May 17, 2016


News and Views


Florida Senate GOP Candidate Calls Obama An ‘Animal’
“He wants us to be just another country. I don’t want to be another country,” says Carlos Beruff.
Igor Bobic, Associate Politics Editor, The Huffington Post
05/15/2016 02:24 pm ET

Video -- Carlos Beruff calls President Obama an “animal”


WASHINGTON — Carlos Beruff, a Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate from Florida, repeatedly referred to President Barack Obama as an “animal” at a county GOP meeting on Thursday.

Addressing party faithful at a St. John’s County GOP gathering, Beruff accused Obama of destroying America and its military.

“Unfortunately, for seven and a half years this animal we call president, because he’s an animal, OK — seven and a half years, has surgically and with thought and very smart, intelligent manner, destroyed this country and dismantled the military under not one, not two, but three secretary of defenses,” he said. “And they’ve all written books about it.”

“Sooner or later, you’re going to find, this was a plan, he wants us to be just another country. I don’t want to be another country. I want to be the United States of America, the greatest country in the world,” he added, garnering a round of applause.

Beruff is one of five Republicans vying to replace retiring Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.). A member of a South Florida water board with a real estate background, Beruff has been compared to both Donald Trump and Florida Gov. Rick Scott (R), who endorsed the presumptive GOP nominee earlier this year.

Last month, Beruff called for a ban on travel that goes even further than Trump’s controversial proposal to block all Muslims from coming to the United States — banning all people from the Middle East from entering the country.

Penchant for bombast aside, Beruff remains a long-shot candidate for Senate. He currently stands at just 1 percent in the HuffPost Pollster polling average of the GOP race, trailing behind all of his rivals, including U.S. Reps. David Jolly and Ron DeSantis of Florida.

U.S. Rep. Patrick Murphy (Fla.), the leading Democratic candidate in the race, denounced the comments in a statement sent to HuffPost on Sunday.

“Mr. Beruff’s statement is not only offensive, but extremely disrespectful to President Obama’s incredible service to our nation,” the statement read. “I’m proud to stand by President Obama and his commitment to fighting for Florida families, and I call on Mr. Beruff to immediately apologize for his disrespectful comments. In the U.S. Senate, our diverse state deserves better than Mr. Beruff’s clear record of bigotry.”


EXCERPT -- Huffington -- “Unfortunately, for seven and a half years this animal we call president, because he’s an animal, OK — seven and a half years, has surgically and with thought and very smart, intelligent manner, destroyed this country and dismantled the military under not one, not two, but three secretary of defenses,” he said. “And they’ve all written books about it.” “Sooner or later, you’re going to find, this was a plan, he wants us to be just another country. I don’t want to be another country. I want to be the United States of America, the greatest country in the world,” he added, garnering a round of applause. …. In the U.S. Senate, our diverse state deserves better than Mr. Beruff's clear record of bigotry.” …. I believe with the strongest conviction that the President's policies the last 7 years have weakened our leadership on the world stage and have weakened us economically here at home, but referring to the President of the United States as an 'animal' is an alarming insult of questionable intent and has no place in American politics. Carlos should immediately apologize.” …. “When liberals like young Congressman Patrick Murphy cannot defend their views they resort to name calling and the politics of racial division,” the campaign said in a written statement …. Jolly’s campaign said the remarks were “Beruff’s Todd Akin Moment” — a reference to the U.S. Senate candidate from Missouri who was criticized for talking about “legitimate rape” in 2014.”



“In the 18th Congressional district, which Murphy is vacating to run for Senate, candidate Mark Freeman was criticized by Republicans and Democrats for saying Obama stokes “envy” among blacks and “gives them free stuff, too.” Both Mooney and Freeman said they were not being bigoted and that their words were being taken out of context.” .…”an alarming insult of questionable intent and has no place in American politics.”


In the South, a reference to black people as any form of animal at all (the favorites are “coon” and “monkey”) is not “of questionable intent,” but a clearly and obscenely racist remark with the full intention to hurt and dishonor the target. As for the statement that Obama “stokes envy among blacks,” that can only mean either that he makes them angry enough to riot, enter the political arena themselves, or in some other way “get out of their place.” When I was young, some people used to speak of “knowing your place;” and if a black person insists on getting all his change in a store or verbally claiming his place in line, that used to be very reprehensible and even dangerous. Clearly a lot of these Tea Partiers want to bring back the good old days of White Supremacy.

When I first saw Beruff’s TV commercial I knew he was bad news. The tone of the ad is brash, ignorant and conceited. He’s trying to win the Senate by outdoing Trump at his own game. He doesn’t understand that a majority of voters dislike Trump intensely, so it’s not going to help him win a Senate seat.

Another thing here that really annoys me is that every time I hear it is whenever a political candidate has just stepped in a pile of verbal mess, he says “It was taken out of context.” That’s just like when cops who have come before the press, a judge or a review board because of yet another unnecessary killing almost always say “I feared for my life.” Not only is that usually a lie said to please the judge, it is a ridiculously prim turn of phrase. Americans really don’t talk like that! Watch those articles and you’ll see that is true.



http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/florida/2016/05/8598048/florida-poll-republican-brand-damage-bolsters-clinton

Florida poll: Republican ‘brand damage’ bolsters Clinton
By MATT DIXON and MARC CAPUTO
5:39 a.m. | May. 2, 2016

Photograph -- Clinton. (AP Photo/Paul Sancya)
Related: MORE ON POLITICO
Pro-Clinton super PAC to spend $2.5M in Orlando, Tampa markets
FPL says it has filed plan to halt spread of saltwater plume at Turkey Point
Sink backs Webb’s bid for Pinellas House seat


Whether it’s Donald Trump or Ted Cruz, the Republican presidential nominee looks like a sure loser to Hillary Clinton in Florida because of the Republicans’ lack of popularity with crucial voting blocs in the state, according to a poll conducted last week by the business lobby Associated Industries of Florida.

Clinton would wallop Trump by 49-36 percent if the election were held today and she’d best Cruz 48-39 percent, according to the poll of 604 likely Florida voters.

