Sunday, April 12, 2015


http://www.cbsnews.com/news/obama-marks-historic-meeting-with-cuban-leader-raul-castro/

Obama marks "historic meeting" with Cuban leader Raul Castro
By JAKE MILLER CBS NEWS
April 11, 2015

Photograph – President Obama shakes hands with Cuba's President Raul Castro on the sidelines of the Summit of the Americas at the ATLAPA Convention center April 11, 2015, in Panama City.  MANDEL NGAN/AFP/GETTY IMAGES

President Obama sat down with Cuban leader Raul Castro in Panama on Saturday, marking the first formal meeting between U.S. and Cuban heads of state in more than half a century.

"This is obviously an historic meeting," Mr. Obama told reporters as Castro sat beside him.

The president said 50 years of hostility had not produced any constructive change in the relationship between Cuba and the U.S. and "it was time for us to try something new."

Mr. Obama, who's in Panama attending the Summit of the Americas, reiterated his commitment to normalizing relations between the U.S. and Cuba, an initiative he began last December.

"We are now in a position to move on a path toward the future," he said. "Over time it is possible for us to turn the page and develop a new relationship between our two countries."

Mr. Obama stressed that the two countries will continue to disagree at times and said the U.S. will continue to speak out on behalf of democracy and human rights. When Mr. Obama said he expected Cuban leaders to continue to air their concerns about U.S. policy as well, as Castro did during an earlier speech on Saturday, the Cuban leader smiled.

Castro noted the long and complicated history between the U.S. and Cuba in his own remarks, but he stressed his willingness to make progress on re-establishing diplomatic relations. He said he's willing to discuss any issue, including human rights and freedom of the press, as their dialogue continues.

Mr. Obama did not address his looming decision on whether to remove Cuba from the State Department's list of state sponsors of terrorism. The president announced Thursday that the State Department has finished its review of the decision, and he said Saturday that he expects to make a final determination soon.

"I have been on the road, and I want to make sure that I have the chance to read it, study it before we announce publicly what the policy outcome is going to be," the president said at a news conference.

Lawmakers in Congress would have 45 days to review the decision before it is implemented, but their power to block the move is limited. According to CBS News' Pamela Falk, the U.S. laws that authorize the terror listing give Congress the option of passing a joint resolution, or a bill to block a nation's removal, but the president has the power to override such a move.

Republicans who oppose Mr. Obama's shift in policy regarding Cuba have vowed to do what they can to stymie the normalization of relations between the two countries. GOP leaders have shown no willingness to begin lifting the Cuban trade embargo -- a step Mr. Obama again called for on Saturday. Some Republicans have also suggested blocking any funding to set up a U.S. Embassy in Havana and blocking the appointment of a U.S. ambassador to Cuba.

According to a senior administration official, Mr. Obama and Castro discussed some of the practical issues facing the effort to set up embassies, including the need to ensure the Cuban embassy in Washington can access the U.S. banking system, and the ability of diplomats in both countries to be able to move around freely.

At a plenary session earlier on Saturday, both Mr. Obama and Castro spoke about the evolution of the U.S.-Cuba relationship in remarks before the other heads of state who attended the summit.

"The United States is focused on the future," Mr. Obama said. "The Cold War's been over for a long time. I'm not interested in having battles that frankly started before I was born."

Castro, who's attending this year's summit for the first time, spoke at length and with considerable passion about the history of U.S. attempts to undermine Cuba's government. But he absolved Mr. Obama of any blame, in what many observers deemed a fairly stunning attempt at rapprochement just hours before the first meeting between the two leaders.

"I apologize to him because President Obama had no responsibility for this," Castro said. "In my opinion, President Obama is an honest man."




