RSS

Category Archives: American Genocide

White Men, Guns…And That Masculinity Thing

About 50% of the guns in the US are owned by only 3% of the gun owners.

Think about that. What if 50% of the cars were owned by 3% of the drivers? Houses with attached parking lots instead of lawns would not be totally uncommon.

When I used to shoot at local ranges as common site was of a white man who had been frightened into buying a gun to defend his home ( a statistical probability of a inner city gangbanger wandering out into the ‘burbs or rural areas to “rob de whidte folks” being on the order of winning the Powerball lottery) – acquiring his first, and probably only pistol. Fumbling with the damn thing during the Free  Hour” of range time, trying to hit a man sized target at 15 feet. Discovering it just doesn’t work like in the movies, where everyone but the “bad guys” is a crack shot. Few, if any of these guys ever realized that by the simple act of gun ownership, they had increased the chance that  someone in their house would be shot by something on the order of 2,000% Ten or twenty thousand times more likely someone would be shot in the house by a family member, than of said mythical black gangbanger out to rob only moderately better off poor white folks.

I know it is popular with the racist buffoons and their associated black conservative Lawn Jockeys to talk about the city “murder rate”.

Fact is –

In 2016, there were more than 38,000 gun-related deaths in the U.S. — 4,000 more than 2015, the new CDC report on preliminary mortality data shows. Most gun-related deaths — about two-thirds —in America are suicides, but an Associated Press analysis of FBI data shows there were about 11,000 gun-related homicides in 2016, up from 9,600 in 2015. The increase in gun-related deaths follows a nearly 15-year period of relative stasis.

Meaning 2/3rd of all gun deaths every year in the US are either accidental or suicide. If you break that down, nearly 27,000 folks – mostly white, died by suicide or accident vs 5,000 homicides committed by black folks, whose victims were over 90% fellow black folks, and 90% of the homicides were committed within 10 miles of an urban center.

So what is the real problem?

Manhood.

And specifically the manhood of the low educated white male Trump supporter.

Image result for AR-15

The AR-15…Mas Murder Weapon of Choice

Why Are White Men Stockpiling Guns?

Research suggests it’s largely because they’re anxious about their ability to protect their families, insecure about their place in the job market and beset by racial fears.

Since the 2008 election of President Obama, the number of firearmsmanufactured in the U.S. has tripled, while imports have doubled. This doesn’t mean more households have guns than ever before—that percentage has stayed fairly steady for decades. Rather, more guns are being stockpiled by a small number of individuals. Three percent of the population now owns half of the country’s firearms, says a recent, definitive study from the Injury Control Research Center at Harvard University.

So, who is buying all these guns—and why?

The short, broad-brush answer to the first part of that question is this: men, who on average possess almost twice the number of guns female owners do. But not all men. Some groups of men are much more avid gun consumers than others. The American citizen most likely to own a gun is a white male—but not just any white guy. According to a growing number of scientific studies, the kind of man who stockpiles weapons or applies for a concealed-carry license meets a very specific profile.

These are men who are anxious about their ability to protect their families, insecure about their place in the job market, and beset by racial fears. They tend to be less educated. For the most part, they don’t appear to be religious—and, suggests one study, faith seems to reduce their attachment to guns. In fact, stockpiling guns seems to be a symptom of a much deeper crisis in meaning and purpose in their lives. Taken together, these studies describe a population that is struggling to find a new story—one in which they are once again the heroes.

WHATEVER HAPPENED TO HARD WORK?

When Northland College sociologist Angela Stroud studied applications for licenses to carry concealed firearms in Texas, which exploded after President Obama was elected, she found applicants were overwhelmingly dominated by white men. In interviews, they told her that they wanted to protect themselves and the people they love.

“When men became fathers or got married, they started to feel very vulnerable, like they couldn’t protect families,” she says. “For them, owning a weapon is part of what it means to be a good husband a good father.” That meaning is “rooted in fear and vulnerability—very motivating emotions.”

But Stroud also discovered another motivation: racial anxiety. “A lot of people talked about how important Obama was to get a concealed-carry license: ‘He’s for free health care, he’s for welfare.’ They were asking, ‘Whatever happened to hard work?’” Obama’s presidency, they feared, would empower minorities to threaten their property and families.