“In this critical swing state, it is clear to us that Republicans continue to suffer substantial brand damage amongst all segments of the ascending electorate (younger voters, Hispanics & No Major Party voters) and this presidential campaign has clearly exacerbated these attitudes,” Ryan Tyson, a Republican who serves as the group’s vice president of political operations, wrote in a memo to his members.

Because Florida is the most populous swing state in the nation, with 29 Electoral College votes, a Florida victory by Clinton would almost guarantee she wins the White House.

Tyson said the numbers are so bad for the GOP that it could hurt down-ballot Republicans and help Democrats capture the open U.S. Senate seat in Florida, which could cost Republicans control of the chamber. The only Republican who polled relatively well in the survey with women and Hispanics was Sen. Marco Rubio, who has said he will give up his seat after running for president this year.

One of the most astounding — and depressing — results for Republicans like Tyson was the percentage of likely Hispanic Florida voters who have a negative impression of Trump: 87 percent. Only 10 percent viewed him favorably.

“No, that’s not a typo,” Tyson wrote in the memo.

Tyson said Trump’s trouble with Hispanics is a huge problem in a state where they could account for 14 percent of ballots. Cruz polls much better with Hispanics, with 33 percent favorable, and 34 percent unfavorable.

Clinton sits at 50 percent unfavorable with Hispanics, and 48 percent favorable.

The AIF poll is the second in two weeks that had Trump in alarmingly negative territory with Hispanic voters. A poll conducted by Dario Moreno, a Florida International University political scientist, found 84 percent of Hispanics viewed Trump negatively.

Factoring in all potential voters, the AIF poll found just 33 percent of those surveyed view Trump favorably, while 62 percent view him unfavorably, for a net favorability of -29 percent. Cruz is in even worse shape, with a net favorability of -30 percent, with 28 percent holding a favorable view and 58 percent an unfavorable impression.

Compared to the Republican candidates, Clinton’s -6 favorability index (46-52 percent) looks enviable. Rubio’s net favorability is 0, with 46 approving and disapproving of him.

“What’s amazing here is how much hate there is in the electorate. I’ve never seen this,” Tyson said. “It’s not like Hillary Clinton is strong, it’s that the Republican candidates are so weak.”

Tyson teamed with Democratic strategist Steve Vancore for the poll, which included 604 likely general election voters. They surveyed from April 25-27. The sample included 40 percent Democrats, 39 percent Republicans, and 21 percent of those with no major party affiliation, known as independents. The margin of error is plus or minus 5 percentage points.

Among independents, Clinton beats Trump 46-29 percent and tops Cruz by 45-36 percent. Among women voters, Clinton leads Trump 55-33 percent and Cruz 50-35 percent. She also beats both Republicans among voters older and younger than 50. And against both, she narrowly carries the state’s central “I-4 Corridor” that plays an outsized influence in determining the outcome of a statewide election.

The poll also shows that Republicans are significantly less likely to vote for their potential nominee than Democrats. In a head-to-head race, 70 percent of Republicans would vote for Trump, while 84 percent of Democrats would vote for Clinton. Against Cruz, Clinton would get 87 percent of the Democratic vote, while Cruz would get 71 percent of the Republican vote.

In his memo, Tyson said AIF will begin conducted larger 1,000 voter samples later in the election cycle.

The survey also polled Florida’s U.S. Senate race, finding Democratic Rep. Patrick Murphy has between a 7- and 12-point lead in head-to-head matchups against those in the current Republican field.

Businessman Todd Wilcox, who has written his campaign large personal checks, was not included in the poll. Tyson also didn’t include Murphy’s Democratic opponent, Rep. Alan Grayson, in the poll based on a hunch that Grayson will lose the Aug. 30 primary to Murphy.

Each of the candidates in the Senate race, including Murphy, suffer from low name-recognition in the early stages of the race.

The most well-known candidate was Lt. Gov. Carlos Lopez-Cantera, though 67 percent of the electorate said they were unsure of their opinion of him. That number is 83 percent for Rep. Ron DeSantis, 82 percent for developer Carlos Beruff, and 77 percent for Rep. David Jolly.

On the Democratic side, 74 percent were unsure of their opinion of Murphy.

Murphy loses to only one Republican in the poll: Rubio, by 49-41 percent. Rubio has said he plans to be in the private sector come January.

That’s frustrating to Republicans like Tyson.

“I find it crazy that the Republican who’s right-side up with the right groups and who probably gives us the best shot to at least hang on to the Senate left that seat and isn’t going to be our nominee for president,” Tyson told POLITICO Florida.


capitalnewyork -- “Clinton would wallop Trump by 49-36 percent if the election were held today and she’d best Cruz 48-39 percent, according to the poll of 604 likely Florida voters. “In this critical swing state, it is clear to us that Republicans continue to suffer substantial brand damage amongst all segments of the ascending electorate (younger voters, Hispanics & No Major Party voters) and this presidential campaign has clearly exacerbated these attitudes,” Ryan Tyson, a Republican who serves as the group’s vice president of political operations, wrote in a memo to his members. Because Florida is the most populous swing state in the nation, with 29 Electoral College votes, a Florida victory by Clinton would almost guarantee she wins the White House. …. One of the most astounding — and depressing — results for Republicans like Tyson was the percentage of likely Hispanic Florida voters who have a negative impression of Trump: 87 percent. Only 10 percent viewed him favorably. …. Clinton sits at 50 percent unfavorable with Hispanics, and 48 percent favorable. …. The survey also polled Florida’s U.S. Senate race, finding Democratic Rep. Patrick Murphy has between a 7- and 12-point lead in head-to-head matchups against those in the current Republican field. Businessman Todd Wilcox, who has written his campaign large personal checks, was not included in the poll. Tyson also didn’t include Murphy’s Democratic opponent, Rep. Alan Grayson, in the poll based on a hunch that Grayson will lose the Aug. 30 primary to Murphy. Each of the candidates in the Senate race, including Murphy, suffer from low name-recognition in the early stages of the race.”