“The president said 50 years of hostility had not produced any constructive change in the relationship between Cuba and the U.S. and "it was time for us to try something new." …. Mr. Obama stressed that the two countries will continue to disagree at times and said the U.S. will continue to speak out on behalf of democracy and human rights. When Mr. Obama said he expected Cuban leaders to continue to air their concerns about U.S. policy as well, as Castro did during an earlier speech on Saturday, the Cuban leader smiled. …. Mr. Obama did not address his looming decision on whether to remove Cuba from the State Department's list of state sponsors of terrorism. The president announced Thursday that the State Department has finished its review of the decision, and he said Saturday that he expects to make a final determination soon. …. Lawmakers in Congress would have 45 days to review the decision before it is implemented, but their power to block the move is limited. According to CBS News' Pamela Falk, the U.S. laws that authorize the terror listing give Congress the option of passing a joint resolution, or a bill to block a nation's removal, but the president has the power to override such a move. …. But he absolved Mr. Obama of any blame, in what many observers deemed a fairly stunning attempt at rapprochement just hours before the first meeting between the two leaders. "I apologize to him because President Obama had no responsibility for this," Castro said. "In my opinion, President Obama is an honest man."

"The United States is focused on the future," Mr. Obama said. "The Cold War's been over for a long time. I'm not interested in having battles that frankly started before I was born." It's so good to have an intelligent person in the presidency. I was born in 1945, so I remember the fear of communism, though it doesn't actually threaten countries like ours. It's an economic system, after all. Not all of their leaders are dictators or interested in acquiring another nation's territory. Russia was another story in those days, and now with the increasingly ambitious Putin they may be really dangerous again. Cuba had one episode when they were too friendly with Russia and was planning to accept nuclear arms from them, and President Kennedy put an immediate stop to that. After that, Cubans have never again menaced the US.

Of course one story on the Kennedy assassination was that Cuba was behind the killing. There were so many stories and so much confusion over it that I never have felt that we really know what actually happened. Things got off to a bad footing with Fidel Castro when he and his men plucked chickens in a New York City hotel, causing a big exciting furor. According to the Net, that was in 1960. I remember I was young at the time. I suppose they were afraid that someone would poison them if they ate at the hotel. Or maybe they just wanted to embarrass the US. Fidel was quite a rascal. As far as I'm concerned, that event only embarrassed Cuba. Besides, I think Raul is a less exciting but much more sensible person, and more trustworthy. I, like Obama, am tired of all the international intrigue that I lived through during my lifetime, and I want to see peace. Peace will come one nation at a time, and this is our chance to make a new bridge rather than burning yet another one.





http://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-capitol-locked-down-shots-fired/

Man fatally shoots himself at U.S. Capitol
CBS/AP
April 11, 2015

Photograph – A police bomb squad officer inspects a suspicious package on the U.S. Capitol grounds after a shooting in Washington April 11, 2015.  REUTERS/JIM BOURG

WASHINGTON -- A precautionary lockdown of the U.S. Capitol was lifted after about two hours Saturday following a suicide by a man carrying a protest sign.

The man died after shooting himself on the west front of the Capitol building just after 1 p.m., Capitol Police spokeswoman Kimberly Schneider said. No one else was hurt.

Officials from the FBI's Washington field office told CBS News that the shooting was not believed to be related to terrorism. The FBI's joint terrorism task force was on the scene providing bomb squad support.

Capitol Police Chief Kim Dine said the man had a backpack and a rolling suitcase, triggering an hours-long lockdown, and a sign that said something about "social justice."

Robert Bishop of Annapolis, Maryland, said he was biking near the steps of the Capitol when the suicide happened.

Bishop didn't witness the suicide but said there were about 60 people in the area, and that some of them did, including a girl and her mother who immediately began crying afterward.

Bishop said another witness told him and a police officer that the man who committed suicide held up a protest sign about taxation just before pulling the trigger.

No one was allowed to leave or enter the Capitol or the visitors' center during the lockdown on a busy day for tourists, and some streets around the area were closed.

