April 14, 2016


News and Views


http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/14/europe/russia-defends-donald-cook-overflight/index.html

Russia defends close encounter with U.S. Navy missile destroyer
By Don Melvin and Barbara Starr, CNN
Updated 6:58 AM ET, Thu April 14, 2016

Related:
The Russian aerial maneuvers come as tensions rise on NATO's eastern flank.
Russia using Syria to run circles around U.S.
Defense Ministry spokesman Igor Konashenkov spoke to Russian state news agency Tass.
Opinion: Obama's and Putin's differences are sharp and dangerous



(CNN)Russia acted "in accordance with international rules" when its unarmed fighter jets had two close encounters with the USS Donald Cook in the Baltic Sea, Russia's Defense Ministry said Thursday.

Initial reports indicate two encounters with the U.S. Navy-guided missile destroyer occurred Tuesday night in international waters.

One of the Russian jets flew within 75 feet of the U.S. ship's superstructure.

The Cook "encountered multiple, aggressive flight maneuvers by Russian aircraft that were performed within close proximity of the ship," the U.S. European Command said in a statement.

"We have deep concerns about the unsafe and unprofessional Russian flight maneuvers," the statement said.

The ship, an Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer, had a Polish helicopter on board as part of routine training, according to a U.S. official, leading to speculation Russia was "sending a message to Poland."

A U.S. official described the Russian maneuver as "strafing runs" without firing any weapons. The unarmed Russian aircraft swooped in over the deck in the same flight profile that would have been used if an attack were underway.

A second U.S. defense official told CNN that the overflights were conducted by a Russian SU-24 and helicopter. Flight operations by the Polish helicopter were interrupted because one of the overflights was so close.

The Cook had been shadowed by a Russian intelligence-gathering ship for some time before the aircraft encounter. The U.S. crew had radioed the Russian ship it was conducting routine operations, according to the official.

There are often encounters between U.S. ships and aircraft and their Russian counterparts, but there is minimal concern as long as they are conducted safely.

Close encounters between Russian military aircraft and U.S. warships have become increasingly common in recent months. In October, U.S. Navy jets intercepted two Russian Tu-142 aircraft flying near the aircraft carrier USS Ronald Reagan in the Pacific Ocean.

In June, a Russian Su-24 jet flew within 500 meters (1,640 feet) of a U.S. guided-missile destroyer sailing in the Black Sea near Crimea, which Russia annexed from Ukraine.

In February, the U.S. Department of Defense announced it was spending $3.4 billion for the European Reassurance Initiative in an effort to deter Russian aggression against NATO allies following Moscow's 2014 intervention in Ukraine.

In recent weeks, the United States has deployed additional military assets throughout Europe as part of Operation Atlantic Resolve.

This month, the U.S. Air Force deployed F-15s to Iceland and the Netherlands and F-22s to the United Kingdom. And in February, Washington announced it would send six F-15s to Finland for a training exercise and pre-position tanks and artillery in Norway. Both countries share a border with Russia.



http://www.cbsnews.com/news/russia-denies-simulate-attack-on-u-s-navy-destroyer-uss-donald-cook/

"Playing with fire"? Russia defends close fly-bys of U.S. warship
CBS NEWS
April 14, 2016, 6:30 AM

Play VIDEO -- Russian jets buzz U.S. warship
Play VIDEO -- Russian jets buzz U.S. warship in "simulated attack pattern"


WASHINGTON -- Russia says its warplanes respected all safety rules when they buzzed a United States Navy destroyer in the Baltic Sea.

The Pentagon released dramatic video of the jets flying extremely close to the ship more than 30 times over two days. The Obama administration calls the "simulated attack" passes unsafe.

The U.S. will file a diplomatic protest, but Russia will have made its point; it resents the U.S. operating so close to Russian territory and intends to push back, reports CBS News correspondent David Martin.

The Russian planes raced by the U.S. Navy destroyer low and fast, over and over. Pictures taken from onboard the ship show just how dangerously close they came during some of their passes.

They were flying what the commander of the USS Donald Cook described as a "simulated attack profile," although they carried no weapons under the wings -- a total of 31 runs over two days.

On Monday, the Cook was preparing to conduct helicopter flight operations in the Baltic Sea, in international water 70 miles off the coast of the Russian enclave of Kaliningrad.

Russian defense ministry spokesman Maj. Gen. Igor Konashenkov said Thursday the Su-24 fighter jet pilots saw the ship and then turned back "while using all measures of precaution."

Konashenkov claimed that the ministry was baffled by what he described as the "distressed reaction of our American counterparts."

"The principle of freedom of navigation for the U.S. destroyer, which is staying in close proximity to a Russian naval base in the Baltic Sea, does at all not cancel the principle of freedom of flight for Russian aircraft," Konashenkov said.

But Evelyn Farkas, a former Russian policy expert for the Pentagon, told CBS News the fly-bys were undeniably "dangerous behavior."

"They're playing with fire here," she said. "I'm sure that U.S. ships and other non-Russian ships have been just as close in the past. And even if they haven't, again, they're in international waters; there's nothing provocative about what we're doing. Unlike the Russians, we actually telegraph very transparently what we're doing."

A pair of Russian attack jets flew 20 passes on the ship Monday, coming as close as 1,000 yards at an altitude of 100 feet, ignoring radio calls from the Cook and forcing the ship to cancel flight operations.

On Tuesday, a Russian helicopter circled the Cook, taking photographs, followed by another pair of attack jets that showed up and buzzed the Cook 11 times - this time coming within an estimated 30 feet of the ship.

This was the latest and most striking in a series of incidents over the past two years in which Russian aircraft have challenged NATO ships and planes.

"So we clearly need to send a signal to the Russians that this is unacceptable, that this is unprofessional, risky behavior," Farkas said. "Frankly, they should be embarrassed by the behavior of their pilots."

U.S. officials believe the actions violated an agreement signed in the 1970's with the Soviet Union, which remains in force with Russia and specifically prohibits running simulated attack profiles against ships.


CNN -- “A U.S. official described the Russian maneuver as "strafing runs" without firing any weapons. The unarmed Russian aircraft swooped in over the deck in the same flight profile that would have been used if an attack were underway. A second U.S. defense official told CNN that the overflights were conducted by a Russian SU-24 and helicopter. Flight operations by the Polish helicopter were interrupted because one of the overflights was so close. …. The Cook had been shadowed by a Russian intelligence-gathering ship for some time before the aircraft encounter. The U.S. crew had radioed the Russian ship it was conducting routine operations, according to the official. …. In recent weeks, the United States has deployed additional military assets throughout Europe as part of Operation Atlantic Resolve. This month, the U.S. Air Force deployed F-15s to Iceland and the Netherlands and F-22s to the United Kingdom. And in February, Washington announced it would send six F-15s to Finland for a training exercise and pre-position tanks and artillery in Norway. Both countries share a border with Russia.”