Saying that Grayson, a liberal Democrat who sends me regular emails on the subjects that are circulating at the time – before he asks for a contribution of course, and who seems sensible and decent -- is based on “a hunch,” going to lose his race. It’s very possible that the things that hurt him, if he does lose, are his liberal leanings and his lack of name recognition, but I think liberals are making headway with the American public now. Before I began to see his emails I had no idea who he was. At this point, I’m glad to see that another comfortably left leaning candidate is in the running, and I wish him well. I want to see a large liberal wing of the party reappear as it did in the ‘70s.



http://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-blasts-tony-blair-comments-on-relationship-with-princess-diana/

Donald Trump blasts Tony Blair, comments on Brexit, relationship with Princess Diana
By REBECCA SHABAD CBS NEWS
May 17, 2016, 11:44 AM

Play VIDEO -- President Obama dives into U.K. leaving EU controversy


Donald Trump blasted former British Prime Minister Tony Blair for his decision to join the war in Iraq, weighed in on the Brexit debate and denied old rumors about his interest in marrying the late Princess Diana.

In an interview on ITV's "Good Morning Britain" with Piers Morgan, Trump called Blair's decision a "disaster," according to reports. The presumptive nominee also warned that the pending Chilcot Inquiry report about Britain's role in Iraq, that's due to be released next month, will show Blair did a "terrible job."

"It can only be a disaster. You shouldn't have come in. But you did," he said.

He also denied rumors that he saw Princess Diana as the "ultimate trophy wife."

"Totally false," said Trump, who said he met her in New York once. "I read that story that I was calling her or something? It was so false...I did respect her, but no interest from that standpoint. But I did meet her once, and I thought she was lovely."

In separate clips released Monday, he responded to several current and former British officials who have criticized the presumptive GOP nominee. British Prime Minister David Cameron called Trump "stupid, divisive and wrong" in December, after Trump released a proposal temporarily banning Muslims from entering the U.S.

"Honestly, I don't care. It doesn't matter," Trump said. "It looks like we're not going to have a very good relationship. Who knows? I hope to have a good relationship with him. It sounds like he's not willing to address the problem either." Downing Street said Monday that the prime minister stands by that criticism.

In any case, trade relations with Britain would be fine, says Trump. If Britain agrees to what's become known as the "Brexit" -- that is, exiting the European Union in a vote in June -- Britain "would certainly not be back of the queue," he told ITV. But President Obama has said the opposite, that if Britain exits the European Union, U.S. trade negotiations would focus first on the larger bloc of countries in the EU, leaving Britain at "the back of the queue."

Trump also had a response for London's new Muslim mayor, Sadiq Khan, who called his message on Muslims "ignorant." Trump told Morgan, "When he won, I wished him well. Now, I don't care about him."

He added that he's offended by Khan's latest comment.

"I think they're very rude statements, and frankly, tell him I will remember those statements. They're very nasty statements," he said.


“He also denied rumors that he saw Princess Diana as the "ultimate trophy wife." "Totally false," said Trump, who said he met her in New York once. "I read that story that I was calling her or something? It was so false...I did respect her, but no interest from that standpoint. But I did meet her once, and I thought she was lovely." …. Trump also had a response for London's new Muslim mayor, Sadiq Khan, who called his message on Muslims "ignorant." Trump told Morgan, "When he won, I wished him well. Now, I don't care about him."


Trophy wife, indeed! Trump just isn’t cut out to be President of ANY country, especially this one. He has just singlehandedly poked his finger in Britain’s collective eye, along with the chance of our continuing a good relationship with one of our best allies and trading partners, and he isn’t even elected. He is, however presuming he will win. Personally, I think either Bernie or Hillary is most likely to be elected and not because I prefer them. Recent polls put them at the top nationwide. That’s because they both have good common sense.



http://www.cbsnews.com/news/south-africa-rhino-horns-conservation-poaching-animals-extinction-endangered/

Chainsaw the best tool to save Africa's rhinos?Chainsaw the best tool to save Africa's rhinos?
CBS NEWS
May 17, 2016, 7:03 AM

Play VIDEO -- Rescued circus lions make new home in South Africa
Photograph -- rtx2c370.jpg, A wildlife ranger strokes a northern white rhino, only three of its kind left in the world, ahead of the Giants Club Summit of African leaders and others on tackling poaching of elephants and rhinos, Ol Pejeta conservancy near the town of Nanyuki, Laikipia County, Kenya, April 28, 2016. SIEGFRIED MODOLA/REUTERS
Photograph -- rtx2c370.jpg, A wildlife ranger strokes a northern white rhino, only three of its kind left in the world, ahead of the Giants Club Summit of African leaders and others on tackling poaching of elephants and rhinos, Ol Pejeta conservancy near the town of Nanyuki, Laikipia County, Kenya, April 28, 2016. SIEGFRIED MODOLA/REUTERS
Play VIDEO -- Inside the race to save rhino herds from poachers


JOHANNESBURG -- Desperate times call for desperate measures, and with rhino numbers plummeting, the situation is so desperate that conservationists are cutting off the animals' horns in a bid to ensure their survival.

CBS News correspondent Debora Patta watched as a rhino -- one of dozens at the Phinda Game Reserve in South Africa -- was sedated so its horn could be removed. All the others in the park are to undergo the same procedure. Head Ranger Simon Naylor knows his rhino are marked animals; their horns a deadly bounty on their heads.

He's made an uneasy peace with the difficult decision to dehorn the rhino population, which some critics say may harm the animals' ability to live successfully in the wild.

"I think in the last few years we've reached that tipping point in Africa, and certainly in South Africa. There are more deaths now than births," Naylor told CBS News. "And so it's a species heading towards extinction if we don't do something drastic."

Toft must ensure the precise dosage when he fires the dart from a hovering helicopter -- too much could be lethal.

Once the drug kicks in, the rhino is quickly blindfolded and a chainsaw tears through the massive horns. It is hard to watch and listen to, but the rhino does not feel any pain.

Although the process is briefly traumatic, Toft says it's a bit like filing a human nail.

"I'd rather see this little guy upright in two years time than in a ditch upside down and bloated dead from having had his horn poached, so for me it's a no brainer," he said.