After being allowed to leave the Capitol, Bishop said he saw authorities taking clothes out of the suitcase the man had.

During the lockdown, about a dozen police cars, black SUVs and an ambulance congregated at the bottom of the west steps of the Capitol, which overlooks the bustling National Mall.

Police appeared to take measurements as bomb squad members searched the area. Nearer the mall, visitors gathered around trying to figure out what was going on.

The lockdown came during Washington's annual Cherry Blossom Festival, which attracts thousands of tourists during Washington's busy season.

Congress has been on spring recess for two weeks and lawmakers are set to return to work Monday.




“Officials from the FBI's Washington field office told CBS News that the shooting was not believed to be related to terrorism. The FBI's joint terrorism task force was on the scene providing bomb squad support. Capitol Police Chief Kim Dine said the man had a backpack and a rolling suitcase, triggering an hours-long lockdown, and a sign that said something about "social justice." …. Police appeared to take measurements as bomb squad members searched the area. Nearer the mall, visitors gathered around trying to figure out what was going on. The lockdown came during Washington's annual Cherry Blossom Festival, which attracts thousands of tourists during Washington's busy season.”

Washington has always drawn insane people like a magnet. Most of them are relatively harmless, but with so much fear of terrorists since 9/11 this kind of event has to be investigated fully. I think that's the type of people who, for the most part, have been making their way onto the White House lawn, rather than real Islamic radicals. Most of them are what we used to call “rednecks” with delusions of grandeur. Still, like McVeigh who bombed the Oklahoma City courthouse, they can be really dangerous.





http://thefreethoughtproject.com/school-nurse-refuses-treat-child-stayed-seated-pledge-allegiance/#q1EcdJGejjZxHtuY.99

School Nurse Refuses to Treat Child as Punishment for Sitting Down During Pledge of Allegiance
By Jay Syrmopoulos on April 10, 2015

Carlisle, Penn. – In a blatant violation of an eighth grade student’s constitutional rights, a school nurse at Wilson Middle School refused to provide care for a student. The care was denied after the student, who was seated in the nurse’s office awaiting treatment, exercised her right to not stand as the Pledge of Allegiance was played over the school’s intercom.

The student, upset about having her constitutional rights summarily violated, contacted the American Humanist Association (AHA). In a letter sent to the school district, the AHA Appignani Humanist Legal Center wrote:

As you should know, the right of students to opt out of Pledge participation was settled long ago by the United States Supreme Court in West Virginia Bd. Of Educ. V. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943). Consequently, any actions by your school infringing upon that right would be actionable as a serious constitutional violation.

For personal reasons, the student in question, does not wish to participate in the exercise in any manner. On Thursday, April 2, she happened to be at the nurse’s office when the school’s Pledge of Allegiance took place. The school nurse ordered everyone present to stand up, but this student remained seated as she typically does.

She reports that subsequently, when it was her turn to be seen by the nurse, the nurse asked loudly, “Why didn’t you stand for the Pledge?” The student replied that the Pledge exercise is voluntary and that no explanation for opting out was needed. Shockingly, the nurse responded by ordering her out of the room, yelling, “Fine! Then leave! I have the right to not service you!”

The disturbing outburst by the school’s nurse left the child in tears. In an effort to call her mom, the student left the nurse’s office to go to the administrative offices. A secretary assisted the girl to an office when the nurse reappeared stating, “She isn’t calling a parent until I have a long conversation with her!”

David Niose, legal director of the American Humanist Association, in reference to the 1943 case West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, said, “The U.S. Supreme Court has affirmed that public school students have the unequivocal right to opt out of participation the Pledge of Allegiance exercise. There is no excuse for a school staff member to humiliate and bully a student who chooses to exercise this right, and the nurse’s refusal to service the student is particularly egregious.”

