapters pop up across the country. …. According to the FBI, there are nearly 1,600 hate crimes committed against LGBT individuals each year. In 2011, the nation's law enforcement agencies reported that there were 7,713 victims of hate crimes and of those victims 1,572 were targeted due to a sexual-orientation bias. …. "We have a vested interest in promoting an environment in which our members can exercise their rights. If they don't have that right, they can't carry lawfully to defend themselves," Patton said. "So we promote an environment in which they can. It's that simple." …. "There is little confidence now for people in the LGBT community to feel safe and as a result organizations like this feel the need to take matters into their own hands by championing gun rights," Rimmerman said. …. "The sad reality is that members of the LGBT community are targeted for violent assaults by sadistic predators," Stallard said. "Firearms give you a fighting chance. Mace, pepper spray, stun guns and other non-injury devices are inadequate tools. To stop a violent encounter you need to seriously injure your attackers so they're incapable of attacking you." "The intent isn't to kill. The intent is to stop," she said. "I don't shoot to kill, I shoot to stop." …. Stallard says that those who are against people of the LGBT community have an "us" and "them" mindset. She equates the violent hate to that of Nazi Germany, when Jewish people were killed based on religious discrimination.”


We’re a very unthinking creature. Most of us are merely untrained in the art of thinking, but a pretty large number are simply not intelligent enough to break through the boundaries of our home training. I can remember negative comments about blacks and sometimes Jewish people, at least back into my grade school years, sometimes from a family member, but as often from neighbors and kids on the schoolyard. The prejudices are there in ALL of us from early childhood, but when we feel slighted, threatened or simply unable to succeed as we want to, we start looking for somebody to “punish” for it. That’s how we come up with scapegoats. If enough people in the population have the same scapegoat we get a Nazi-like atmosphere, and unfortunately that is happening here.

The last fifteen or twenty years have been more commonly discussed in public, than when I was young. I believe it began to come out into the news media in the Civil Rights era, George Wallace, for instance, but grew worse when – horror of horrors – a black man became our president. That’s what comes of letting black people vote! He is not only black, he is indisputably intelligent, well-educated and a good citizen. He has been so hard to criticize fairly that White Supremacists immediately started publishing vulgar caricatures of him on Facebook pages, hate sites, and even in two instances on the email and Facebook entries of firemen and policemen. They’re supposed to be our good citizens! So far I haven’t seen a mention of it in news about the healthcare setting, but it is a fact that many hospitals used to be closed to blacks within my memory.

And take a look at this article from 2013: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/detroit-nurse-claims-hospital-barred-african-american-staff-from-caring-for-white-child/. Detroit nurse claims hospital barred African American staff from caring for white child, By MICHELLE CASTILLO CBS NEWS February 19, 2013, 3:45 PM. Excerpt:

An African American nurse is suing Hurley Medical Center for allegedly not allowing her to care for a white baby.

Tonya Battle, who worked for Hurley Medical Center for almost 25 years, said a baby was placed in her hospital's neonatal intensive care unit on Oct. 31, 2012.

"I introduced myself to (the father). 'Hi, I'm Tonya and I'm taking care of your baby. Can I see your (identification) band?' " Battle explained to the Detroit Free Press. "And he said in return, 'And I need to see your supervisor.' "

A charge nurse later told Battle that the child's father allegedly rolled up his shirt revealing a swastika tattoo, the Detroit Free Press said. He then requested that no African American nurses care for his child. The nurse then passed the message to their supervisor.

"I felt like I froze," Battle said. "I just was really dumbfounded. I couldn't believe that's why he was so angry (and) that's why he was requesting my charge nurse. I think my mouth hit the floor. It was really disbelief."

Battle was taken off the infant's case, and a note saying "No African American nurse to take care of baby" was written on the baby's chart, according to Michigan Live. Battle claims the decision was made official by the hospital on Nov. 1, 2012. She added that despite the fact that a hospital attorney said the request couldn't be granted, the hospital enforced the rule for about one month.

A University of Michigan 2007 survey revealed that one in three doctors believed that patients thought they got better care if their doctor matched their race, the Detroit Free Press reported. It also showed that people's requests for specific doctors usually were granted if the request came from a woman, a non-white person or a Muslim.

Lance Gable, an associate professor of health law at the Wayne State University Law School, added to the paper that patients have the right to select their doctor. For example, if a woman wanted a female gynecologist, most facilities would oblige. However, requesting a different race becomes a matter of discrimination. He believed that the father had a choice as to which hospital treated his child but not to which employees took care of the kid.

"The bottom line is that the law is not clear about this, although I suspect the nurse will have a pretty strong case," Gable said.

Protesters gathered outside Hurley Medical Center on Feb. 19 to protest the hospital's alleged actions.

"Certainly we are here today in the case of where there was a nurse who was told she was not capable, and all the black nurses in the area told they should not service a white baby," Rev. Charles E. Williams II, president of National Action Network said according to Michigan Live. "This is an atrocity and a reversal of times."

Hurley CEO Melany Gavulic denied that the hospital had ever instructed that African American nurses should not care for one of their patients. She confirmed that the request was made, but said the hospital did not grant it.

"We (Hurley) value the support of the patients who entrust us with their care and the dedication of our physicians and staff," she said. "This includes nurse Battle and her quarter century of professionalism and dedication."


“Hurley CEO Melany Gavulic denied that the hospital had ever instructed that African American nurses should not care for one of their patients. She confirmed that the request was made, but said the hospital did not grant it.” Riiightt!!