The insight Stroud gained from her interviews is backed up by many, many studies. A 2013 paper by a team of United Kingdom researchers found that a one-point jump in the scale they used to measure racism increased the odds of owning a gun by 50 percent. A 2016 study from the University of Illinois at Chicago found that racial resentment among whites fueled opposition to gun control. This drives political affiliations: A 2017 study in the Social Studies Quarterly found that gun owners had become 50 percent more likely to vote Republican since 1972—and that gun culture had become strongly associated with explicit racism.

or many conservative men, the gun feels like a force for order is a chaotic world, suggests a study published in December of last year. In a series of three experiments, Steven Shepherd and Aaron C. Kay asked hundreds of liberals and conservatives to imagine holding a handgun—and found that conservatives felt less risk and greater personal control than liberal counterparts.

This wasn’t about familiarity with real-world guns—gun ownership and experience did not affect results. Instead, conservative attachment to guns was based entirely on ideology and emotions.

WHO WANTS TO BE A HERO?

That’s an insight echoed by another study published last year. Baylor University sociologists Paul Froese and F. Carson Mencken created a “gun empowerment scale” designed to measure how a nationally representative sample of almost 600 owners felt about their weapons. Their study found that people at the highest level of their scale—the ones who felt most emotionally and morally attached to their guns—were 78 percent white and 65 percent male.

“We found that white men who have experienced economic setbacks or worry about their economic futures are the group of owners most attached to their guns,” says Froese. “Those with high attachment felt that having a gun made them a better and more respected member of their communities.”

That wasn’t true for women and non-whites. In other words, they may have suffered setbacks—but women and people of color weren’t turning to guns to make themselves feel better. “This suggests that that these owners have other sources of meaning and coping when facing hard times,” notes Froese—often, religion. Indeed, Froese and Mencken found that religious faith seemed to put the brakes on white men’s attachment to guns.

For these economically insecure, irreligious white men, “the gun is a ubiquitous symbol of power and independence, two things white males are worried about,” says Froese. “Guns, therefore, provide a way to regain their masculinity, which they perceive has been eroded by increasing economic impotency.”

Both Froese and Stroud found pervasive anti-government sentiments among their study participants. “This is interesting because these men tend to see themselves as devoted patriots, but make a distinction between the federal government and the ‘nation,’ says Froese. “On that point, I expect that many in this group see the ‘nation’ as being white.”

Investing guns with this kind of moral and emotional meaning has many consequences, the researchers say. “Put simply, owners who are more attached to their guns are most likely to believe that guns are a solution to our social ills,” says Froese. “For them, more ‘good’ people with guns would drastically reduce violence and increase civility. Again, it reflects a hero narrative, which many white man long to feel a part of.”

Stroud’s work echoes this conclusion. “They tell themselves all kinds of stories about criminals and criminal victimization,” she says. “But the story isn’t just about criminals. It’s about the good guy—and that’s how they see themselves: ‘I work hard, I take care of my family, and there are people who aren’t like that.’ When we tell stories about the Other, we’re really telling stories about ourselves.”

HOW TO SAVE A WHITE MAN’S LIFE

Unfortunately, the people most likely to be killed by the guns of white men aren’t the “bad guys,” presumably criminals or terrorists. It’s themselves—and their families.

White men aren’t just the Americans most likely to own guns; according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, they’re also the people most likely to put them in their own mouths and pull the trigger, especially when they’re in some kind of economic distress. A white man is three times more likely to shoot himself than a black man—while the chances that a white man will be killed by a black man are extremely slight. Most murders and shoot-outs don’t happen between strangers. They unfold within social networks, among people of the same race.

A gun in the home is far more likely to kill or wound the people who live there than is a burglar or serial killer. Most of the time, according to every single study that’s ever been done about interpersonal gun violence, the dead and wounded know the people who shot them. A gun in the home makes it five times more likely that a woman will be killed by her husband. Every week in America, 136 children and teenagers are shot—and more often than not, it’s a sibling, friend, parent, or relative who holds the gun. For every homicide deemed justified by the police, guns are used in 78 suicides. As a new study published this month in JAMA Internal Medicine once again shows us, restrictive gun laws don’t prevent white men from defending themselves and their families. Instead, those laws stop them from shooting themselves and each other…(More)

Advertisements
 

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Alabama Students File Protest Against White Wing Indoctrination in Class

Now they want to teach hate and racism in public schools –

Image result for nazi schools

Alabama students confront school board over right-wing teacher who compares Obama to Hitler

Students are revolting at one Alabama high school over the right-wing lesson plan pushed by a government teacher.