The document from the AHA goes on to state:

At this point a school counselor arrived and took the student to his office, where the student remained for two class periods. Though he showed some sympathy, he also incorrectly instructed the student that she should stand in the hallway if she does not wish to stand for the pledge exercise! The student politely tried to explain that she is under no obligation to stand in the hallway as such, to which the counselor replied that it was “district policy,” apparently unaware that “district policy” does not trump federal law.

The letter demands that all students and staff in the district be advised that students may remain seated during the Pledge recitation. Additionally they want all staff to be instructed that they must not, under any circumstances attempt to persuade students to refrain from exercising their right to opt out of the Pledge. Nor can they characterize doing so as wrongful, and that no student should be disciplined for exercising this right. The letter also demands that the school offer a written apology to the student.

Monica Miller of the AHA made an extremely accurate assessment of the situation when stating,

“The actions of the nurse are indefensible, as she provides an example of the kind of overzealous, dangerous patriotism that any true patriot would loathe. The student was left angry and scarred by this mean-spirited hostility, which is only made worse by the fact that it came from a person trusted with the health and well-being of students. Moreover, the nurse’s refusal to give the child medical attention calls into question her fitness for the job.”

For this child to be treated in such a demeaning way, for simply exercising an affirmed constitutional right, is shocking to the conscience. No one should ever be forced into mandatory displays of allegiance, to any state, nor God.

If you think that the government has no business denying individuals their freedom to exercise their own religious beliefs or lack thereof, and indoctrinating kids into nationalist/religious endeavors, please share this with a friend.

Jay Syrmopoulos is an investigative journalist, freethinker, researcher, and ardent opponent of authoritarianism. He is currently a graduate student at University of Denver pursuing a masters in Global Affairs. Jay’s work has previously been published on BenSwann.com and WeAreChange.org. You can follow him on Twitter @sirmetropolis, on Facebook at Sir Metropolis and now on tsu.




“The student, upset about having her constitutional rights summarily violated, contacted the American Humanist Association (AHA). In a letter sent to the school district, the AHA Appignani Humanist Legal Center wrote: As you should know, the right of students to opt out of Pledge participation was settled long ago by the United States Supreme Court in West Virginia Bd. Of Educ. V. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943). Consequently, any actions by your school infringing upon that right would be actionable as a serious constitutional violation. …. She reports that subsequently, when it was her turn to be seen by the nurse, the nurse asked loudly, “Why didn’t you stand for the Pledge?” The student replied that the Pledge exercise is voluntary and that no explanation for opting out was needed. Shockingly, the nurse responded by ordering her out of the room, yelling, “Fine! Then leave! I have the right to not service you!” …. David Niose, legal director of the American Humanist Association, in reference to the 1943 case West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, said, “The U.S. Supreme Court has affirmed that public school students have the unequivocal right to opt out of participation the Pledge of Allegiance exercise. …. The student politely tried to explain that she is under no obligation to stand in the hallway as such, to which the counselor replied that it was “district policy,” apparently unaware that “district policy” does not trump federal law. …. Additionally they want all staff to be instructed that they must not, under any circumstances attempt to persuade students to refrain from exercising their right to opt out of the Pledge. Nor can they characterize doing so as wrongful, and that no student should be disciplined for exercising this right. The letter also demands that the school offer a written apology to the student.”

“The actions of the nurse are indefensible, as she provides an example of the kind of overzealous, dangerous patriotism that any true patriot would loathe. …. No one should ever be forced into mandatory displays of allegiance, to any state, nor God. If you think that the government has no business denying individuals their freedom to exercise their own religious beliefs or lack thereof, and indoctrinating kids into nationalist/religious endeavors, please share this with a friend.” This article is completely clear and powerfully expressed. It voices a dread I have begun to feel that the direction the far right is moving is indeed “dangerous” and “overzealous,” and if there is no change we will be a fascist government and society in the near future. I think there will be a change, though. These really outrageous incidents are getting lots of press and commentary among liberals. That's good, because we need an energized, activist Democratic Party now. I wonder if Bernie Sanders will be running for president in 2016. He's an Independent, of course, but he's a genuine liberal and very clever. Would I vote for a third party candidate again, though? Probably not because they almost never win, and they keep the Democrats from winning. Clinton would have a good chance of winning according to a recent poll, and is a strong fighter. Besides, she is ahead of Rubio and Jeb Bush.