CBS -- Russia says its warplanes respected all safety rules when they buzzed a United States Navy destroyer in the Baltic Sea. The Pentagon released dramatic video of the jets flying extremely close to the ship more than 30 times over two days. The Obama administration calls the "simulated attack" passes unsafe. The U.S. will file a diplomatic protest, but Russia will have made its point; it resents the U.S. operating so close to Russian territory and intends to push back, reports CBS News correspondent David Martin. …. Konashenkov claimed that the ministry was baffled by what he described as the "distressed reaction of our American counterparts." "The principle of freedom of navigation for the U.S. destroyer, which is staying in close proximity to a Russian naval base in the Baltic Sea, does at all not cancel the principle of freedom of flight for Russian aircraft," Konashenkov said. But Evelyn Farkas, a former Russian policy expert for the Pentagon, told CBS News the fly-bys were undeniably "dangerous behavior." …. This was the latest and most striking in a series of incidents over the past two years in which Russian aircraft have challenged NATO ships and planes. "So we clearly need to send a signal to the Russians that this is unacceptable, that this is unprofessional, risky behavior," Farkas said. "Frankly, they should be embarrassed by the behavior of their pilots."


“U.S. officials believe the actions violated an agreement signed in the 1970's with the Soviet Union, which remains in force with Russia and specifically prohibits running simulated attack profiles against ships.” I guess we’re in a new Cold War now. Have we provoked this harassment? What we have done is make a move to shore up the Eastern Bloc nations’ defenses against Russia. In a number of ways since Putin has been in power, starting with 2014’s land grab of Crimea, Russia has shown a new propensity to be aggressive again. I wonder if nuclear weapons will become a part of the agenda, as it was in the 1950s.

When we were young school kids, we were taught to “duck and cover,” an exercise in which we were to duck under our school desks and get into a ball, heads to the floor. Supposedly that was going to protect us from a nuclear strike. If you want to see what a nuclear strike does, look up Japanese history. I saw a photograph from a Japanese street on which there were lots of dark spots several feet across, which were left there when human bodies were literally vaporized on the sidewalk. Yes. Vaporized. Duck and cover won’t prevent that.

If you want to see a lighter touch on this subject go to the library and check out two movies: “Dr. Strangelove, or How I Learned to Love the Bomb,” and “The Russians are coming, the Russians are coming.” They both emerged from the pervasive national anxiety of the 1950s and 60s, during which we all were actively concerned about the possibility of a nuclear war with Russia. Why were we laughing about that subject? Fear that does not directly cause endangerment over an extended period of time often brings about a wry sense of humor, instead. Out of that mood came those two satirical productions, both of which are side-splittingly funny!




http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/13/politics/corey-lewandowski-donald-trump-charges-dropped/index.html

State will not prosecute Donald Trump's campaign manager
By Dylan Byers, Tal Kopan and Tom LoBianco, CNN
Updated 2:48 PM ET, Thu April 14, 2016

Video -- Trump continues to back campaign manager 02:57
Video -- Who is Corey Lewandowski? 02:38
READ: Donald Trump: Reporter didn't want an apology


(CNN)Palm Beach County Florida State Attorney David Aronberg will not prosecute Donald Trump's campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski, Aronberg announced Thursday.

"As state attorney I have made the decision that this office will not be filing charges against Corey Lewandowski for battery," Aronberg said at a news conference.

A former reporter for Breitbart, Michelle Fields, sought charges against Lewandowski after an incident in March where she said Lewandowski pulled her away from Trump as she was trying to ask him a question.

Aronberg said police were within their right to charge Lewandowski, but prosecutors are held to a higher standard and thus didn't find enough to bring the case.

He also revealed that Trump personally spoke with prosecutors and the campaign shared a draft of an apology letter with Aronberg's office "earlier this week," though it apparently has not yet been sent.

Aronberg and his deputy who reviewed the case, Adrienne Ellis, said the video clearly shows Fields making contact with Trump's arm as she tries to interview him, him recoiling and shows Lewandowski grab her arm and pull her away.

After reviewing the evidence in the case, the state attorney said he doesn't feel there is enough evidence to pursue criminal charges. He explained that while police are required to meet a "probably cause" threshold to make an arrest, prosecutors must believe they have a chance to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the battery occurred and get a conviction.

"They acted well within their authority to investigate and make an independent charging decision. We agree that probable cause exists for the Jupiter Police Department to charge Mr. Lewandwoski in this case," Aronberg said. "Our standard is higher than probable cause. ... Although the facts support the allegation that Mr. Lewandowski did grab Ms. Fields' arm against her will, Mr. Lewandowski has a reasonable hypothesis of innocence"

The news is a sigh of relief for both Lewandowski and the Trump campaign, which risked facing a major legal distraction during the heat of the competitive presidential campaign.

The incident at Trump's Mar-a-Lago estate on March 8, the night of the Michigan presidential primary, led to a weeks-long dispute between the Trump campaign, some media outlets and Fields, as to what actually happened.

Who is Corey Lewandowski?

Politico first reported that Lewandowski would not be charged.

Fields may still seek defamation charges against Lewandowski based on his efforts to dismiss her claims and cast doubt on her integrity, according to one source.

In response to the reports the charges would be dropped, Fields tweeted: "Prosecutor's office told me they would inform me of decision tomorrow. If reports true, guess they decided to leak to reporters first. Ugly."

Earlier this week, the state attorney's office tried to broker a deal in which Lewandowski would agree to publicly apologize to Fields instead of facing prosecution, one source with knowledge of the situation said. While Fields agreed to the offer, it's not yet clear that Lewandowski did.

Aronberg confirmed that the office would have appreciated an apology and that the draft of a "short" apology letter was shared with them, but said it did not factor into their decision making.

"The apology, in a case like this, obviously would be encouraged," Aronberg said. "We always appreciate when people take responsibility for their actions."

Fields added: "For those asking, office of prosecutor asked 2 weeks ago if I'd be ok with an apology from Corey. I said ya but haven't heard back about it."

Michelle Fields ‎@MichelleFields
For those asking, office of prosecutor asked 2 weeks ago if I'd be ok with an apology from Corey. I said ya but haven't heard back about it
8:30 PM - 13 Apr 2016

Aronberg also denied that any political calculations went into his decision. He is a registered Democrat and has supported Hillary Clinton, but he also noted that he shared a bathroom at law school with Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, Trump's Republican opponent, and knew former candidate Sen. Marco Rubio in Florida.

"My political affiliation and my political leanings are very public, but they don't come inside this office," Aronberg said. "The sole bearing on our decision was the facts of this case and the law"

Trump has stood by his aide, initially saying he thought the allegations were made up, but multiple videos of the encounter appeared to show Lewandowski pulling Fields' arm.

"I would have loved to have fired him," Trump told CNN's Anderson Cooper during a town hall event in March. "It would have been much easier than talking to you about this all night long ... I don't want to ruin (Lewandowski's) life."

Trump attributed Lewandowski's actions to security concerns.