Rhino horn is what this war is being fought over; it is still so valuable to poachers that it's immediately whisked off the property to a secret location, out of the reach of criminal syndicates.

The appetite for rhino horn powder is so high that organised crime rings can net about $150,000 for an average horn.

The trade is driven primarily by Vietnam, where it is sold under the delusional belief it cures cancer, enhances virility and prevents hangovers. For this, at least three rhino are killed every day in South Africa.

Toft is on the front line. He has performed more than 200 post-mortems on slaughtered rhino. He says dehorning is a no-brainer.

The dehorned rhinos are sprayed with a purple disinfectant -- the mark of survival -- and then injected with an antidote to counteract the grogginess. There is no permanent damage to the animals' health.

Once back on its feet, the rhino pants, calling out to find its friends and family.

It will become increasingly rare to see a rhino with its horn still attached on this reserve, but Naylor's team believes that is a price worth paying to save the species.

The good news is that the rhino horn will grow back, and the reserve is hoping the dehorning is simply an interim measure that will significantly reduce the threat of poaching.

RELATED:
Rhino gets help after horrific poacher attack
Nature cam captures rare rhino baby frolicking
Rescued lions get 1st taste of freedom in Africa
Naylor directs veterinarian Mike Toft on which rhino to dart with a potent tranquiliser.



This idea has been around for several years, though perhaps not in South Africa, and it is an excellent concept. Rhinos are not hunted for their meat, so this should stop the poaching; and being without their horn will only damage their self-confidence if even that. It could be that rhinos aren’t sufficiently intelligent that they will miss their horn. Of course I could be wrong. I’m going by their aggressiveness, primitive looking body form, and what seems to me to be their “ugliness.”

Now soft and furry mammals like cats and dogs, which sit by our side and give every evidence of loving us, do look and act more “intelligent” to me. Interestingly, though, elephants which also have thick gray skin and a lack of grace and elegance, are very intelligent. They have been used as beasts of burden for many years, and perform labor such as lifting heavy logs, carrying soldiers into war, and participating in tiger hunts. Koko the gorilla’s “mom” Penny has even given zoo elephants a paintbrush, jars of different colored paints, and a large pad of paper for them to “paint.” I don’t know how well they do it, but they enjoy the activity! Koko and her former mate Michael also paint, and some of their works actually resemble what they have named it. Koko and Michael both use American Sign Language to express their thoughts – yes, they do have “thoughts.”

Elephants also, of course, are endangered due to the Chinese “medicine” market fueling the horrible poaching. Rhino horn and elephant tusks are considered useful for improving things like male impotence. That kind of thing is very discouraging to me. I want to like the Chinese, but that is despicably wasteful of life.



http://www.cbsnews.com/news/national-urban-league-report-black-america-better-off-now-than-40-years-ago/

Report has surprising finding on black America
AP May 17, 2016, 11:14 AM

24 Photos -- Protesters march on a street in Washington DC on December 05, 2014. MLADEN ANTONOV/AFP/GETTY IMAGES


WASHINGTON - African-Americans are doing about the same as they have in previous years as the nation rises out of the Great Recession, and much better than they did when its first "State of Black America" report came out 40 years ago, the National Urban League said Tuesday.

The new report, "Locked Out: Education, Jobs & Justice," looks at how blacks and Hispanics have been doing in the United States over the last few years and how they were doing in 1976, the year the National Urban League began issuing its annual report.

Some things you need to know from the new State of Black America report:

BLACK AMERICA IS IMPROVING

Things are stabilizing for African-Americans and Hispanics.

The National Urban League derives its numbers from an "equality index" that is based on nationally collected data from federal agencies including the Census Bureau, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the National Center for Education Statistics and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

With full equality with whites in economics, health, education, social justice and civic engagement set at 100 percent, the National Urban League said this year's equality index for blacks stands at 72.2 percent, compared with last year's 72 percent. For Hispanics, it's 77.8 percent compared to 2015's 77.3 percent.

40-YEAR COMPARISON

Things have clearly gotten better for African-Americans since 1976, said Marc Morial, president of the National Urban League. Fewer blacks live in poverty - 29 percent in 1976 compared with 27 percent now. More blacks have graduated high school and college - 28 percent in 1976 and 33 percent today for high school, and 6 percent four decades ago versus 22 percent today for college. Life expectancy of African-Americans has increased from 68 in 1976 to 75 today.

The only areas where African-Americans are doing the same or worse is in home ownership, 43.7 percent in 1976 and 43 percent today, and in voting, which was 48.7 percent in 1976 and 39.7 percent today. Morial said the voting difference was likely because they compared a presidential election year, 1976, to a non-presidential election year, 2014.

African-Americans' numbers are worse than the white population in all categories. "The frontier of the future is confronting these economic disparities," Morial said.

ECONOMIC AND UNEMPLOYMENT EQUALITY

For the second year in a row, California's Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario metroplex is the best for blacks when it comes to income equality to the white population. African-Americans make 76 cents to every dollar whites make in those cities, the highest ratio in the nation. For Latinos, Honolulu is the most promising for income equality: Hispanics make 80 cents for every dollar made by whites.

Washington, D.C., and its suburbs are where blacks, whites and Hispanics have the highest median household income. Whites make $109,460, Hispanics make $66,523, and blacks make $66,151.

The cities with the lowest black unemployment rate are Oklahoma City and San Antonio at 8.3 percent. The city with the lowest Hispanic unemployment rate is Tulsa, Oklahoma, with a 4.6 unemployment rate.

THE URBAN LEAGUE'S SOLUTION

Morial is calling for a major commitment from the government to rebuild the nation's urban communities called the "Main Street Marshall Plan." He wants $1 trillion over the next five years committed to several programs including universal early childhood education, homeownership strategies, high-speed broadband and technology, and a $15 per hour federal living wage indexed to inflation.

"While education is crucial, education alone is not going to solve the economic gaps in the country," he said.