http://www.huffingtonpost.com/carl-gibson/mark-dayton-minnesota-economy_b_6737786.html

This Billionaire Governor Taxed the Rich and Increased the Minimum Wage -- Now, His State's Economy Is One of the Best in the Country
Carl Gibson  Co-Founder of US Uncut
April 11, 2015

The next time your right-wing family member or former high school classmate posts a status update or tweet about how taxing the rich or increasing workers' wages kills jobs and makes businesses leave the state, I want you to send them this article.

When he took office in January of 2011, Minnesota governor Mark Dayton inherited a $6.2 billion budget deficit and a 7 percent unemployment rate from his predecessor, Tim Pawlenty, the soon-forgotten Republican candidate for the presidency who called himself Minnesota's first true fiscally-conservative governor in modern history. Pawlenty prided himself on never raising state taxes -- the most he ever did to generate new revenue was increase the tax on cigarettes by 75 cents a pack. Between 2003 and late 2010, when Pawlenty was at the head of Minnesota's state government, he managed to add only 6,200 more jobs.

During his first four years in office, Gov. Dayton raised the state income tax from 7.85 to 9.85 percent on individuals earning over $150,000, and on couples earning over $250,000 when filing jointly -- a tax increase of $2.1 billion. He's also agreed to raise Minnesota's minimum wage to $9.50 an hour by 2018, and passed a state law guaranteeing equal pay for women. Republicans like state representative Mark Uglem warned against Gov. Dayton's tax increases, saying, "The job creators, the big corporations, the small corporations, they will leave. It's all dollars and sense to them." The conservative friend or family member you shared this article with would probably say the same if their governor tried something like this. But like Uglem, they would be proven wrong.

Between 2011 and 2015, Gov. Dayton added 172,000 new jobs to Minnesota's economy -- that's 165,800 more jobs in Dayton's first term than Pawlenty added in both of his terms combined. Even though Minnesota's top income tax rate is the 4th-highest in the country, it has the 5th-lowest unemployment rate in the country at 3.6 percent. According to 2012-2013 U.S. census figures, Minnesotans had a median income that was $10,000 larger than the U.S. average, and their median income is still $8,000 more than the U.S. average today.

By late 2013, Minnesota's private sector job growth exceeded pre-recession levels, and the state's economy was the 5th fastest-growing in the United States. Forbes even ranked Minnesota the 9th-best state for business (Scott Walker's "Open For Business" Wisconsin came in at a distant #32 on the same list). Despite the fearmongering over businesses fleeing from Dayton's tax cuts, 6,230 more Minnesotans filed in the top income tax bracket in 2013, just one year after Dayton's tax increases went through. As of January 2015, Minnesota has a $1 billion budget surplus, and Gov. Dayton has pledged to reinvest more than one third of that money into public schools. And according to Gallup, Minnesota's economic confidence is higher than any other state.

Gov. Dayton didn't accomplish all of these reforms by shrewdly manipulating people -- this article describes Dayton's astonishing lack of charisma and articulateness. He isn't a class warrior driven by a desire to get back at the 1 percent -- Dayton is a billionaire heir to the Target fortune. It wasn't just a majority in the legislature that forced him to do it -- Dayton had to work with a Republican-controlled legislature for his first two years in office. And unlike his Republican neighbor to the east, Gov. Dayton didn't assert his will over an unwilling populace by creating obstacles between the people and the vote -- Dayton actually created an online voter registration system, making it easier than ever for people to register to vote.