"She had a pen in her hand, which Secret Service is not liking because they don't know what it is, whether it's a little bomb," he said.

Trump also forcefully rejected calls from his rivals to suspend or fire Lewandowski, saying Wednesday on ABC's "Good Morning America," that "The other candidates, they said, 'Oh, I should fire him.' That's because they're weak, ineffective people. They want to be politically correct. I don't want to be politically correct. I want to be correct."

Fields, who was a reporter for Breitbart at the time, resigned from the conservative news outlet one week later, along with other staffers.

CNN's Josh Gaynor contributed to this report.



CNN -- “After reviewing the evidence in the case, the state attorney said he doesn't feel there is enough evidence to pursue criminal charges. He explained that while police are required to meet a "probably cause" threshold to make an arrest, prosecutors must believe they have a chance to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the battery occurred and get a conviction. …. Although the facts support the allegation that Mr. Lewandowski did grab Ms. Fields' arm against her will, Mr. Lewandowski has a reasonable hypothesis of innocence" The news is a sigh of relief for both Lewandowski and the Trump campaign, which risked facing a major legal distraction during the heat of the competitive presidential campaign. …. Earlier this week, the state attorney's office tried to broker a deal in which Lewandowski would agree to publicly apologize to Fields instead of facing prosecution, one source with knowledge of the situation said. While Fields agreed to the offer, it's not yet clear that Lewandowski did. Aronberg confirmed that the office would have appreciated an apology and that the draft of a "short" apology letter was shared with them, but said it did not factor into their decision making. …. Aronberg also denied that any political calculations went into his decision. He is a registered Democrat and has supported Hillary Clinton, but he also noted that he shared a bathroom at law school with Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, Trump's Republican opponent, and knew former candidate Sen. Marco Rubio in Florida. "My political affiliation and my political leanings are very public, but they don't come inside this office," Aronberg said. "The sole bearing on our decision was the facts of this case and the law."


“Fields, who was a reporter for Breitbart at the time, resigned from the conservative news outlet one week later, along with other staffers.” I’m glad to see that some or all of Breitbart staff resigned in protest. Their failure to support her in the grabbing incident is disgusting. She was visibly bruised on her arm in the shape of his hand. She wasn’t lying as the Trump crew alleged.

Trump attributed Lewandowski's actions to security concerns. "She had a pen in her hand, which Secret Service is not liking because they don't know what it is, whether it's a little bomb," he said.” In James Bond movies, I think those pen style weapons were tiny little guns, or something. Not bombs. I’m fairly sure that Lewandowski and Trump didn’t “fear for their lives.” Lewandowski just decided to get rough with her.



http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/davidbadash/breaking_louisiana_governor_expands_lgbt_protections_rescinds_jindal_s_anti_lgbt_executive_order

Breaking: Louisiana Governor Expands LGBT Protections, Rescinds Jindal's Anti-Gay Executive Order
by DAVID BADASH
April 13, 2016 1:13 PM

Photograph -- Democratic Governor Wipes Away Predecessor's Anti-LGBT 'Religious Freedom' Policy, Image via Facebook


Louisiana Democratic Gov. John Bel Edwards minutes ago rescinded former Republican Gov. Bobby Jindal's anti-LGBT "religious freedom" executive order, and expanded nondiscrimination protections for LGBT state employees.

Governor Edwards' executive order provides "employment protections for state employees and employees of state contractors on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, political affiliation, disability, or age," a press release states. It "also prohibits discrimination in services provided by state agencies, and recognizes an exemption for churches and religious organizations."

Eleven months ago, within minutes of state lawmakers failing to pass his key piece of signature legislation, the Louisiana Marriage And Conscience Act, Gov. Jindal signed an executive order that effectively accomplished what he hoped he could via legislation. HB 707, which failed in committee, was designed to discriminate against same-sex couples specifically, and LGBT people in general.

"We will be issuing an Executive Order shortly that will accomplish the intent of HB 707 to prevent the state from discriminating against persons or entities with deeply held religious beliefs that marriage is between one man and one woman," Jindal said immediately after last year's vote.

Today, Gov. Bel Edwards rescinded that order, and made a broader statement at a time when his neighboring Southern State Governors and lawmakers are embracing radical and unconstitutional legislation.

“We are fortunate enough to live in a state that is rich with diversity, and we are built on a foundation of unity and fairness for all of our citizens,” Gov. Edwards said. “We respect our fellow citizens for their beliefs, but we do not discriminate based on our disagreements. I believe in giving every Louisianan the opportunity to be successful and to thrive in our state. Our goal is to promote the opportunities we have right here in Louisiana. While this executive order respects the religious beliefs of our people, it also signals to the rest of the country that discrimination is not a Louisiana value, but rather, that Louisiana is a state that is respective and inclusive of everyone around us.”

Last year Gov. Bel Edwards beat GOP U.S. Senator David Vitter in November's gubernatorial election.



“Louisiana Democratic Gov. John Bel Edwards minutes ago rescinded former Republican Gov. Bobby Jindal's anti-LGBT "religious freedom" executive order, and expanded nondiscrimination protections for LGBT state employees. …. Governor Edwards' executive order provides "employment protections for state employees and employees of state contractors on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, political affiliation, disability, or age," a press release states. It "also prohibits discrimination in services provided by state agencies, and recognizes an exemption for churches and religious organizations." …. Today, Gov. Bel Edwards rescinded that order, and made a broader statement at a time when his neighboring Southern State Governors and lawmakers are embracing radical and unconstitutional legislation. “We are fortunate enough to live in a state that is rich with diversity, and we are built on a foundation of unity and fairness for all of our citizens,” Gov. Edwards said. …. Last year Gov. Bel Edwards beat GOP U.S. Senator David Vitter in November's gubernatorial election.”


Hip, hip, hooray for Governor Bel Edwards. See the following biography from Wikipedia. He has an impressive set of accomplishments, both educational and military – very solid in his background. He was popular enough to win Louisiana elections all the way up with a large margin of votes. I’m glad to see that he’s part of the Democratic Party. Maybe he’ll run for President some year soon. We do need more very promising Democratic candidates for future elections. Of course, I’m still waiting for Elizabeth Warren to run. I’d like for her to be our first woman president. Her heart and mind are both oriented in the right direction, from my view.



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

John Bel Edwards
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

John Bel Edwards (born September 16, 1966) is an American attorney and politician who is the 56th Governor of Louisiana, in office since 2016. He is a United States Army veteran, having served with the 82nd Airborne Division. He was formerly the Minority Leader of the Louisiana House of Representatives, having represented the 72nd District since 2008. He left the state legislature to run for Governor in 2015. A Democrat, he defeated Republican U.S. Senator David Vitter in the second round of the 2015 election for Governor of Lousiana.