“Things have clearly gotten better for African-Americans since 1976, said Marc Morial, president of the National Urban League. Fewer blacks live in poverty - 29 percent in 1976 compared with 27 percent now. More blacks have graduated high school and college - 28 percent in 1976 and 33 percent today for high school, and 6 percent four decades ago versus 22 percent today for college. Life expectancy of African-Americans has increased from 68 in 1976 to 75 today. The only areas where African-Americans are doing the same or worse is in home ownership, 43.7 percent in 1976 and 43 percent today, and in voting, which was 48.7 percent in 1976 and 39.7 percent today. Morial said the voting difference was likely because they compared a presidential election year, 1976, to a non-presidential election year, 2014. …. Morial is calling for a major commitment from the government to rebuild the nation's urban communities called the "Main Street Marshall Plan." He wants $1 trillion over the next five years committed to several programs including universal early childhood education, homeownership strategies, high-speed broadband and technology, and a $15 per hour federal living wage indexed to inflation. "While education is crucial, education alone is not going to solve the economic gaps in the country," he said.


This Marshall Plan has a good basic structure, but without the education all the way up through school rather than just early education. I also think it would be very helpful for ADULTS to go to school starting at as low a grade as they individually need, so that they can read, do math, general science and biology, study literature and history. At that point they will be able in many cases, at any rate, to a college or junior college. If free college from freshman to senior years were to be put in place, we could transform this country. I want to stress that these two forms of supplementary education should be for whites as well as blacks. One reason so many whites are behind an ignorant and rude man for president is that he appears to be ON THEIR LEVEL. All of our citizens need to rise above that and we can REALLY be the “greatest country in the world,” as Carlos Beruff said in the earlier article today.



http://bigstory.ap.org/article/bd8b6ba80de446a09ba25fc56d9599a1/pall-nevada-fracas-hangs-over-democratic-contest

Sanders issues defiant statement under pressure over ruckus
By ERICA WERNER
May. 17, 2016 5:31 PM EDT

4 photos
DEM 2016 Nevada
In a Saturday, May 14, 2016 photo, supporters of Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders... Read more

WASHINGTON (AP) — Under pressure from Democratic Party leaders to denounce ugly tactics by his supporters, Sen. Bernie Sanders instead struck back with a defiant statement Tuesday that dismissed complaints from Nevada Democrats as "nonsense" and asserted that his backers were not being treated with "fairness and respect."

It followed chaos at the Nevada Democratic Party convention Saturday night, where Sanders' supporters threw chairs, shouted down speakers and later harassed the state party chair with death threats. Gravely alarmed, Democrats pressed Sanders to forcefully denounce it. The dispute stands as the most public rift yet between the Sanders camp and other Democrats, and may undermine the party's attempt to maintain a unified front as frustration mounts among Hillary Clinton supporters that Sanders is continuing his campaign with no clear path to victory.

"Our campaign of course believes in non-violent change and it goes without saying that I condemn any and all forms of violence, including the personal harassment of individuals," Sanders said. But far from apologizing for anything his supporters did, Sanders repeated, in detail, their complaints that they were railroaded in the delegate process Saturday night, something Democratic officials deny. "The Democratic leadership used its power to prevent a fair and transparent process from taking place," he said.

Sanders issued his statement moments after speaking with Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid, who told reporters that Sanders had condemned the violence in Las Vegas. "This is a test of leadership as we all know, and I'm hopeful and very confident Sen. Sanders will do the right thing," said Reid, D-Nev.

The head of the Democratic Party, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla., also condemned the events in Las Vegas. "There is no excuse for what happened in Nevada, and it is incumbent upon all of us in positions of leadership to speak out," she said.

Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., who was booed when she spoke at the convention, told reporters Tuesday that she'd feared for her safety and said Sanders should give a "major speech" calling on his supporters to reject violence and opt for unity.

Sanders' statement seems unlikely to satisfy the demands from Reid, Wasserman Schultz, Boxer and others. Reid said he was surprised by it, telling a reporter in comments distributed by his office: "Bernie should say something and not have some silly statement. Bernie is better than that."

It comes as Donald Trump is wrapping up the nomination on the Republican side, yet Democrats remain divided and now some Democrats fear that Sanders' supporters are starting to mimic backers of Trump in their sexist and aggressive behavior.

Democrats also fear that the unrest in Nevada could be a taste of what is to come at the Democratic Party convention in Philadelphia this summer.

Stephanie Schriock, president of EMILY's List, an influential political committee devoted to electing women that is backing Clinton, said in a statement: "These disgraceful attacks are straight out of the Donald Trump playbook, and Bernie Sanders is the only person who can put a stop to them. Sanders needs to both forcefully denounce and apologize for his supporters' unacceptable behavior — not walk away."

Leading Democrats still stopped short of calling on Sanders to abandon his campaign, at least in public, training their concerns on the violence at the Nevada convention. "I am concerned if our party becomes labeled with the notion that we have this kind of violence," said Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, the No. 2 Senate Democrat.

Chair throwing, shouted profanities and even later death threats to party leaders marked Saturday's party meeting. The Nevada Democratic Party send a letter to the Democratic National Committee accusing Sanders supporters of having a "penchant for extra-parliamentary behavior — indeed, actual violence — in place of democratic conduct in a convention setting."

Sanders dismissed that as "nonsense." ''Our campaign has held giant rallies all across this country, including in high crime areas, and there have been zero reports of violence," he said.

"It is imperative that the Democratic leadership, both nationally and in the states, understand that the political world is changing and that millions of Americans are outraged at establishment politics and establishment economics," he said.

Democratic officials released text messages and voicemails with threats against the Nevada Democratic Party chairwoman Roberta Lange. They included such comments as "Hey bitch, loved how you broke the system, we know where you live, where you work, where you eat, where your kids go to school ... You made a bad choice, prepare for hell, calls won't stop." Another one said, "You're fired bitch, #FeelTheBern, speak or else, corrupt bitch, answer the phone you pussy."

Associated Press writers Mary Clare Jalonick and Ken Thomas in Washington and Michelle Rindels in Las Vegas contributed.



DEMOCRATIC PARTY MELTDOWN ….