Baldwin County School Board members heard complaints Thursday from students about Spanish Fort High instructor Gene Ponder, who assigned at least five books by right-wing talk radio host Michael Savage and compared President Barack Obama to Adolf Hitler in one lesson, reported AL.com.

The students complained Ponder relied on outdated published materials and blog posts to back up his political claims the in the AP class and used unscientific reasoning on issues such as gun control.

“This is not a small group of students misinterpreting or challenging a viewpoint,” said student Julia Coccaro, who also raised concerns about Ponder’s summer reading list last year.

The school system pulled that assignment in June, after students complained the reading materials promoted one viewpoint without offering a challenging contrast.

“The taxpayers of Baldwin County are not paying for their children to be indoctrinated,” said Coccaro, who chairs the Alabama High School Democrats. “They are paying to be educated, and we are not being educated in that classroom.”

Parents, local residents and former teachers spoke out against Ponder, who declined to comment.

“The lesson plans I examined appear to be totally extracurricular,” said Cynthia McMeans, a retired teacher. “No teaching materials based on a legitimate course of study in the social sciences would rely on and include information from websites, blogs, articles and interviews found on conspiracy theories and logical fallacies. None of the lesson plans come from reputable sources.”

Another former teacher was more succinct.

“We are teaching hate in our school systems,” said retired teacher Sandra Page.

Superintendent Eddie Tyler said the board would consider some of the suggestions offered, such as having an academic supervisor examine the lessons, but he said some speakers “engaged in character assassination” against the teacher.

One local man defended Ponder, saying he had attended one of the government teacher’s classes.

“I was looking for something to tell me that this teacher was bias (sic) and I didn’t hear it or see it,” Eugene Maye of Fairhope. “We want to believe our kids. But my take from that class is that I didn’t see anything wrong.”

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

The Chumph Continues Ethnic Cleansing

First he came for the Haitians…

 

With Salvador decision, Trump’s immigration policy veers into white nationalism

Trump moves toward deporting 200,000 longtime immigrants from El Salvador — and, no, they’re not “illegal”

Since Donald Trump kicked off his presidential campaign in 2015 by declaring that Mexican immigrants to the United States are “rapists” and are “bringing crime,” he and his supporters have tried to deny that his opinions on immigration are shaped by racism. Instead, they’ve tried to argue that it’s only illegal immigration that Trump opposes. Trump has even claimed that his proposed wall on the Mexican border would have a “big, very beautiful door because we want the legals to come back into the country.”

Once Trump was in office, however, it became clear that his immigration policy would primarily be shaped around ejecting as many nonwhite, non-English-speaking people as possible. The White House has systematically targeted certain groups of  immigrants who have legal status for deportation, through the travel ban placed on Muslim countries (which initially applied to green card holders), rescinding protections for DACA recipients and more recently the targeted attacks on immigrants with Temporary Protected Status (TPS), who are allowed to live in the United States under a law signed by George H.W. Bush in 1991.

On Monday, the Trump administration revoked TPS from 200,000 Salvadorans, a group of people that has lived and worked here for 17 years, and in many cases have children who know no other home but the United States. This is the biggest move yet to give lie to the notion that Trump is fine with legal immigration. Instead, it’s becoming apparent that a lightly veiled version white nationalism is the guiding ideology behind Trump immigration policies. Earlier, Trump has revoked TPS from 2,500 Nicaraguans and 60,000 Haitians.

“Over the 17 years that they’ve had TPS, they have been routinely and regularly vetted by the government,” explained Royce Murray of the American Immigration Council, during a Monday press call. “They’ve been vetted 11 times, submitted to background checks and security checks to ensure that they do not present any public safety concerns.”

“I kind of see it as low-hanging fruit,” said Mark Drury, an executive at Shapiro & Duncan, a construction company that employs a number of TPS workers. He noted that undocumented workers “are a lot harder to find” than people who have legal status, after all, and that kicking out people who have “done all the right things” is a much easier task for the Trump administration.

“All my plans for the future just ended,” said Christian Chavez Guevara, who has lived in the U.S. with TPS status for 17 years. Holding back tears, he added, “I don’t want to take my daughter, none of my kids, to a violent environment.”