Early life and career[edit]

Edwards was born and raised in Amite, Louisiana, the son of Dora Jean (Miller) and Tangipahoa Parish Sheriff Frank M. Edwards, Jr., a member of the administration of Louisiana Governor Edwin Edwards (no relation).[1][2] John graduated from Amite High School in 1984 as valedictorian.[1] In 1988, Edwards received a bachelor's degree in engineering from the United States Military Academy, where he was on the Dean's List and served as vice chairman of the panel that enforced the West Point honor code.[1]

Edwards completed Airborne School in 1986, while he was a student at West Point. After receiving his commission he completed the Infantry Officer Basic Course at Fort Benning (1988), Ranger School (1989), and the Infantry Officer Advanced Course (1992).

Edwards served in the Army for eight years, primarily in the 25th Infantry Division and 82nd Airborne Division, including command of a company in the 82nd's 3rd Battalion, 505th Parachute Infantry Regiment. He ended his military career in order to return to Louisiana because of family considerations.[1]

Edwards earned a law degree from the Louisiana State University's Paul M. Hebert Law Center in 1999. He is a practicing attorney with the Edwards & Associates Law Firm in Amite.[3] As an attorney, Edwards handles a variety of cases, although he does not practice criminal law due to his brother's status as the local sheriff.[1]

In 2008, Edwards ran for a seat in the Louisiana House of Representatives. Edwards was forced into a general election run-off with fellow trial lawyer George Tucker.[4] Edwards was overwhelmingly elected, winning every parish in the district.[5] Edwards was the only freshman lawmaker to chair a committee in the legislature. Edwards chaired the Veterans Affairs Committee in the House. Edwards was also selected as chairman of the Democratic house caucus, a rarity for a freshman legislator. Edwards became a critic of Governor Bobby Jindal for the governor's frequent trips away from Louisiana to raise political funds for Republicans elsewhere while Louisiana has been reducing its funding for higher education.

In 2011, Edwards was re-elected to the Louisiana House of Representatives, having defeated opponent Johnny Duncan, 83 to 17 percent.[6] Edwards declined to challenge Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal in the 2011 gubernatorial election.[7] Edwards served as chairman of the Louisiana House Democratic Caucus, making him the Louisiana House Minority Leader.[8]



http://www.cbsnews.com/news/sanders-attacks-clinton-on-fracking-calls-for-nationwide-ban/

Sanders attacks Clinton on fracking, calls for nationwide ban
By KYLIE ATWOOD CBS NEWS
April 11, 2016, 6:55 PM


ALABANY -- Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders has opened up a new front in his battle with Hillary Clinton: fracking, the chemical drilling technique loathed by environmentalists.

With the New York primary just over a week away, Sanders is localizing his upstate pitch by putting fracking front and center. Campaigning here on Monday, he called for a nationwide ban on fracking and lauded New Yorkers who successfully pressured Gov. Andrew Cuomo to outlaw the practice.

Sanders also hit Clinton for promoting fracking when she was Secretary of State.

"I want to congratulate the people of New York state for having the guts, for having the guts to tell the Governor and the fossil fuel industry you will not accept the poisoning of your water," Sanders said to a crowd in Albany on Monday afternoon.

The statement echoed ones he had made earlier in the day at an event in Binghamton.

"What may have been considered unrealistic or pie in the sky just a few years ago has now been achieved in New York because you made it happen," Sanders said. "The growing body of evidence tells us that fracking is a danger to our water supply, our most precious resource. It is a danger to the air we breathe. It has resulted in more earthquakes. It is highly explosive. And it is contributing to climate change."

He labeled it as one of the issues where he and Clinton have "very significant differences."

"Secretary Clinton's role in fracking when she was secretary of state is not a good record," Mr. Sanders said. "Secretary Clinton and her State Department worked to export fracking throughout the world."

Sanders also noted that, in 2012, Vermont became the first state in America to ban fracking.

His campaign is also taking their anti-fracking message to the airwaves. "Do Washington politicians side with polluters over families? They sure do because big oil pumped millions into their campaigns," says the voice of Susan Sarandon, a Sanders surrogate, in a new 30-second TV ad.

This is not the first time fracking has been a contentious issue in a New York Democratic primary. Cuomo banned the practice after Zephyr Teachout, a Fordham Law School professor, garnered roughly a third of the Democratic gubernatorial primary vote after running on an anti-fracking platform in 2014.



CBS -- “Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders has opened up a new front in his battle with Hillary Clinton: fracking, the chemical drilling technique loathed by environmentalists. With the New York primary just over a week away, Sanders is localizing his upstate pitch by putting fracking front and center. Campaigning here on Monday, he called for a nationwide ban on fracking and lauded New Yorkers who successfully pressured Gov. Andrew Cuomo to outlaw the practice. Sanders also hit Clinton for promoting fracking when she was Secretary of State. "I want to congratulate the people of New York state for having the guts, for having the guts to tell the Governor and the fossil fuel industry you will not accept the poisoning of your water," Sanders said to a crowd in Albany on Monday afternoon. …. "Secretary Clinton's role in fracking when she was secretary of state is not a good record," Mr. Sanders said. "Secretary Clinton and her State Department worked to export fracking throughout the world." Sanders also noted that, in 2012, Vermont became the first state in America to ban fracking.”


I do hate fracking. It’s been known to pollute the ground water so that private wells become tainted, and now it is clear that it is causing earthquakes. How far will US citizens go before deciding the situation is too damaging to continue?



http://www.npr.org/2016/04/14/474198693/gop-delegate-trump-primary-wins-absolutely-irrelevant-at-convention

GOP Delegate: Trump Primary Wins 'Absolutely Irrelevant' At Convention
April 14, 201610:19 AM ET
Steve Inskeep 2010
STEVE INSKEEP

Photograph -- Curly Haugland, a Bismarck businessman and North Dakota representative on the Republican National Committee, reads a newspaper on the North Dakota state Republican convention stage in 2010. Dale Wetzel/AP


Just how far could Republicans go to deny Donald Trump the party's nomination?

A delegate to this summer's convention in Cleveland asserts that the GOP gathering could do anything it wants.

Curly Haughland, a GOP national committeeman from North Dakota, told Morning Edition Thursday of his interpretation of party rules. Not for the first time, Haughland declared that party rules do not bind any delegate to vote for any particular candidate. He argues that even delegates who are "pledged" to Trump or other contenders due to state primary results are, in reality, free to do as they like.

Custom, Haughland said, may dictate that delegates should support the winners of their state primaries. But the reality of the rules is that primary votes are "absolutely irrelevant" come convention time.

"No matter what the popular belief might be," he said, "there is no connection between primaries and the actual convention."

In our interview and in other conversations, Haughland has cited the GOP's convention Rules 37 and 38. He interprets these convoluted rules to mean that delegates may "vote their conscience." The rules do not explicitly say this. Rule 37 is a detailed explanation of the procedure for roll call votes. However, Rule 38 does say that no delegate may be "bound" by the "unit rule," meaning that delegates from a state can't all be forced to vote the same way.