May 14’s redo of the 1968 Chicago Fiasco – Are we walking backward in time? See below.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5srPXtJV0V0&feature=share

Internal Coup in the Democratic Party
Politics made Funny
Published on May 14, 2016

Update: New video upon the topic of "Guild by association" and "Either You're with us or you're - In hell"! It's not Bush. See video. Petition for review is below --


Sanders group’s grievances:

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/investigate-misconduct-chair-5142016-nevada-democratic-convention

WE THE PEOPLE ASK THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO TAKE OR EXPLAIN A POSITION ON AN ISSUE OR POLICY:
Investigate misconduct by the chair of the 5/14/2016 Nevada Democratic Convention
Created by J.F. on May 15, 2016

Please investigate the following acts of misconduct by Roberta Lange, chair of the Nevada Democratic Convention.

1) The initial vote was taken 30 minutes prior to schedule and while delegates were still entering the building.
2) Requests for a re-vote were ignored.
3) Requests to review and acknowledge petitions were ignored.
4) Rule changes were passed without a majority.
5) 64 Sanders delegates were disqualified with very few given the chance to prove eligibility.
6) The convention was closed with a motion for a re-vote still on the table.


http://www.dailydot.com/politics/clinton-sanders-nevada-delegates/

Did Hillary Clinton steal Bernie Sanders delegates in Nevada?
By Andrew Couts
May 16, 2016, 2:01pm CT

Chaos reigned at the Nevada Democratic convention on Saturday, sparking an infectious divide between supporters of Hillary Clinton and Sen. Bernie Sanders and, some believe, threatening the very foundations of democracy.

The mess, which was livestreamed in its entirety, began almost as soon as the convention started on Saturday morning and continued for 16 hours, as a rules change, a small fight, a medical emergency, and lots of yelling culminated with Sanders coming out further behind in delegates than his supporters believe is justified.

Much of the mayhem can be attributed to Nevada's complicated delegate-allocation process. But the real controversy lies in the dark abscesses of the Democratic presidential race, where a question has been percolating for months: Is the system rigged against Sanders?

Without getting too much into the weeds, here's a brief explanation of what went down in Nevada—and who's to blame.

Didn't Clinton win the Nevada caucus?

Yes, by roughly five points. But only 23 of the state's 35 delegates are awarded proportionally based on the caucus results, with Clinton receiving 13 and Sanders gaining 10. (Nevada also has five so-called superdelegates, party officials who can vote either way at the Democratic National Convention in July.) Another seven were doled out during the convention, and that's where the trouble started.

How are those seven delegates awarded?

In April, representatives were elected to attend the Nevada Democratic convention, where they would pick the remaining at-large delegates. Sanders reportedly out-organized Clinton, with an expected 2,124 Sanders supporters to Clinton's 1,722.

Had things gone according to the Sanders camp's plan, the Vermont senator would have received four of the seven delegates, while Clinton would have received the remaining three. At the end of the day, however, Clinton supporters outnumbered Sanders supporters by a thin margin, resulting in Clinton receiving a total of 20 delegates to Sanders's 15.

That all seems pretty straightforward. Why are Sanders supporters upset?

First, Sanders supporters were angry that the party adopted a set of temporary rules as the convention's permanent rules because they thought the rules favored Clinton. Sanders supporters had launched a petition ahead of the convention to reject those rules, which included the ways in which voice votes were verified, but they weren't able to present their petition before the rules were adopted by a voice vote, according to the Las Vegas Sun.

Sanders supporters also opposed Roberta Lange, chairwoman of the Nevada Democratic Party, leading the convention. As it turns out, Lange adopted the aforementioned rules based on a voice vote, which many say was not based on reality, given this video video evidence. However, that video may not be accurate, especially given the convention's clearly chaotic environment.

After the adoption of the rules, the Sun reported, Sanders supporters started chanting “this is fixed,” and Clinton supporters responded by saying someone should call the police.

Also, preliminary vote count found that Clinton had a slight lead over Sanders. But Sanders supporters said many people weren't counted in that vote, and they asked for a recount.

The crowd exploded, and Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), a Clinton supporter, started yelling at Sanders supporters.

Wow, that sounds ridiculous. Is that it?

Nope, not even close. But the most important moments came hours later, when the final vote tally came in, giving Clinton 1,695 convention supporters and 1,662 for Sanders. The problem is that 56 Sanders supporters were denied entry to the convention because, according to the party, they had not registered as Democrats by the May 1 deadline. Eight Clinton supporters were also denied for the same reason. Still, those 56 people would have pushed the vote in Sanders's favor.

Is there more?

Yes. The convention ran 16 hours—far longer than it was supposed to—so police were called in at the end of the night to make sure things didn't get escalate further and to make everyone leave the casino where the convention took place. They also turned off the lights and turned the music up, and people allegedly freaked out, including some Sanders supporters.

Is this part of a bigger problem in the Democratic Party?

A whole lot of Sanders supporters would argue it is. Many believe the Democratic Party favors Clinton over Sanders, having set the debates on weekend nights to deny Sanders visibility and reportedly allowing Clinton to bend certain rules.

“What happened in Nevada is likely to happen elsewhere,” wrote Sean Illing for Salon. “The perception that the DNC has thrown its institutional support behind Clinton has only deepened the internal divide within the party. The Sanders wing is pissed off, and rightfully so.”

Do the Nevada results change the course of the Democratic race?

At this stage, they do not. Clinton now has a lead of 283 pledged delegates over Sanders—more than double the largest lead Barack Obama, then a senator, held over Clinton in 2008. If Sanders manages to pull out an unprecedented string of major victories over Clinton in the remaining state contests, and the race comes down to two pledged delegates, then we might look back on this insanity and wag our fingers.

For now, however, the upheaval of the Nevada Democratic convention is more about the potential for party unity in the general election against presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump, trust in the Democratic Party as a whole, and the democratic principle that says every voice matters—even if they're yelling and throwing chairs.