Salvadoran immigrants were given protected status after an earthquake in 2001, but as Chavez Guevara’s statements make clear, the more pressing concerns in 2018 are economic instability and crime. Right now, the State Department has a travel warning in place for El Salvador, noting the country “has one of the highest homicide levels in the world and crimes such as extortion, assault and robbery are common.” But the Trump administration declined to take those facts into consideration, simply declaring that enough time had passed since the earthquake that it was safe for these immigrants to return home.

Frank Mora of the Kimberly Green Latin American and Caribbean Center strongly disagreed, arguing that returning all these people to El Salvador “stokes the conditions that actually trigger the instability, the violence and the migration from El Salvador to the United States,” which runs directly counter to the Trump administration’s stated goals.

Remittances — money sent by immigrants back to family and friends in El Salvador — make up 17 percent of that nation’s GDP. Sending all those people back to El Salvador and cutting off that source of income, Mora warned, would exacerbate economic insecurity and likely lead to an escalation of crime. In turn, that will cause more people to leave the country and enter the United States without documentation.

Unsurprisingly, Neil Munro at Breitbart applauded Trump’s decision by characterizing immigrants, en masse, as parasites.

“Four million Americans turn 18 each year and begin looking for good jobs in the free market,” Munro writes. “But the federal government inflates the supply of new labor by annually accepting more than 1 million new legal immigrants, by providing work-permits to roughly 3 million resident foreigners, and by doing little to block the employment of roughly 8 million illegal immigrants.”

Drury begged to differ, saying, “Construction’s at full employment. There are not people sitting at home waiting to take the jobs that these folks are doing. We work hard every day trying to get more people into our industry.”

He added that these potential deportations mean that “El Salvador will get a better prepared work force arriving at their doors,” since most of these people have been building up work experience in the U.S. for years. These workers may well displace less experienced workers in El Salvador, he said, who may well come to the U.S. looking for work, likely as undocumented immigrants.

Attempts to make this debate about economics are best understood as a cover story for a racist agenda. As Matt Yglesias explained at Vox in April, “there is a fairly firm consensus that immigration raises incomes on average for native-born workers” and that inviting immigrants is an effective “strategy for national growth and national greatness.”

Trump and his supporters are clearly motivated by an urge toward ethnic cleansing, whether or not they clearly see it that way, and their economic arguments should be understood as a form of rationalization. The comment section at Breitbart News, full of racial slurs about “anchor babies” and “criminal invaders,” and claims that liberals want the United States to be a “Third World spillway,” make that clear enough. This is why it’s foolish for any liberal to hope the MAGA-hat crowd will turn on Trump after realizing he has broken his promises on taxes, jobs and health care. Mostly they voted for him so he would stick it to people of color, and that is one promise Trump has kept.

 

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Chumph – Ethnic Cleansing the Government

What is going on at State Department is playing out all over the government as the Chumph assembles his Gestapo.

This is also interesting because of the announcement of Mr Tillerson’s exit from State

Image result for Federal workforce demographics

 

Diplomats Sound the Alarm as They Are Pushed Out in Droves

 Of all the State Department employees who might have been vulnerable in the staff reductions that Secretary of State Rex W. Tillerson has initiated as he reshapes the department, the one person who seemed least likely to be a target was the chief of security, Bill A. Miller.

Republicans pilloried Hillary Clinton for what they claimed was her inadequate attention to security as secretary of state in the months before the deadly 2012 attacks in Benghazi, Libya. Congress even passed legislation mandating that the department’s top security official have unrestricted access to the secretary of state.

But in his first nine months in office, Mr. Tillerson turned down repeated and sometimes urgent requests from the department’s security staff to brief him, according to several former top officials in the Bureau of Diplomatic Security. Finally, Mr. Miller, the acting assistant secretary for diplomatic security, was forced to cite the law’s requirement that he be allowed to speak to Mr. Tillerson.

Mr. Miller got just five minutes with the secretary of state, the former officials said. Afterward, Mr. Miller, a career Foreign Service officer, was pushed out, joining a parade of dismissals and early retirements that has decimated the State Department’s senior ranks. Mr. Miller declined to comment.

Image result for State Department workforce demographics

The departures mark a new stage in the broken and increasingly contentious relationship between Mr. Tillerson and much of his department’s work force. By last spring, interviews at the time suggested, the guarded optimism that greeted his arrival had given way to concern among diplomats about his aloofness and lack of communication. By the summer, the secretary’s focus on efficiency and reorganization over policy provoked off-the-record anger.

Now the estrangement is in the open, as diplomats going out the door make their feelings known and members of Congress raise questions about the impact of their leaving.