Haughland's interpretation is by no means a unanimous view. It's more widely accepted that delegates currently pledged to Trump, Ted Cruz, John Kasich, or others must support them at least on the first ballot. But if no candidate received a majority, delegates would necessarily vote in different ways on later ballots in order to resolve the impasse.

Another of Haughland's points is indisputable: "When the convention convenes," he said, "the delegates adopt their own rules, which haven't been adopted yet." There is a standard template for conventions, but delegates could tweak the template, changing the game in any way that they want. The only real constraint is that their actions would be publicly known and therefore open to criticism.

The latitude afforded delegates explains why it's considered significant that Senator Ted Cruz has outmaneuvered Trump in several states, ensuring that as many delegates as possible are Cruz supporters.

Haughland says his personal goal is to adopt a rule that assures delegates the chance to choose from a wide range of alternatives, including candidates such as Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio who have suspended their campaigns.

Listen to our conversation at the link above.


“Just how far could Republicans go to deny Donald Trump the party's nomination? A delegate to this summer's convention in Cleveland asserts that the GOP gathering could do anything it wants. Curly Haughland, a GOP national committeeman from North Dakota, told Morning Edition Thursday of his interpretation of party rules. Not for the first time, Haughland declared that party rules do not bind any delegate to vote for any particular candidate. He argues that even delegates who are "pledged" to Trump or other contenders due to state primary results are, in reality, free to do as they like. …. But the reality of the rules is that primary votes are "absolutely irrelevant" come convention time. "No matter what the popular belief might be," he said, "there is no connection between primaries and the actual convention." …. He interprets these convoluted rules to mean that delegates may "vote their conscience." The rules do not explicitly say this. Rule 37 is a detailed explanation of the procedure for roll call votes. However, Rule 38 does say that no delegate may be "bound" by the "unit rule," meaning that delegates from a state can't all be forced to vote the same way.”


So what’s the point of having delegates who are pledged, and not pledged. Sounds like a bunch of hocus pocus to cover up the fact that there are no rules at all. Personally, I think that delegates and conventions are unnecessary if the popular vote were correctly counted, deciding the election on the spot. This description of the GOP system reminds me of the Bush/Gore disputed election with all those “hanging chads!” I really do think politics is fun when the loss of our democratic/republican system (whichever it is!) is not immediately in danger. If Trump does actually get the Republican nomination, I will fear that our system is at stake.



http://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2016/04/14/474130428/how-pope-francis-became-a-foreign-policy-player

How Pope Francis Became A Foreign Policy Player
SYLVIA POGGIOLI
April 14, 2016 9:01 AM ET

Photograph -- Pope Francis washes the foot of a refugee during a ritual at the Castelnuovo di Porto refugees center outside Rome on March 26. The pope has called on Europe to do much more for refugees and is traveling to the Greek island of Lesbos on Saturday to address the crisis. l'Osservatore Romano/AP
Photograph -- Pope Francis welcomes Iranian President Hassan Rouhani at the Vatican on Jan. 26. The pope has been extremely active in global political affairs and has often been critical of the West. Pool/AFP/Getty Images
Related -- Pope Francis blesses a newlywed couple during his weekly audience in the Paul VI hall in Vatican City on Aug. 12, 2015. THE TWO-WAY


When Pope Francis travels to the Greek island of Lesbos on Saturday, he will likely bring with him a sharp rebuke for Europe's response to the migrant crisis.

In 2013, on his very first papal trip, he traveled to Lampedusa to decry the "globalization of indifference" toward refugees and migrants. The Italian island — closer to Tunisia than to Italy — was then the major gateway to Europe for hundreds of thousands of migrants making the perilous sea crossing on smugglers' boats from North Africa. The pope laid a wreath in memory of the thousands who died at sea. And he lamented that no one had the courage to take responsibility for Europe's immigration dilemma.

Some Relationship Advice From Pope Francis

That 2013 trip, and the message that Pope Francis carried with him, was one of the first signs of a more assertive and less predictable Vatican stance on the global stage. Throughout the Cold War, the Vatican remained firmly in the Western camp. With Pope Francis, the first pope from the Global South, the Holy See showed his willingness to offer an unflinching critique of the West and its foreign policy failures.

Jorge Bergoglio, son of Italian immigrants, is the first non-European pope in nearly two millennia, and contrary to his two predecessors, he has put his focus on social, economic and environmental issues rather than church rules on sexual morality. He has irritated conservatives inside and outside the Catholic Church with his criticism of free-market capitalism, the ills of globalization and his warnings about climate change.

Francis has been particularly unsparing in his criticism of the continent of his grandparents. Addressing the European Parliament in 2014, he bluntly told European leaders their continent is weary and becoming irrelevant, "a 'grandmother' Europe, no longer fertile and vibrant. As a result, the great ideas that once inspired Europe seem to have lost their attraction, only to be replaced by the bureaucratic technicalities of its institutions."

Francis' hastily scheduled visit to Lesbos was triggered by last month's controversial deal between the European Union and Turkey on expelling migrants back to Turkey — a deal the Vatican has denounced as humiliating and in violation of humanitarian law.

The trip will be mostly symbolic. But Francis is a master at blending the spiritual with the political and, as in Lampedusa, he is likely to attack "the nameless and faceless ones who hold the reins of world power and whose decisions and policies are responsible for these human dramas."

When he became pope, there was some concern that Francis lacked experience with the wider world. He had traveled little outside of his native Argentina, his pastoral experience was rooted in a metropolis, Buenos Aires, and its shantytowns, addressing problems of everyday life — poverty, migration and human trafficking.

No one expected him to become a global player. But Francis is also the first Jesuit pope. Over the centuries his religious order often waged its own diplomacy, acquiring extensive knowledge of other cultures. The training shows.

Early in his papacy, in September 2013, Francis called for a worldwide day of fasting in opposition to the possibility of U.S. airstrikes in Syria. That move was seen by many observers as having helped persuade President Obama to pull back.

Anti-War Positions

Vatican analyst John Allen said at the time that anti-war action won the pope goodwill in the Islamic world, where the memory of the Christian-led Crusades is still alive.

"On the Muslim street," Allen said, "the fact that he came out against Western intentions earned him a lot of political credibility." The pope's position on Syria was closer to Russia and China than to the West, a significant shift in the Vatican's geopolitical strategy.

Francis, who as a Latin American does not carry the European baggage of the Holocaust and Colonialism, hosted a prayer summit at the Vatican with Israeli and Palestinian leaders. Then, the pope, who as a Latin American had a lot of credibility in Havana, helped pave the way to the U.S.-Cuba thaw.

The foreign policy area where Francis has raised the most eyebrows is in relations with Vladimir Putin's Russia. In February, on his way to Mexico, the pope made a stopover in Havana for a historic meeting with Russian Orthodox Patriarch Kirill — the first ever between a pope and the leader of the powerful and influential Russian Orthodox Church since the schism in Christianity almost 1,000 years ago.