Photo via Gage Skidmore/Flickr (CC-BY-SA)


Jennie Helena ‎@helena_jennie
@SenSanders Demanding a recount! NV convention getting ugly
1:22 PM - 14 May 2016

Riley Snyder ‎@RileySnyder
Calif Sen Barbara Boxer: If you boo me you're booing Bernie Sanders
2:14 PM - 14 May 2016

Rachel Avery ‎@rachelaveryy
The ignored the vote, turned lights off, turn sound WAY up. Truly bullshit. Ignoring our voices. #TeamBernieNV
1:46 PM - 14 May 2016

Jon Ralston ‎@RalstonReports
Convention ended w/security shutting it down, Bernie folks rushed stage, yelling obscenities, throwing chairs. Unity Now! On to Philly 2/2
1:01 PM - 15 May 2016



FINALLY -- A selection from Wikipedia’s slice of history – 1968 Democratic Convention:

“In response to the party disunity and electoral failure that came out of the convention, the party established the Commission on Party Structure and Delegate Selection (informally known as the McGovern–Fraser Commission),[32] to examine current rules on the ways candidates were nominated and make recommendations designed to broaden participation and enable better representation for minorities and others who were underrepresented. The Commission established more open procedures and affirmative action guidelines for selecting delegates. In addition the commission made it so that all delegate selection procedures were required to be open; party leaders could no longer handpick the convention delegates in secret.[33] An unforeseen result of these rules was a large shift toward democratic state presidential primaries. Prior to the reforms, Democrats in two-thirds of the states used elite-run state conventions to choose convention delegates. In the post-reform era, over three-quarters of the states use primary elections to choose delegates, and over 80% of convention delegates are selected in these primaries.[34]”


My comment: It seems to me that with the control nowadays by highly placed Democrats as “Superdelegates,” who can vote for whoever the heck they want to, we have gone back to 1968’s “elite run state conventions!” This is not only shameful, it is scary. I thought it was the Republicans who were scary, but it does seem to be the whole electoral system that is corrupted. The Koch brothers, perhaps? Or is it Hillary and the DNC? Is it time to move to Canada yet?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1968_Democratic_National_Convention

1968 Democratic National Convention
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The 1968 Democratic National Convention of the U.S. Democratic Party was held at the International Amphitheatre in Chicago, Illinois, from August 26 to August 29, 1968. As President Lyndon B. Johnson had announced he would not seek re-election, the purpose of the convention was to select a new presidential nominee to run as the Democratic Party's candidate for the office.[1] The keynote speaker was Senator Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii).[2]

Vice President Hubert H. Humphrey and Senator Edmund S. Muskie of Maine were nominated for President and Vice President, respectively.

The convention was held during a year of violence, political turbulence, and civil unrest, particularly riots in more than 100 cities[3] following the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr. on April 4.[4] The convention also followed the assassination of Democratic presidential hopeful Senator Robert F. Kennedy of New York, on June 5.[5] Both Kennedy and Senator Eugene McCarthy of Minnesota had been running for the Democratic Nomination at the time. The nomination surprised all, as the eventual Democratic presidential nominee, Vice President Hubert Humphrey hadn't won any primaries or been on the ballot previously.

Nomination[edit]

In 1968 the Democratic Party was divided. Senators Eugene McCarthy and Robert F. Kennedy had entered the campaign in March, challenging Johnson for the Democratic nomination. Johnson, facing dissent within his party, had dropped out of the race on March 31.[6] Vice President Hubert Humphrey then entered into the race, but did not compete in any primaries, compiling his delegates in caucus states that were controlled by party leaders. After Kennedy's assassination on June 5, the Democratic Party's divisions grew.[5] At the moment of Kennedy's death the delegate count stood at Humphrey 561.5, Kennedy 393.5, McCarthy 258.[7] Kennedy's murder left his delegates uncommitted.

Support within the party was divided between Senator McCarthy, who ran a decidedly anti-war campaign and was seen as the peace candidate,[8] and Vice President Humphrey, who was seen as the candidate representing the Johnson point of view.[9]

In the end, the Democratic Party nominated Humphrey. Even though 80 percent of the primary voters had been for anti-war candidates, the delegates had defeated the peace plank by 1,567¾ to 1,041¼.[10] The loss was perceived to be the result of President Johnson and Chicago Mayor Richard Daley influencing behind the scenes.[10] Humphrey, who had not entered any of 13 state primary elections, won the Democratic nomination, and went on to lose the election to the Republican Richard Nixon.[11]

Richard J. Daley and the Convention[edit]

Chicago's mayor, Richard J. Daley, intended to showcase his and the city's achievements to national Democrats and the news media. Instead, the proceedings became notorious for the large number of demonstrators and the use of force by the Chicago police during what was supposed to be, in the words of the Yippie activist organizers, "A Festival of Life."[4] Rioting took place between the Chicago Police Department, who were assisted by the Illinois National Guard, and peaceful demonstrators. The disturbances were well publicized by the mass media, with some journalists and reporters being caught up in the violence. Network newsmen Mike Wallace, Dan Rather and Edwin Newman were assaulted by the Chicago police while inside the halls of the Democratic Convention.[13]

The Democratic Presidential Nominating Convention had been held in Chicago 12 years earlier.[14] Chicago Mayor Richard J. Daley had played an integral role in the election of John F. Kennedy in 1960.[14] In 1968, however, it did not seem that Daley had maintained the clout which would allow him to bring out the voters again to produce a Democratic victory as he had in 1960.