In a letter to Mr. Tillerson last week, Democratic members of the House Foreign Relations Committee, citing what they said was “the exodus of more than 100 senior Foreign Service officers from the State Department since January,” expressed concern about “what appears to be the intentional hollowing-out of our senior diplomatic ranks.”

Image result for State Department workforce demographicsSenator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, and Senator Jeanne Shaheen, Democrat of New Hampshire, sent a similar letter, telling Mr. Tillerson that “America’s diplomatic power is being weakened internally as complex global crises are growing externally.”

Mr. Tillerson, a former chief executive of Exxon Mobil, has made no secret of his belief that the State Department is a bloated bureaucracy and that he regards much of the day-to-day diplomacy that lower-level officials conduct as unproductive. Even before Mr. Tillerson was confirmed, his staff fired six of the State Department’s top career diplomats, including Patrick Kennedy, who had been appointed to his position by President George W. Bush. Kristie Kenney, the department’s counselor and one of just five career ambassadors, was summarily fired a few weeks later.

None were given any reason for their dismissals, although Mr. Kennedy and Ms. Kenney had been reprimanded by Trump transition officials for answering basic logistical questions from Nikki R. Haley, President Trump’s pick as United Nations ambassador. Mr. Tillerson is widely believed to dislike Ms. Haley, who has been seen as a possible successor if Mr. Tillerson steps down.

In the following months, Mr. Tillerson launched a reorganization that he has said will be the most important thing he will do, and he has hired two consulting companies to lead the effort. Since he decided before even arriving at the State Department to slash its budget by 31 percent, many in the department have always seen the reorganization as a smoke screen for drastic cuts.

Mr. Tillerson has frozen most hiring and recently offered a $25,000 buyout in hopes of pushing nearly 2,000 career diplomats and civil servants to leave by October 2018.

His small cadre of aides have fired some diplomats and gotten others to resign by refusing them the assignments they wanted or taking away their duties altogether. Among those fired or sidelined were most of the top African-American and Latino diplomats, as well as many women, difficult losses in a department that has long struggled with diversity.

One of them was Linda Thomas-Greenfield, a career Foreign Service officer who served as ambassador to Liberia under Mr. Bush and as director general of the Foreign Service and assistant secretary for African affairs during the Obama administration. Ms. Thomas-Greenfield was among those asked to leave by Mr. Tillerson’s staff, but she appealed and remained until her retirement in September.

“I don’t feel targeted as an African-American,” she said. “I feel targeted as a professional.”

For those who have not been dismissed, retirement has become a preferred alternative when, like Mr. Miller, they find no demand for their expertise. A retirement class that concludes this month has 26 senior employees, including two acting assistant secretaries in their early 50s who would normally wait years before leaving.

The number of those with the department’s top two ranks of career ambassador and career minister — equivalent to four- and three-star generals — will have been cut in half by Dec. 1, from 39 to 19. And of the 431 minister-counselors, who have two-star-equivalent ranks, 369 remain and another 14 have indicated that they will leave soon — an 18 percent drop — according to an accounting provided by the American Foreign Service Association.

The political appointees who normally join the department after a change in administration have not made up for those departures. So far, just 10 of the top 44 political positions in the department have been filled, and for most of the vacancies, Mr. Tillerson has not nominated anyone.

 

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

The Chumph’s Rape Victims

A list of the 13 women the Chumph molested and tried to rape…And counting.

Trump and accusations of sexual misconduct: The complete list

Sexual misconduct by powerful men has all but taken over the news, with Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.), Rep. John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.) and senatorial hopeful Roy Moore (R-Ala.) among the politicians on this growing list.

Trump vociferously has taken aim at accused Democrats, while apparently giving a pass to Republicans. Moreover, it was only a year ago that similar accusations against Trump dominated the headlines, with more than a dozen women accusing Trump of improper conduct or sexual assault. Many of the accusations surfaced after the release of a 2005 tape of Trump speaking graphically about kissing and groping women uninvited.

During the second presidential debate, Anderson Cooper asked then-candidate Trump point blank whether he had “actually kiss[ed] women without consent or grope[d] women without consent?” Trump asserted that “nobody has more respect for women” and Cooper pushed him, asking, “Have you ever done those things?” Trump denied that he had, responding: “No, I have not.”

The president has held this line, telling the New York Times, when asked the same question: “I don’t do it. I don’t do it.”