Francis has made the restoration of Christian unity — with Orthodox and Protestants — one of the major goals of his papacy. Relations between the Vatican and the Istanbul-based Patriarch Bartholomew have flourished in recent years.

Indeed, the pope will be accompanied by Patriarch Bartholomew, spiritual leader of the world's Orthodox Christians, and Ieronymos II, head of the Greek Orthodox Church, in Lesbos on Saturday.

But relations with the Russian Patriarchate have been extremely tense, especially since the end of the Cold War. Besides longstanding theological disputes, the Russian Orthodox Church has accused Catholics of poaching on its turf, trying to lure its members and win converts.

Given the Russian Orthodox Church's close relationship with the Russian government, it's widely believed that President Putin strongly encouraged the meeting between the pope and Patriarch Kirill. Putin himself has traveled twice to the Vatican to meet Francis. The two have found common ground in the protection of Christians in the Middle East and elsewhere they are under threat.

This topic received particular emphasis in the joint declaration Francis and Kirill signed in Havana.

"In many countries of the Middle East and North Africa," the declaration said, "whole families, villages and cities of our brothers and sisters in Christ are being completely exterminated. Their churches are being barbarously ravaged and looted, their sacred objects profaned, their monuments destroyed."

Not everyone was pleased with the historic meeting. The joint declaration did not mention Russia's role in Syria and on the Ukraine it said only that it deplores "hostility" in Ukraine. Archbishop Svyatoslav Shevchuk, head of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, said members of his Church felt "betrayed by the Vatican."

Ukrainian diffidence toward Rome is not new. In February 2015, Francis condemned the "fratricidal violence" in Ukraine, language that echoed the Kremlin, which has always referred to the conflict as a "civil war." That prompted Archbishop Shevchuk to respond that "we have aggression of a foreign country against Ukrainian citizens and the Ukrainian state."

In response to criticism in Kiev of his meeting with Kirill, earlier this month Francis reached out to the Ukrainian Catholic Church by announcing that he has asked all Catholic churches in Europe to take up a special collection on April 24 to fund humanitarian relief.

But Francis is clear about where his priorities lie. In a long interview with the Italian daily Corriere della Sera before meeting Patriarch Kirill in Havana, he indicated that on some issues he is closer to Moscow than to Washington.

Speaking Out On The Middle East

Francis said the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq and the disappointing outcome of the Arab uprisings were predictable. Turning to Libya, before and after the Western bombing campaign, he said, "before there was one Qaddafi, today there are 50. The West should be self-critical. On this topic," he added, "in part, the Holy See and Russia have a convergence of analysis. In part, it's best not to exaggerate because Russia has its own interests."

Massimo Franco, the political analyst who conducted the interview, says Pope Francis perceives that "Eurocentrism is over and the West is in deep crisis" and in a multipolar world, he sees Russia as a valid interlocutor because of "the void left by the West."

Negotiation and reconciliation are pillars of the Francis papacy. In that same interview he said, "bridges last and help peace, walls do not. Walls seem to defend us, but all they do is separate us, for this reason they must be torn down."

The pope, who described himself as coming "from the other end of the earth," has embraced the bully pulpit of the papacy and has emerged as a daring, independent broker on the global stage. In Lesbos, Francis is likely to speak his mind and hold the European Union accountable for its response to the most serious crisis in its history.



EXCERPTS -- “Jorge Bergoglio, son of Italian immigrants, is the first non-European pope in nearly two millennia, and contrary to his two predecessors, he has put his focus on social, economic and environmental issues rather than church rules on sexual morality. He has irritated conservatives inside and outside the Catholic Church with his criticism of free-market capitalism, the ills of globalization and his warnings about climate change. …. Addressing the European Parliament in 2014, he bluntly told European leaders their continent is weary and becoming irrelevant, "a 'grandmother' Europe, no longer fertile and vibrant. As a result, the great ideas that once inspired Europe seem to have lost their attraction, only to be replaced by the bureaucratic technicalities of its institutions." …. No one expected him to become a global player. But Francis is also the first Jesuit pope. Over the centuries his religious order often waged its own diplomacy, acquiring extensive knowledge of other cultures. The training shows. Early in his papacy, in September 2013, Francis called for a worldwide day of fasting in opposition to the possibility of U.S. airstrikes in Syria. That move was seen by many observers as having helped persuade President Obama to pull back. …. …. Besides longstanding theological disputes, the Russian Orthodox Church has accused Catholics of poaching on its turf, trying to lure its members and win converts. …. Putin himself has traveled twice to the Vatican to meet Francis. The two have found common ground in the protection of Christians in the Middle East and elsewhere they are under threat. …. "before there was one Qaddafi, today there are 50. The West should be self-critical. On this topic," he added, "in part, the Holy See and Russia have a convergence of analysis. In part, it's best not to exaggerate because Russia has its own interests." …. Negotiation and reconciliation are pillars of the Francis papacy. In that same interview he said, "bridges last and help peace, walls do not. Walls seem to defend us, but all they do is separate us, for this reason they must be torn down."


OPINION -- “But Francis is clear about where his priorities lie. In a long interview with the Italian daily Corriere della Sera before meeting Patriarch Kirill in Havana, he indicated that on some issues he is closer to Moscow than to Washington.” Americans respond angrily toward any “anti-American” or competitive positions of any kind. We are a jealous and conceited people. It is a fact, however, that like Europe, America is verging toward the power of the few over the many, especially ethnic, racial, political, LGBT groups and religious minorities of all kinds. Perhaps that is what Pope Francis means when he speaks of Europe’s decline – becoming “weary and irrelevant.”

We are becoming more and more dogmatic and uncooperative in our relations with free-thinkers or competitive religious and political groups. “Religious freedom” debates and laws recently have actually been about the right of Evangelical Christians to dominate the religious/political landscape in the US, and especially to mistreat the LGBT community. I have no doubt that in the future it will be non-Evangelical believers of all kinds who are next in line from persecution, especially Jews and Islamic people. That’s the Koch Brothers and their Tea Party who are behind the push.

It’s not as though Islam isn’t doing the same things, however. Religious group unity has always been largely about power over real spirituality or personal virtue, except for gender issues such as abortion and even birth control, and then the power struggle is between the men and women, with men tending to win the war. Some women in places like Saudi Arabia have tried to start breaking those strictures, thank goodness. The issue that hit the news a year or so ago about women’s right to drive a car was both funny and impressive to me.

It is partly a symbolic issue and partly practical. In the US we haven’t had to have a male escort to go out in public since the 1700s, if then. As for driving, the means of using our own conveyance allows us to go out to shop, work, attend cultural and social events, enjoy a vacation, etc. I would agree that the freedoms of speech and group association are as important as the women’s rights movement, IF the culture in question is not highly abusive to women. In many Islamic cultures, however, women’s rights are so highly endangered that they can’t even go to court to sue their husband for breaking their jaw. A woman I knew in the 1970s was unfortunately married to a Middle Eastern man who physically abused her. He actually told her once that if they were living in his country, he could kill her and he couldn’t be punished under the law. In my view that is the opposite of “law.”