On October 7, 1967, Daley and Johnson had a private meeting at a fundraiser for President Johnson's reelection campaign with an entry fee of one thousand dollars per plate. During the meeting, Daley explained to the president that there had been a disappointing showing of Democrats in the 1966 congressional races, and the president might lose the swing state with its twenty-seven electoral votes if the convention were not held in Illinois.[15] Johnson's pro-war policies had already created a great division within the party, Johnson hoped the selection of Chicago for the convention would eliminate further conflict with opposition.[16]

The Committee head for selecting the location, New Jersey Democrat David Wilentz, gave the official reason for choosing Chicago as, "It is centrally located geographically which will reduce transportation costs and because it has been the site of national conventions for both Parties in the past and is therefore attuned to holding them." The conversation between Johnson and Daley was leaked to the press and published in the Chicago Tribune and several other papers.[16]

Dan Rather incident[edit]

While trying to interview a Georgia delegate being escorted out of the building, CBS News correspondent Dan Rather was grabbed by security guards and roughed up.[17] While Rather was reporting from the convention floor,[17] CBS News anchor Walter Cronkite turned his attention towards the area from where Rather was reporting. Rather was grabbed by security guards after he walked towards a delegate who was being hauled out, and asked him "what is your name, sir?" Rather, who was wearing a microphone headset, was then heard on national television repeatedly saying to the guards "don't push me" and "take your hands off me unless you plan to arrest me".[17]

After the guards let go of Rather, he then told Cronkite, "Walter... we tried to talk to the man and we got violently pushed out of the way. This is the kind of thing that has been going on outside the hall, this is the first time we've had it happen inside the hall. We... I'm sorry to be out of breath, but somebody belted me in the stomach during that. What happened is a Georgia delegate, at least he had a Georgia delegate sign on, was being hauled out of the hall. We tried to talk to him to see why, who he was, what the situation was, and at that instant the security people, well as you can see, put me on the deck. I didn't do very well."[17] Cronkite replied, "I think we've got a bunch of thugs here, Dan."

Protests and police response[edit]

Main article: 1968 Democratic National Convention protest activity

In 1968, the National Mobilization Committee to End the War in Vietnam and the Youth International Party (Yippies) had already begun planning a youth festival in Chicago to coincide with the Democratic National Convention. They were not alone, as other groups such as Students For a Democratic Society would also make their presence known.[18] When asked about anti-war demonstrators, Daley repeated to reporters that "no thousands will come to our city and take over our streets, our city, our convention."[19] 10,000 demonstrators gathered in Chicago for the convention, where they were met by 23,000 police and National Guardsmen.[11] Daley also thought that one way to prevent demonstrators from coming to Chicago was to refuse to grant permits which would allow for people to protest legally.[20]

After the violence at the Chicago convention, Daley said his primary reason for calling in so many Guardsmen and police was reports he received indicating the existence of plots to assassinate many of the leaders, including himself.[21]

While several protests had taken place before serious violence occurred, the events headed by the Yippies were not without satire. Surrounded by reporters on August 23, 1968, Yippie leader Jerry Rubin, folk singer Phil Ochs, and other activists held their own presidential nominating convention with their candidate Pigasus, an actual pig. When the Yippies paraded Pigasus at the Civic Center, ten policemen arrested Ochs, Rubin, Pigasus, and six others. This resulted in a great deal of media attention for Pigasus.[22]

The Chicago police riot[edit]

Chicago Police helmet and billy club circa 1968 (photographed 2012)
On August 28, 1968, around 10,000 protesters gathered in Grant Park for the demonstration. At approximately 3:30 p.m., a young man lowered the American flag.[10] The police broke through the crowd and began beating the young man, while the crowd pelted the police with food, rocks, and chunks of concrete.[23] The chants of the protesters shifted from "hell no, we won't go" to "pigs are whores".[24]

Tom Hayden, one of the leaders of Students for a Democratic Society, encouraged protesters to move out of the park to ensure that if the police used tear gas on them, it would have to be done throughout the city.[25] The amount of tear gas used to suppress the protesters was so great that it eventually made its way to the Hilton Hotel, where it disturbed Hubert Humphrey while in his shower.[24] The police sprayed demonstrators and bystanders with mace and were taunted by the protesters with chants of "kill, kill, kill".[26] The police assault in front of the Hilton Hotel the evening of August 28 became the most famous image of the Chicago demonstrations of 1968. The entire event took place live under television lights for seventeen minutes with the crowd chanting, "The whole world is watching".[24]

. . . .

After the Chicago protests, the demonstrators believed the majority of Americans would side with them over what had happened in Chicago, especially because of police behavior. The controversy over the war in Vietnam overshadowed their cause.[13] Daley shared he had received 135,000 letters supporting his actions and only 5,000 condemning them. Public opinion polls demonstrated that the majority of Americans supported the Mayor's tactics.[29] It was often commented through the popular media that on that evening, America decided to vote for Richard Nixon.[30]

The Chicago Eight[edit]

Main article: Chicago Seven

After Chicago, the Justice Department meted out charges of conspiracy and incitement to riot in connection with the violence at Chicago. This created the Chicago Eight, consisting of protesters Abbie Hoffman, Tom Hayden, David Dellinger, Rennie Davis, John Froines, Jerry Rubin, Lee Weiner, and Bobby Seale.[31] Demonstrations were held daily during the trial, organized by the National Mobilization Committee to End the War in Vietnam, the Young Lords, and the local Black Panther Party led by Chairman Fred Hampton. In February 1970, five of the remaining seven Chicago Conspiracy defendants (Seale's charges had been separated from the rest) were convicted on the charge of intent to incite a riot while crossing state lines, but none were found guilty of conspiracy.

Judge Julius Hoffman sentenced the defendants and their attorneys to unprecedented prison terms ranging from two-and-a-half months to four years for contempt of court. The convictions were eventually reversed on appeal, and the government declined to bring the case to trial again.[31]

The McGovern–Fraser Commission[edit]

Main article: McGovern–Fraser Commission

In response to the party disunity and electoral failure that came out of the convention, the party established the Commission on Party Structure and Delegate Selection (informally known as the McGovern–Fraser Commission),[32] to examine current rules on the ways candidates were nominated and make recommendations designed to broaden participation and enable better representation for minorities and others who were underrepresented. The Commission established more open procedures and affirmative action guidelines for selecting delegates. In addition the commission made it so that all delegate selection procedures were required to be open; party leaders could no longer handpick the convention delegates in secret.[33]

An unforeseen result of these rules was a large shift toward democratic state presidential primaries. Prior to the reforms, Democrats in two-thirds of the states used elite-run state conventions to choose convention delegates. In the post-reform era, over three-quarters of the states use primary elections to choose delegates, and over 80% of convention delegates are selected in these primaries.[34]