The reason Gov. Dayton was able to radically transform Minnesota's economy into one of the best in the nation is simple arithmetic. Raising taxes on those who can afford to pay more will turn a deficit into a surplus. Raising the minimum wage will increase the median income. And in a state where education is a budget priority and economic growth is one of the highest in the nation, it only makes sense that more businesses would stay.

It's official -- trickle-down economics is bunk. Minnesota has proven it once and for all. If you believe otherwise, you are wrong.




“During his first four years in office, Gov. Dayton raised the state income tax from 7.85 to 9.85 percent on individuals earning over $150,000, and on couples earning over $250,000 when filing jointly -- a tax increase of $2.1 billion. He's also agreed to raise Minnesota's minimum wage to $9.50 an hour by 2018, and passed a state law guaranteeing equal pay for women. …. Between 2011 and 2015, Gov. Dayton added 172,000 new jobs to Minnesota's economy -- that's 165,800 more jobs in Dayton's first term than Pawlenty added in both of his terms combined. …. According to 2012-2013 U.S. census figures, Minnesotans had a median income that was $10,000 larger than the U.S. average, and their median income is still $8,000 more than the U.S. average today. …. As of January 2015, Minnesota has a $1 billion budget surplus, and Gov. Dayton has pledged to reinvest more than one third of that money into public schools. And according to Gallup, Minnesota's economic confidence is higher than any other state.”

Governor Dayton should put his name in for the presidency in 2016, perhaps. He certainly has skill at creating plans that work for the economy. The Republicans, as long as I've been listening to politics, always tout their ability to control financial matters better than Democrats. They proudly present their status as businessmen and advance their theories of lowering taxes to “stimulate” the business sector to growth. There can't be much economic growth as long as the working people remain in the poverty range, however. When all your money goes to food and rent you can't buy a new smart phone. Dayton has increased the minimum wage progressively up to $9.50 by 2018. What this does is give the poor more money to spend in the economy, thus providing a need for business growth, to which the businesses respond. As a result the budget has moved from a huge deficit to a $1 billion surplus, a third of which he intends to spend on education. I also approve of him for “guaranteeing” equal pay for women. I wonder how businessmen will feel about that, and how the rule will be enforced. I will watch for other information on this, and follow his progress. Still, he has done so much that I believe he can reverse the misogynistic bias in American business, or at least the exercise of that type of thinking in daily practice.





http://news.yahoo.com/obama-says-partisanship-over-iran-deal-gone-too-225234380--politics.html

Obama says partisanship over Iran deal has gone too far
AP By JOSH LEDERMAN and JIM KUHNHENN
April 11, 2015

PANAMA CITY (AP) — President Barack Obama said Saturday that partisan wrangling over the emerging nuclear agreement with Iran and on other foreign policy matters has gone beyond the pale, singling out two senior Republican senators for particularly harsh criticism. "It needs to stop," he declared.

Obama complained that Sen. John McCain of Arizona had suggested that U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry's explanations of the framework agreement with Iran were "somehow less trustworthy" than those of Iran's supreme leader.

"That's an indication of the degree to which partisanship has crossed all boundaries," an exercised Obama said in a news conference at the end of the two-day Summit of the Americas. "And we're seeing this again and again."

McCain returned the criticism, arguing in a statement that the discrepancies between the U.S. and Iranian versions of the deal extended to inspections, sanctions relief and other key issues.

"It is undeniable that the version of the nuclear agreement outlined by the Obama administration is far different from the one described by Iran's supreme leader," McCain said in a statement.

Obama, speaking at a news conference in Panama City, said it was understandable that people would be suspicious of Iran, even that they would oppose the nuclear deal.

"But when you start getting to the point where you are actively communicating that the United States government and our secretary of state is somehow spinning presentations in a negotiation with a foreign power, particularly one you say is your enemy, that's a problem," he said.