There was a story within the last two years from Iraq (or Pakistan?) about a woman who had not only had the courage to run for local office, she had won, so things are improving, even if it sounds like the same kinds of issues that the Women’s Suffragettes of the late 1800s and early 1900s here, battled are still to be decided in half the world or more. I wish every group of abused citizens didn’t have to make their own fight for rights and dignity, but I think it is true in very highly entrenched cultures. “Might really does make right,” too often. I wish the Pope would say as much about Women’s Rights as he does about the rights of the poor. He also needs to work within the Catholic Church on that same issue. They aren’t a shining example of gender equality any more than Islam is. Still, I can see that he is making progress, and I commend what I must call his courage. It is not impossible that a Pope could be assassinated. I’m a little worried about Bernie Sanders for the same reason. As the old US phrase goes, “No good deed goes unpunished!”

For a great article on women’s rights in the US, go to this website: http://history.house.gov/Exhibitions-and-Publications/WIC/Historical-Essays/No-Lady/Womens-Rights/, “The Women’s Rights Movement, 1848–1920.” . . . . “The first gathering devoted to women’s rights in the United States was held July 19–20, 1848, in Seneca Falls, New York. The principal organizers of the Seneca Falls Convention were Elizabeth Cady Stanton, a mother of four from upstate New York, and the Quaker abolitionist Lucretia Mott.1 About 100 people attended the convention; two-thirds were women. Stanton drafted a “Declaration of Sentiments, Grievances, and Resolutions,” that echoed the preamble of the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men and women are created equal.” Among the 13 resolutions set forth in Stanton’s “Declaration” was the goal of achieving the “sacred right of franchise.”2

Photograph -- “Image courtesy of the Library of Congress, Suffragists parade in New York City in 1916 with a banner that reads "President Wilson favors votes for women." Woodrow Wilson, a reluctant convert to the cause, eventually supported the 19th Amendment which passed the House in 1918 and was ratified by the states in 1920.”




http://www.kansascity.com/news/local/news-columns-blogs/the-buzz/article71514412.html

‘Religious freedom’ debate in Missouri House goes four hours, ends without a vote
BY JASON HANCOCK
jhancock@kcstar.com
APRIL 13, 2016 12:34 AM

HIGHLIGHTS:
Proponents say the amendment is needed to prevent those with sincerely held religious beliefs from being punished by government
Opponents say the amendment enshrines anti-gay discrimination in the state constitution and would hurt Missouri’s economy
After a four-hour committee hearing that lasted passed midnight ended without a vote
Photographs -- The Missouri House Emerging Issues Committee had a public hearing on SJR39, the “religious freedom” amendment, Tuesday night. Orlin Wagner AP


JEFFERSON CITY
Late into the night Tuesday, supporters and opponents of a proposed “religious freedom” amendment sparred over its potential impact.

On one side, religious leaders and Republican elected officials implored the House Emerging Issues Committee to approve the amendment as is and place it on the ballot for Missouri voters to decide.

On the other, business executives and LGBT-advocates urged lawmakers to alter or kill the bill, arguing that it’s success will hurt Missouri’s economy by enshrining discrimination in the state constitution.

Four hours of discussion ended shortly after midnight without a vote by the committee.

“What I’ve said from the beginning is I didn’t want to bury the bill and I didn’t want to speed the bill through,” said Rep. Elijah Haahr, a Springfield Republican who chairs the committee. “My job was to give it the most thorough and fair vetting possible.”

Haahr said he’s made no decision on how to move forward or when the committee will hold a vote.

The legislation in question — known as Senate Joint Resolution 39, or SJR39 — would ask voters to amend Missouri’s Constitution to protect certain individuals and businesses who cite religious beliefs in order to refuse service to same-sex couples.

Proponents are pushing the measure in response to last year’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide.

They say the amendment is needed to prevent those with sincerely held religious beliefs from being punished by government, and point to lawsuits in other states faced by florists and bakers who declined to provide services for same-sex weddings.

“We’re not bigots,” said Phil Hopper, pastor at Abundant Life Church in Lee’s Summit. “We just disagree.”

Critics say clergy and houses of worship are already protected by the federal and state constitution from having to participate in a wedding they disagree with.

But because the proposed amendment extends protections to those in the private sector, it will allow businesses to legally discriminate against LGBT Missourians.

“At its core, SJR39 seeks to create a constitutional right to be mean to certain people based on who they love,” said Rep. Mike Colona, a St. Louis Democrat who is openly gay. “Freedom of religion must be respected and accommodated, but it cannot be used as an excuse to deny others the right to be treated with basic human dignity.”

BIG-NAME MISSOURI BUSINESSES OPPOSE RELIGIOUS OBJECTIONS LAW

Leading the charge against the “religious freedom” amendment are the business community, with companies from around the state on Tuesday announcing the formation of a coalition called Missouri Competes designed to help defeat the bill.

Among the nearly 100 companies in the coalition are Google Fiber, Pfizer, MasterCard and Monsanto.

Additionally, the Greater Kansas City Chamber of Commerce released a list of nearly 200 area businesses and organizations publicly opposed to SJR39. That group includes small businesses like Brightergy and Tom’s Town Distillery and large corporations like Burns & McDonnell and Kansas City Southern.

“We do not believe it is good enough to simply have the right corporate policies if our employees and customers don’t enjoy basic freedoms and protections in their daily lives,” said Duane Simpson, governmental affairs director for Monsanto.

Sen. Bob Onder, a St. Charles Republican sponsoring the legislation, said it’s a myth that the business community opposes the “religious freedom” amendment.

“I’d say business elites oppose SJR39,” Onder said.

The debate roiling Missouri politics isn’t unique.

When Indiana passed a “religious freedom” bill last year, it drew immediate outcry from the business community, eventually causing the state legislature to repeal it. Indianapolis estimates it lost $60 million in convention and tourism business because of the controversy.

In North Carolina, where the state’s Republican governor recently signed a bill limiting legal protections for LGBT individuals, PayPal announced it was ditching plans for a new $3.6 million operations center in Charlotte that would’ve employed 400 people.

In Mississippi, executives from eight large companies, including GE, the Dow Chemical Co., PepsiCo, Hyatt Hotels Corp. and Whole Foods Market, signed on to a letter calling state lawmakers to repeal a recently passed law allowing religious groups, businesses and individuals to deny services to the LGBT community.

Sarah Rossi, director of advocacy and policy for the ACLU of Missouri, said the economic impact of the legislation is important to note. But she said because the definition of “religious organizations” protected in the amendment includes religious schools, charities, hospitals and nursing homes, among others, it could lead to “so many different contexts in which a person can be discriminated against.”

“It’s not just dollars and cents,” said Sarah Rossi, a lobbyist for the ACLU of Missouri. “It’s people’s lives.”