But it’s not as simple as that. Many of the women have produced witnesses who say they heard about these incidents when they happened — long before Trump’s political aspirations were known. Three have produced at least two witnesses.

Such contemporaneous accounts are essential to establishing the credibility of the allegation because they reduce the chance that a person is making up a story for political purposes. In the case of sexual allegations, such accounts can help bolster the credibility of the “she said” side of the equation. Often, a sexual assault will occur behind closed doors. The contemporary corroborators can explain what they heard at the time and whether the story being told now is consistent with how the story was told years earlier. This does not necessarily mean an allegation is true, but it does give journalistic organizations more confidence to report on the allegation.

The Fact Checker first detailed some of the accusations against Trump during the 2016 campaign. That fact check also detailed the witnesses who backed up claims of sexual accusations against former president Bill Clinton — who, like Trump, insisted the women accusing him were not telling the truth.

Here’s a list of 13 women who have publicly come forward with claims that Trump had physically touched them inappropriately in some way, and the witnesses they provided. We did not include claims that were made only through Facebook posts or other social media, or in lawsuits that subsequently were withdrawn.

We also did not include the accounts of former beauty contestants who say Trump walked in on them when they were half nude because there were no allegations of touching. Trump had bragged on the Howard Stern show of his “inspections” during the pageants: “You know they’re standing there with no clothes. Is everybody OK? And you see these incredible looking women. And so I sort of get away with things like that.”

Two or more contemporary corroborators

Natasha Stoynoff
Allegation: While she was interviewing Trump in 2005 for an article for People magazine about the first anniversary of his third marriage, Trump lured her into a room at Mar-a-Lago, forced her against a wall and abruptly kissed her, forcing his tongue into her mouth. He then said they were going to have an affair.

Corroborators: 
Marina Grasic, who has known Stoynoff for more than 25 years. She said she got a call from her friend the day after the alleged attack, detailing exactly how Trump pushed Stoynoff against a wall.
Liz McNeil, at the time a reporter for People (she is now an editor). She said that she heard about the incident the day after Stoynoff returned from her assignment. “She was very upset and told me how he shoved her against a wall,” she said.
Mary Green, another People reporter (now editor) who had just returned to New York. “In an early conversation we had in her office, she told me about what happened with Donald Trump,” Green said. “She was shaky, sitting at her desk, relaying that, ‘He took me to this other room, and when we stepped inside, he pushed me against a wall and stuck his tongue down my throat. Melania was upstairs and could have walked in at any time.’ ”
Liza Hamm, part of a “tight-knit’ group of friends. “Natasha has always been a vivacious person who wants to believe in the best of people, and this experience definitely messed with that outlook,” she said.
Paul McLaughlin, Stoynoff’s former journalism professor. He said Stoynoff called him at the time of the alleged incident seeking advice on how to handle it: “She didn’t know what to do, she was very conflicted, she was angry, she was really confused about how to deal with this.” After a discussion, he said, Stoynoff decided it would be best if she kept the incident to herself.

Response: Anthony Senecal, Trump’s former butler, denied the incident: “No, that never happened. Come on, that’s just bull crap.” Trump said: “Why didn’t she do this 12 years ago? She’s a liar. … It never happened. It’s a lie.”

 

Rachel Crooks
Allegation: Trump in 2005 kissed her directly on the lips after she introduced herself and said she was a receptionist who worked for a company that did business with Trump.

Corroborators: 
Brianne Webb, her sister. She said Crooks called her about the incident as soon as she returned to her desk. “Being from a town of 1,600 people, being naive, I was like, ‘Are you sure he didn’t just miss trying to kiss you on the cheek?’ She said, ‘No, he kissed me on the mouth.’ I was like, ‘That is not normal.’ ”
Clint Hackenburg, her boyfriend at the time. After he asked her that evening how her day had gone, “she paused for a second, and then started hysterically crying.”

Response: Shouting at the New York Times reporter who called for comment, Trump said, “None of this ever took place.” He then told the reporter, “You are a disgusting human being.”

 

Cathy Heller
Allegation: While having Mother’s Day brunch at Mar-a-Lago in 1997 or 1998, her mother-in-law introduced her to Trump. She extended her hand to greet him and he grabbed her and kissed her on the mouth. She did turn her head slightly and so he wasn’t able to “get my whole mouth.”