Clearly irked by aggressive pushback from the strengthened Republican majority in Congress, Obama also singled out Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell for criticism, saying the Kentucky Republican had been "telling the world" not to have confidence that the U.S. can meet its own climate change goals.

McConnell has been urging U.S. states not to comply with Obama's power plant rules, and arguing that the U.S. could never meet Obama's target even if those rules do survive.

Obama also renewed his complaints about the 47 Republican senators who sent a letter to Iran's leaders saying that any deal the Iranians made with the U.S. wouldn't necessarily hold up after Obama leaves office.

Of all of it, Obama said: "That's not how we're supposed to run foreign policy regardless of who's president or secretary of state."

Obama said he's still "absolutely positive" that the framework agreement is the best way to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. And he added that if the final negotiations don't produce a tough enough agreement, the U.S. can back away from it.

The president added that instead of working to make the nuclear deal better, GOP critics seemed out to sink it.

"I don't understand why it is that everybody's working so hard to anticipate failure," he said.

McCain last week said that comments by Iran's supreme leader had suggested that Iran and the Obama administration were on different pages. McCain called the supreme leader's suggestion that Iran wouldn't allow unlimited inspections "a major setback," adding that it was the supreme leader, not President Hassan Rouhani or Iran's foreign minister, who really calls the shots in Iran.

"These differences need to be thoroughly explained by the administration if we are to give serious consideration to this agreement," McCain said.

McCain, the Senate Armed Services Committee chairman, was among the signatories to the GOP letter to Iran's leaders warning that any deal struck with Obama would be "a mere executive agreement" that the next president could revoke. In the days since, McCain has stood by the letter's sentiment while acknowledging that writing to the leadership in Tehran had not been the most effective move. Kerry has denounced that letter as "unconstitutional.

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee is set to debate and begin voting Tuesday on amendments to legislation calling for Congress to have a say on the nuclear agreement.

Obama opposes the bill as written and has pledged to veto it, but lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have proposed numerous amendments to either make a final deal impossible to reach or to give the White House more leeway to negotiate with Iran.

Under the bill, Obama could unilaterally lift or ease any sanctions that were imposed on Iran through presidential action. But he would be prohibited for 60 days from suspending, waiving or otherwise easing any sanctions Congress levied on Iran.

Associated Press writer Nancy Benac in Washington contributed to this report.




"But when you start getting to the point where you are actively communicating that the United States government and our secretary of state is somehow spinning presentations in a negotiation with a foreign power, particularly one you say is your enemy, that's a problem," he said. …. Obama also singled out Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell for criticism, saying the Kentucky Republican had been "telling the world" not to have confidence that the U.S. can meet its own climate change goals. McConnell has been urging U.S. states not to comply with Obama's power plant rules, and arguing that the U.S. could never meet Obama's target even if those rules do survive. …. Obama said he's still "absolutely positive" that the framework agreement is the best way to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. And he added that if the final negotiations don't produce a tough enough agreement, the U.S. can back away from it. …. McCain called the supreme leader's suggestion that Iran wouldn't allow unlimited inspections "a major setback," adding that it was the supreme leader, not President Hassan Rouhani or Iran's foreign minister, who really calls the shots in Iran. …. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee is set to debate and begin voting Tuesday on amendments to legislation calling for Congress to have a say on the nuclear agreement. Obama opposes the bill as written and has pledged to veto it, but lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have proposed numerous amendments to either make a final deal impossible to reach or to give the White House more leeway to negotiate with Iran.”

So here we are at a stalemate again. The Republicans want to see to it that Obama's efforts won't go forward, and are demanding “a say” in the matter in a Senate bill. Both parties have submitted amendments to it, Obama has pledged to veto it if amendments are not to his liking, and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee is sure to try to override his veto. Hostile as all that sounds, it's the legislative process and they still may work through it all to reach an agreement. I hope so. I would feel a great deal better if the adversarial relationships that exist around the world would be worked through and solved, one by one.