The Missouri Human Rights Act — which outlaws discrimination based on things like race, gender and religion — does not include sexual orientation and gender identity. That means under current law, a person can legally be fired from a job, kicked out of a restaurant or evicted from an apartment for being gay.

That fact was highlighted last year when Missouri’s Western District Court of Appeals in Jackson County dismissed a lawsuit filed by a gay man who said he was fired for being gay because state law doesn’t prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Colona suggested adding LGBT non-discrimination language to the “religious freedom” bill, but Onder said that any changes in the House “will kill the bill.”

That position is shared by most supporters of the amendment, who believe if the bill is altered in any way it will be unable to once again pass the Senate, where Senate Democrats staged a 39-hour filibuster against the bill last month.

Rep. Anne Zerr, a St. Charles Republican, mentioned repeatedly that she’d like to remove provisions in the amendment pertaining to private businesses, leaving only protections for clergy and churches. She worries that in its current form the amendment will damage Missouri’s reputation around the country and hurt business’ ability to attract top talent.

“Talent is both gay and straight,” Zerr said. “I’m concerned this will hurt us.”

Haahr said he is “inclined to support the bill as is, but the biggest concern I have is the business portion of the bill. If we think changes need to be made, we’ll make changes.”

Onder said that the amendment is trying to prevent discrimination and “anti-religious tyranny.”

“No one is being denied services by this bill,” Onder said. “We’re saying no one can be compelled by the force of government to participate in a wedding ceremony that violates their principles.”

Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/news/local/news-columns-blogs/the-buzz/article71514412.html#storylink=cpy



“But because the proposed amendment extends protections to those in the private sector, it will allow businesses to legally discriminate against LGBT Missourians. “At its core, SJR39 seeks to create a constitutional right to be mean to certain people based on who they love,” said Rep. Mike Colona, a St. Louis Democrat who is openly gay. “Freedom of religion must be respected and accommodated, but it cannot be used as an excuse to deny others the right to be treated with basic human dignity.” …. Leading the charge against the “religious freedom” amendment are the business community, with companies from around the state on Tuesday announcing the formation of a coalition called Missouri Competes designed to help defeat the bill. Among the nearly 100 companies in the coalition are Google Fiber, Pfizer, MasterCard and Monsanto. …. The Missouri Human Rights Act — which outlaws discrimination based on things like race, gender and religion — does not include sexual orientation and gender identity. That means under current law, a person can legally be fired from a job, kicked out of a restaurant or evicted from an apartment for being gay. …. “Talent is both gay and straight,” Zerr said. “I’m concerned this will hurt us.”


I do wish more of these legislators and leaders would openly oppose the amendment because it is grossly unfair, rather than merely because it will hurt business. Still, what amounts to a boycott against the whole state is probably going to happen if the bill does pass. There’s nothing like the power of the purse to stop injustice. I do like the Democratic Senator’s phraseology: “At its core, SJR39 seeks to create a constitutional right to be mean to certain people based on who they love,” said Rep. Mike Colona, a St. Louis Democrat who is openly gay.”

To me, the Christian religion should be about “doing unto others as we would have them do unto us.” We humans don’t by any means always do that, of course, but our societal rules, as enshrined in law, should not allow abuse to be allowed; and harassment of the sort that some “sincere” Christians have been doing is pure abuse. I do wish we as a species could evolve upward some more that we have, so that concern for each citizen would become a part of our basic nature rather than merely the “privileges” that are based on race, money, religion, and LGBT issues of all kinds. We shouldn’t forget that more than a few cases have been in the news of gay people being assaulted even to the point of death. That is simply unacceptable to me. Some relatively ignorant “conservatives,” have openly objected to the fact that there are any “hate crimes” in our law. They want their free expression of hatred to be sanctioned and allowed, rather than being punished as a worse crime than ordinary assault. It’s a free country after all!!



http://beta.townhall.com/tipsheet/justinholcomb/2016/04/12/kasich-on-mississippi-religious-freedom-bill-what-the-hell-are-we-doing-in-this-country-n2147375

Kasich on Mississippi Religious Freedom Bill: 'What the Hell Are We Doing in This Country?'
Justin Holcomb Justin Holcomb |Posted: Apr 12, 2016 12:15 PM


John Kasich continues to prove that he is disassociated with society and in particular southern culture. Regarding the new law passed in Mississippi last week, HB 1523, which allows businesses to deny service to people who are homosexual, Kasich firmly questioned the decision by saying, "What the hell are we doing in this country?"

"I read about this thing they did in Mississippi, where apparently you can deny somebody service because they're gay?" Kasich said during a town hall on CNN Monday night. "What the hell are we doing in this country? I mean, look, I may not appreciate a certain lifestyle or even approve of it, but I can -- it doesn't mean I've got to go write a law and try to figure out how to have another wedge issue.”

Kasich also said this weekend that he would not have signed North Carolina’s "bathroom bill," which bars local municipalities from prohibiting discrimination based on gender identity or sexual orientation and directs public facilities to designate bathrooms for use by people based on their "biological sex."

Ever since the confetti dropped at Kasich's victory speech in Ohio, it seems he believes the rest of the country should conform to Ohio's beliefs. In a completely neutral opinion, it is pain staking [sic] to listen to him say things like "what the hell are we doing in this country," "Republican Senators should sit and meet with Obama's SCOTUS nominee," and that a contested convention is "going to be so much fun... so cool" as millions of Americans, particularly in the south as evidence shows, staunchly disagree with him. And last I checked, history will more than likely not point the finger at states below the Mason-Dixon line for our nation's current troubles.

But in Ohio, they love Kasich. And in his mind, so does the rest of America.


"I read about this thing they did in Mississippi, where apparently you can deny somebody service because they're gay?" Kasich said during a town hall on CNN Monday night. "What the hell are we doing in this country? I mean, look, I may not appreciate a certain lifestyle or even approve of it, but I can -- it doesn't mean I've got to go write a law and try to figure out how to have another wedge issue.” Kasich also said this weekend that he would not have signed North Carolina’s "bathroom bill," which bars local municipalities from prohibiting discrimination based on gender identity or sexual orientation and directs public facilities to designate bathrooms for use by people based on their "biological sex."


This writer really doesn’t like Kasich, and seemingly because of his being an individual thinker rather than a sheep in the conservative flock. I, however, am liking him more and more in the few months or so since he and his views began to hit the news. Even his gaff about women’s issues – he “thanked women for coming out of their kitchens,” to help his campaign. He began to get feedback quickly and almost immediately “clarified” his comment. One of the things I honestly think is true about conservative people is that they are the ones who are “disassociated with society.” As for the idea that he should be in sync with “southern culture,” he’s from Ohio. Why should he be particularly in tune with “Southern culture?” I think he’s going to take a lot of flak over moderate to liberal things that he says, and may actually be run out of the Republican Party. On the other hand, maybe the more benign Republicans will form their own party and improve our society as a result.