Corroborators:
Lloyd Heller, her husband. He said that she immediately told him. He said he told her that “you should have punched him” and he remembers being “puzzled” by why Trump would do something like that in a public space.
A relative who was there, but wanted to stay unnamed. This person said Heller was immediately shocked and asked whether he or she had seen what happened. The two then talked about the incident asking, “Who does he think he is?”

Response: Trump campaign spokesman Jason Miller told People Magazine: “There is no way that something like this would have happened in a public place on Mother’s Day at Mr. Trump’s resort.” …More

And then there is the list of children he had sexual relations with and paid millions to silence…

 

Tags: , , , , , ,

Red State – Blue State, And the Failure of Conservative Morals

Numbers shouldn’t be any surprise The sanctimonious red state Republicans lead the country in most moral failures.

I mean,a small sample this year so far –

Oklahoma Republican pleads guilty to child sex trafficking after getting caught with 17-year-old boy
‘More women are sexual predators than men’: South Carolina pastor blames ‘war on men’ to defend Roy Moore
Emails reveal Tony Perkins knew GOP lawmaker sexually assaulted teen — but kept it quiet
Trump-loving pastor stuns Joy Reid by blurting ‘morality’ is not a necessary qualification for leadership
Wife of top GOP lawyer is arrested after alleged parking-lot tryst with Fauquier inmate
G. Gordon Liddy’s son — Republican deputy AG — arrested for possession of child pornography
GOP state senator resigns after being charged with sexual assault of Uber driver
Rich Trump backer convicted of inaugural weekend sex abuse of hotel maids got wrist slap, tiny fine
Former GOP chief in Georgia indicted on 13 counts of child molestation for 55 years of abuse

Kansas City Republican  Rep. Huelskamp staffer arrested on charges with 17 counts of child sex crimes, including sexual exploitation of a child. 

 

Image result for republican child molesters

Blue states practice the ‘family values’ that red states preach: new survey

The New York Times‘ Nicholas Kristof reported Saturday on the results of the annual Youth Risk Behavior Survey, which found that people living in so-called blue states have lower rates of teen pregnancy, divorce and prostitution than their counterparts in conservative states.

In a survey of 32 states, the states with the highest percentage of teens who are sexually active were Mississippi, Delaware, West Virginia, Alabama and Arkansas.

As Kristof noted, “All but Delaware voted Republican in the last presidential election.”

“Meanwhile,” he wrote, “the five states with the lowest proportion of high school students who have had sex were New York, California, Maryland, Nebraska and Connecticut. All but Nebraska voted Democratic.”

When teens from evangelical backgrounds have sex, they are less likely to use birth control or protection against STDs. Of the 10 states with the highest teen birth rates, nine voted Republican in 2016. Of the 10 states with the lowest teen birth rates, nine voted Democratic.

“The conservative hostility to premarital sex also sometimes leads to early weddings, even to child marriages,” said Kristof. “I wrote in May about the hundreds of thousands of child marriages in America, and of the dozen states with the highest rates of child marriage, all voted Republican in 2016.”

“Child marriage is happening at an alarming rate across the U.S., but available marriage-license data show more parents, judges and clerks in red states than in blue states seem comfortable with this human-rights abuse,” said Fraidy Reiss, an anti-child marriage activist who founded the nonprofit Unchained at Last.

Red state marriages are more likely to end in divorce, the survey found. Furthermore, rates of marital infidelity and prostitution are higher in conservative states.

“One large international survey found that the largest group of customers on Ashley Madison, the dating website for married people, were evangelical Christians,” said Kristof. “And a major 2013 study found that men in the Houston and Kansas City metro areas were the most likely to call sex ads, while men in San Francisco and Baltimore were the least likely to.”

Kristof said it’s important not to confuse causality and correlation, however. Conservative values don’t lead to higher rates of adultery and divorce. Christians and conservatives are more likely to marry young, end their educations after high school and are disproportionately poor, according to statistical analysis.

He concluded on a conciliatory note.

“So let’s drop the wars over family values,” he said. “Liberals and conservatives alike don’t want kids pregnant at 16, and we almost all seek committed marriages that last. It’s worth noting that Bible-thumping blowhards like Roy Moore don’t help achieve those values, while investments in education and family planning do.”

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Rick Perry – “Fossil Fuels Prevent Rape”

The Chumph’s Energy Secretary is as dumb as a rcok…

 

Even worse – this new found desire to prevent sexual assaults is rather questionable…

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

 
%d bloggers like this: