June 1 and 2, 2016


News and Views


http://www.cbsnews.com/news/60-minutes-overtime-families-of-killed-miners-speak-out/

Families of killed miners speak out
On April 5, 2010, a massive explosion at a West Virginia mine killed 29 miners. Their families, friends and colleagues still want answers
Anderson Cooper
May 29, 2016

60 MINUTES OVERTIME -- SURVIVING MINER: "I WAS SUPPOSED TO BE THERE"
60 MINUTES OVERTIME -- MINER: "WE DID SPEAK UP" FOR OUR SAFETY


It was the worst U.S. mining disaster in 40 years. In 2010, a massive explosion tore through the Upper Big Branch mine in Montcoal, West Virginia, killing 29 miners. On 60 Minutes this week, Anderson Cooper explores the dangerous safety violations prosecutors say the mine's owner, Massey Energy, and the company's CEO, Don Blankenship, willfully ignored.

Patty Quarles, whose son Gary Wayne died in the mine, and several other family members of miners killed in the explosion, were a constant presence in the courtroom during Blankenship's trial last fall.

"He was my son," Patty Quarles tells Cooper in the previously unaired clip above. "This is the last thing that I can do to try to help him get any kind of justice."

Investigators believe the blast was caused by a spark that ignited methane gas that had accumulated due to inadequate ventilation. Blankenship, whose company owned more than 40 mines in central Appalachia, was found guilty of conspiring to violate mine safety laws.

"We've been fighting now for five and a half years," Quarles says. "He needs to go to jail."

Shawn Ellison, a miner at Upper Big Branch, would have been working the day of the explosion -- but he happened to call in sick. "The last nine guys they brought out, that was my whole crew," he tells Cooper. "Right there where the explosion happened at was where I'd have been."

Ellison says he thought of his co-workers as a "second family," working long shifts with them at the mine. "It was hard," he says, eyes teary. "It's still hard to this day."

Bobbie Pauley was the only female miner at Upper Big Branch. She wasn't working on the day of the explosion, but her fiancé Boone Payne was killed in the blast. She tells Cooper she and other miners knew their work was unsafe.

"Everybody says, 'Well you know, why didn't you speak up?'" she explains. "We did speak up. I spoke up. I spoke up to my supervisors about methane that I was concerned about. I got yelled at, you know, for saying something."

She tells Cooper that when it comes to employment in West Virginia, mining is "the only game in town." And she and her colleagues, including some third-generation miners, were committed to the state where they were raised. "It's such a loving, loving state, you know? And coal miners are the biggest part of that state," she says. "I mean, they're the heartbeat of West Virginia."

Editor's Note: Since these videos were originally published in March 2016, Don Blankenship began serving a one-year sentence at a federal prison in California.



“Bobbie Pauley was the only female miner at Upper Big Branch. She wasn't working on the day of the explosion, but her fiancé Boone Payne was killed in the blast. She tells Cooper she and other miners knew their work was unsafe. "Everybody says, 'Well you know, why didn't you speak up?'" she explains. "We did speak up. I spoke up. I spoke up to my supervisors about methane that I was concerned about. I got yelled at, you know, for saying something." She tells Cooper that when it comes to employment in West Virginia, mining is "the only game in town." …. "It's such a loving, loving state, you know? And coal miners are the biggest part of that state," she says. "I mean, they're the heartbeat of West Virginia."


See these two videos mentioned above, which tell important information that does not appear in this text. They give detail to what would otherwise be little more than a headline. In addition, the experiences of miners are so much more telling than those of a commentator, even one as caring and intelligent as Anderson Cooper. The “only game in town” is so true of small town and rural areas around the country, especially where there are no sizable cities with businesses, colleges, and the like. In Piedmont North Carolina where I grew up, it’s true that a large percentage of the citizens worked at the furniture industry there, but other businesses offered employment opportunities, too, and there were several other populated areas within 10 or 15 miles away with more alternatives.

Appalachia has been poverty stricken for most of American history. The New Deal of FDR worked to improve the situation there, though it still remains less advanced than the Piedmont. Mountainous terrain is difficult to negotiate and the roads are not usually as wide and safe, even today, especially in the winter when snow can be a problem. Mines are drawn there for the abundance of underground coal, so large mining businesses come in and the almost captive population choose to work there rather than commute well over fifteen miles to a larger town. It is also just so much more secure to continue in a job which we have held for years, rather than risk changing to another company or skill set and family and friends are nearby. It’s hard to leave home, for some people especially, who are emotionally bound to an area where family and friends are nearby. Nowadays people move around to find work a great deal more than in years past. As Ms. Pauley said, it’s a “loving, loving state” – “Mountain Mama,” you know. The Appalachian Mountains are really lovely, especially in autumn when all the leaves change color.

This news article doesn’t mention a law suit by miners, but see the Wikipedia article below, which gives numerous charges against them. The company escaped serious liabilities by selling to Alpha Natural Resources and going out of business. At least the CEO Don Blankenship was sentenced to just one year in jail and a hefty fine which, for someone of his financial level wasn’t difficult enough. He then was bailed out so that he can stay at his home. That one year was for his purposely ignoring the danger that preceded the explosion, but since the whole business profited from the negligence and the list of their crimes is longer than given here, they have gotten off entirely too easily. “From Wikipedia, “Blankenship is featured unflatteringly in Michael Shnayerson's 2008 book Coal River and in Laurence Leamer's 2013 book, The Price of Justice: A True Story of Greed and Corruption.[6]”
For more, go to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Blankenship, “Don Blankenship,” and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massey_Energy, “Massey Energy.”


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Blankenship, Don Blankenship

Donald Leon "Don" Blankenship (born March 14, 1950) was both Chairman and CEO of the Massey Energy Company — the sixth largest coal company (by 2008 production) in the United States[1] — from 2000 until his retirement in 2010.[2] A federal grand jury indicted Blankenship on November 13, 2014, for conspiracy to violate mandatory federal mine safety and health standards, conspiracy to impede federal mine safety officials, making false statements to the Securities and Exchange Commission, as well as securities fraud. The charges derive from circumstances that led up to the Upper Big Branch Mine disaster which on April 5, 2010 killed 29 miners in Raleigh County, West Virginia. He faced up to 31 years in prison if convicted of all charges.[3] In March, 2015, the misdemeanor conspiracy charge was streamlined into one of the other charges (felony conspiracy), so that the number of charges has been reduced to three, and the maximum penalty is now 30 years instead of 31. On March 5, 2015, a three-judge panel of the 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the gag order that had been keeping anyone involved in the case, even relatives of the victims, from talking about the accident.[4]

Blankenship had been an active financial backer of the Republican party and participant in local and state politics, especially in his home state of West Virginia.[5] He has frequently spoken out publicly about politics, the environment, unions, and coal production.

Blankenship is featured unflatteringly in Michael Shnayerson's 2008 book Coal River and in Laurence Leamer's 2013 book, The Price of Justice: A True Story of Greed and Corruption.[6]

U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filings show Blankenship was paid $17.8 million in 2009, the highest in the coal industry. His 2009 pay represents a $6.8 million raise over 2008 and almost double his compensation package in 2007. Blankenship also received a deferred compensation package valued at $27.2 million in 2009.[7]

On December 3, 2010, Blankenship announced that he was retiring as CEO at the end of the year and would be succeeded by Massey President Baxter F. Phillips Jr.[8]

On December 3, 2015, Blankenship was found guilty of one misdemeanor charge of conspiring to wilfully violate mine safety and health standards. He was acquitted of felony charges for lying about safety procedures in Massey's Upper Big Branch Mine that caused an explosion in 2010 before his retirement.[9] On Dec. 28, 2015, U.S. Magistrate Judge Clarke VanDevort lowered his bond from $5 million to $1 million, and he is permitted to return to his home in Las Vegas, and travel freely in the U.S. He was sentenced to 1 year in jail and fined $250,000 on April 6, 2016.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massey_Energy, “Massey Energy.”

Wikipedia Excerpts – “Massey Energy Company was a coal extractor in the United States with substantial operations in West Virginia, Kentucky and Virginia. By revenue, it was the fourth largest producer of coal in the United States and the largest coal producer in Central Appalachia.[3] By coal production weight, it was the sixth largest producer of coal in the United States.[4] . . . . Massey Energy owned and operated Upper Big Branch Mine where 29 miners were killed in April 2010. The Mine Safety and Health Administration found that the company's culture of favoring production over safety contributed to flagrant safety violations that caused the coal dust explosion. It assessed $10.8 million in fines for 369 citations and orders, the largest for any mine disaster in U.S. history. Alpha Natural Resources additionally settled Massey's potential criminal liabilities for $209 million.[7][8][9]

In January 2011, it was announced that Massey Energy company would be bought by competitor Alpha Natural Resources for $7.1 billion.[10] More than 99% of Massey shareholders and 98% of Alpha shareholders voted in favor of the acquisition and courts in Delaware and West Virginia[11] agreed with the shareholders' vote. . . . .

In July 2005, the West Virginia Division of Environmental Protection revoked a permit for construction of a coal silo near the school. However, some local employees and residents supported Massey Energy by arguing that the economic benefits received from the company outweigh the environmental impact to the area. 30 non-violent protestors were arrested, including actress Daryl Hannah, NASA climatologist James E. Hansen, and former West Virginia Congressman Ken Hechler. In June 2009, the West Virginia Supreme Court concluded that the Massey was allowed to build their second silo; "We therefore find that the circuit court did not err, and properly affirmed the decision of the West Virginia Surface Mine Board."[53] . . . .

Sale of Massey to Alpha[edit]

On June 1, 2011, shareholders of Alpha Natural Resources agreed to buy Massey Energy for $7.1 billion, making it the nation's largest metallurgical coal company. Some shareholder groups had tried to block the sale claiming that Massey managers had engineered the sale of the company to protect themselves from liabilities and had arranged new management jobs with Alpha.[24] . . . ”



http://www.liberalamerica.org/2016/05/31/christian-evangelist-urges-fathers-shoot-trans-people-show-bathrooms/

‘Christian’ Evangelist Urges Fathers To Shoot Any Trans People Who Show Up In Bathrooms
By Andrew Bradford on May 31, 2016

Perhaps you’ve heard of James Dobson. He’s the founder and president of a right-wing group known as Focus on the Family, and he’s also a massive heap of human excrement who has attacked President Obama in his sermons, alleging the President is a “tyrant [who] assault[s] centuries of modesty and moral beliefs.”

In a new article Dobson wrote for the extremist website World Net Daily, this so-called Christian is calling on those who have daughters to take matters into their own hands and shoot any transgendered person they see in a public restroom.

Dobson begins his psychopathic online rant by recalling a memory from his childhood when he “accidentally” walked into the girl’s bathroom at school:

“I was mortified beyond belief. I sneaked back into class and looked at the floor, wondering who might have witnessed my unthinkable crime. That was decades ago, but I haven’t forgotten my humiliation. The cardinal rule is that boys and girls never entered each other’s private facilities. Never!”

Just a little uptight when it comes to the matter of gender and sex, aren’t we, Jim? Makes us all wonder what other perversions you are fond of indulging in.

So this bloodthirsty asshole has a solution to the problem: Fathers should take the matter into their own hands and begin shooting any trans person they happen to see. Dobson writes:

“If you are a dad, I pray you will protect your little girls from men who walk in unannounced, unzip their pants and urinate in front of them. If this had happened 100 years ago, someone might have been shot. Where is today’s manhood? God help us!”

Yep, that’s what is known as a call to murder, and it’s coming from a man who says he’s a Christian!

Before he finished, Dobson also got some cheap shots in at President Obama:

“Obama, acting like a king, is wielding dictatorial powers never envisioned in the law. He is determined to change the way males and females relate to one another, and worse, how children perceive themselves. If you are a married man with any gumption, surely you will defend your wife’s privacy and security in restroom facilities. Would you remain passive after knowing that a strange-looking man, dressed like a woman, has been peering over toilet cubicles to watch your wife in a private moment? What should be done to the pervert who was using mirrors to watch women and girls in their stalls?”

Of course, if we used Dobson’s twisted logic, he too would be dead right now: Someone would have gunned him down when he made that supposedly mistaken (wink wink) turn into the girl’s bathroom. At least then we wouldn’t have to listen to this intolerant sack of dung urge others to kill others in the name of God.


It is my opinion that modern Evangelical thinking is verging into that of a true cult, complete with hardcore brain washing. As long as they don’t actually start killing people or otherwise being physically abusive, they may not be stopped. Brain washing as long as it’s under the guise of a religion is not always illegal. There was an article about a small cultlike church some five or so years ago in the news, whose parents were actually encouraged to indulge in severely punishing their children by beating them. Thank goodness, the conclusion to the matter was that the parents involved were not only deprived of their custody, but jailed. That’s a good sign – it looks like human progress to me. See the great Wikipedia article below, on the political and religious influence of Dobson.


James Dobson
Focus on the Family

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

Focus on the Family
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

“Focus on the Family (FOTF or FotF) is an American Christian conservative organization founded in 1977 by psychologist James Dobson, based in Colorado Springs, Colorado.[2] It is active in promoting an interdenominational effort toward its socially conservative views on public policy. Focus on the Family is one of a number of evangelical parachurch organizations that rose to prominence in the 1980s.

Focus on the Family's stated mission is "nurturing and defending the God-ordained institution of the family and promoting biblical truths worldwide."[3] It promotes abstinence-only sexual education; creationism;[4][5][6] adoption by married, opposite-sex parents;[7][8][9] school prayer; and traditional gender roles. It opposes abortion; divorce; gambling; LGBT rights, particularly LGBT adoption and same-sex marriage;[10] pornography; pre-marital sex; and substance abuse. Psychologists, psychiatrists, and social scientists have criticized Focus on the Family for trying to misrepresent their research to bolster FOTF's fundamentalist political agenda and ideology.

The core promotional activities of the organization include a daily radio broadcast by its president Jim Daly and his colleagues, providing free resources according to Focus on the Family views, and publishing magazines, videos, and audio recordings. The organization also produces programs for targeted audiences, such as Adventures in Odyssey for children, dramas, and Family Minute.

History and organization[edit]

From 1977 to 2003, James Dobson served as the sole leader of the organization. In 2003, Donald P. Hodel became president and chief executive officer, tasked with the day-to-day operations.[11] This left Dobson as chairman of the board of directors, with chiefly creative and speaking duties. Focus on the Family aims to equip families "through radio broadcasts, websites, simulcasts, conferences, interactive forums, magazines, books, and counseling."

In March 2005, Hodel retired and Jim Daly, formerly the Vice President in charge of Focus on the Family's International Division, assumed the role of president and chief executive officer.[12]

In November 2008, the organization announced that it was eliminating 202 jobs, representing 18 percent of its workforce. The organization also cut its budget from $160 million in fiscal 2008 to $138 million for fiscal 2009.[13]

In February 2009, Dobson resigned his chairmanship,[14] He left Focus on the Family in early 2010, and subsequently founded Family Talk as a non-profit organization and launched a new broadcast that began airing nationally on May 3, 2010. He is no longer affiliated with Focus on the Family.

. . . .

Love Won Out[edit]
Main article: Love Won Out

Focus on the Family formed Love Won Out, an ex-gay ministry, in 1998 and sold it to Exodus International in 2009. (Exodus ceased activities in June 2013, issuing a statement which repudiated its aims and apologized for the harm their pursuit has caused to LGBT people.)

. . . .

Option Ultrasound Program[edit]

Focus on the Family's Option Ultrasound Program (OUP) provides grants to qualifying crisis pregnancy centers to cover 80 percent of the cost of an ultrasound machine or sonography training. As of October 31, 2014, the program has provided 655 grants to centers in all 50 states and Bucharest, Romania. Focus on the Family began OUP in 2004 with the goal of convincing women not to have abortions. FOTF officials said that ultrasound services help a woman better understand her pregnancy and baby's development, creating an important "bonding opportunity" between "mother and unborn child".[24]

The Option Ultrasound Program reported in 2014 that it has helped prevent more than 270,000 abortions since 2004. A study released in February 2012 shows that ultrasounds do not have a direct impact on an abortion decision.[25] In 2011, FOTF President Jim Daly announced that while FOTF will continue to fight for the overturn of Roe v. Wade, in the meantime he would like to work with pro-choice groups like Planned Parenthood who state they want to make abortion "safe, legal and rare" towards the shared goal of making abortion less common.[26] Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) introduced a sonogram bill in 2011 and – citing Focus on the Family – told Congress that "78 percent of women who see and hear the fetal heartbeat choose life." She was later corrected by Focus on the Family, which released a statement saying they did not release such data.[27]

. . . .

Day of Dialogue[edit]
Main article: Day of Dialogue

The Day of Dialogue is a student-led event which takes place April 16. Founders describe the goal of the event, created in opposition to the anti-bullying and anti-homophobic Day of Silence, as "encouraging honest and respectful conversation among students about God's design for sexuality." It was previously known as the Day of Truth and was founded by the Alliance Defense Fund in 2005.[33]

. . . .

Political positions and activities[edit]

Focus on the Family's 501(c)(3) status prevents them from advocating any individual political candidate.[36] Focus on the Family's magazine Citizen is exclusively devoted to cultural and public policy issues. FOTF also has an affiliated group, CitizenLink, though the two groups are legally separate. As a 501(c)(4) social welfare group, CitizenLink has fewer political lobbying restrictions. FOTF's revenue in 2012 was USD $90.5 million, and that of CitizenLink was USD $8 million.[37][38]

Focus on the Family supports teaching of what it considers to be traditional "family values". It supports student-led and initiated prayer and supports the practice of corporal punishment.[39] It strongly opposes LGBT rights, abortion, pornography, gambling, and pre-marital and extramarital sexual activity.[40] Focus on the Family also embraces and reflects the wider political agenda of its audience, for instance promoting a religiously-centered conception of American identity and the support of Israel.

. . . .

2008 Presidential campaign[edit]

In the 2008 U.S. presidential election, Focus on the Family shifted from support of Mike Huckabee to not supporting any candidate, to finally accepting the Republican ticket once Sarah Palin was added to the ticket. Prior to the election, a television and letter campaign was launched predicting terrorist attacks in four U.S. cities and equating the U.S. with Nazi Germany.[citation needed] This publicity was condemned by the Anti Defamation League.[50] Within a month before the general election, Focus on the Family began distributing a 16-page letter titled Letter from 2012 in Obama's America, which describes an imagined American future in which "many of our freedoms have been taken away by a liberal Supreme Court of the United States and a majority of Democrats in both the House of Representatives and the Senate."[51] According to USA Today, the letter "is part of an escalation in rhetoric from Christian right activists" trying to paint Democratic Party presidential nominee Senator Barack Obama in a negative light.[52]

Focus on the Family Action supported Senator Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) in his successful December 2, 2008, runoff election win. The organization, according to the Colorado Independent, donated $35,310 in radio ads to the Chambliss runoff campaign effort. As the Independent reports, the Focus-sponsored ads were aired in about a dozen Georgia markets. The commercials were produced in the weeks after Focus laid off 202 employees – some 20 percent of its workforce – because of the national economic crisis.[53]

. . . .

Misrepresentation of research[edit]

Social scientists have criticized Focus on the Family for misrepresenting their research in order to bolster its own perspective.[60] Researcher Judith Stacey whose work Focus on the Family used to claim that gays and lesbians do not make good parents, said that the claim was "a direct misrepresentation of the research."[61] She elaborated, "Whenever you hear Focus on the Family, legislators or lawyers say, 'Studies prove that children do better in families with a mother and a father,' they are referring to studies which compare two-parent heterosexual households to single-parent households. The studies they are talking about do not cite research on families headed by gay and lesbian couples."[62] FOTF claimed that Stacey's allegation was without merit and that their position is that the best interests of children are served when there is a father and a mother. "We haven't said anything about sexual orientation" said Glenn Stanton.[61]

James Dobson cited the research of Kyle Pruett and Carol Gilligan in a Time Magazine guest article in the service of a claim that two women cannot raise a child; upon finding out that her work had been used in this way, Gilligan wrote a letter to Dobson asking him to apologize and to cease and desist from citing her work, describing herself as "mortified to learn that you had distorted my work...Not only did you take my research out of context, you did so without my knowledge to support discriminatory goals that I do not agree with...there is nothing in my research that would lead you to draw the stated conclusions you did in the Time article."[63][64][65] Pruett wrote a similar letter, in which he said that Dobson "cherry-picked a phrase to shore up highly (in my view) discriminatory purposes. This practice is condemned in real science, common though it may be in pseudo-science circles. There is nothing in my longitudinal research or any of my writings to support such conclusions", and asked that FOTF not cite him again without permission.[66]

After Elizabeth Saewyc's research on teen suicide was used by Focus on the Family to promote the pseudoscience of conversion therapy she said that "the research has been hijacked for somebody's political purposes or ideological purposes and that's worrisome", and that research in fact linked the suicide rate among LGBT teens to harassment, discrimination, and closeting.[67] Other scientists who have criticized Focus on the Family for misrepresenting their findings include Robert Spitzer,[68] Gary Remafedi[66] and Angela Phillips.[68]”



http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/catholic-church-hired-lobby-firms-block-n-y-kid-rape-laws-article-1.2655010

EXCLUSIVE: Catholic Church spent $2M on major N.Y. lobbying firms to block child-sex law reform
BY KENNETH LOVETT
NEW YORK DAILY NEWS ALBANY BUREAU CHIEF
Monday, May 30, 2016, 9:16 PM

Related -- LOVETT:Child Victims Act is gaining bipartisan support in Albany
Tony;
Photograph -- Hank Sheinkopf runs a firm hired by the church to lobby in Albany. Sheinkopf has close ties to Albany pols, including Gov. Cuomo. (CARROLL, PAT)
Related: Former student claims ‘monster’ abused him in Bronx high school
Related: Patricia Lynch's firm helped the Catholic Conference stop the Child Victims Act from becoming a law.
Photograph -- Timothy Cardinal Dolan heads the state's Catholic Conference, which in recent years hired major lobby firms to block legislation designed to help child abuse victims seek justice. (JAMES KEIVOM/NEW YORK DAILY NEWS)
Photograph -- NYC PAPERS OUT. Social media use restricted to low res file max 184 x 128 pixels and 72 dpi, Melanie Blow, chief operations officer of the Stop Abuse Campaign, says the Catholic Conference is paying lobby firms because they want to avoid settlements for lawsuits. (JEFFERSON SIEGEL/NEW YORK DAILY NEWS)
Related: No more statute of limitations for child sex abuse, GOP: petition
Related: NYC PAPERS OUT. Social media use restricted to low res file max 184 x 128 pixels and 72 dpi
153 PHOTOS -- VIEW GALLERY, NYDN front pages of 2016


ALBANY — Not leaving it to divine chance, the state Catholic Conference has turned in recent years to some of Albany’s most well-connected and influential lobby firms to help block a bill that would make it easier for child sex abuse victims to seek justice.

The Catholic Conference, headed by Timothy Cardinal Dolan, has used Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker, Patricia Lynch & Associates, Hank Sheinkopf, and Mark Behan Communications to lobby against the Child Victims Act as well as for or against other measures.

All told, the conference spent more than $2.1 million on lobbying from 2007 through the end of 2015, state records show. That does not include the conference’s own internal lobbying team.

Filings show the lobbyists were retained, in part, to work on issues associated with “statute of limitations” and “timelines for commencing certain civil actions related to sex offenses.” Other issues included parochial school funding and investment tax credits.

Cardinal Dolan ripped for stalling to talk child sex abuse

“They are willing to spend limitless money in order to basically keep bad guys from being accountable for their actions,” said Melanie Blow, chief operations officer of the Stop Abuse Campaign. “I think they’re doing it because they don’t want to have to pay out settlements.”

Added Kathryn Robb, an advocate and survivor who says she was abused by her brother as a 9-year-old: “If they need to spend that much money on lobbying, clearly, then, they have some pretty big secrets to hide.”

While a far cry from the millions in lobbying top special interests spend in Albany each year, advocates for child sex abuse survivors say the $2.1 million spent likely represents a worthwhile investment to the Catholic Conference if it can continue to block legislation that would eliminate the statute of limitations on child sex abuse civil cases and open a one-year window to bring lawsuits for victims who can no longer sue under current law.

The Catholic Conference has argued that opening a one-year window to revive old cases could ultimately bankrupt the Church.

The firms the Catholic Conference chose is also telling.

Child-abuse law reform died in 2009 Senate power struggle

Wilson Elser has long been Albany’s biggest lobbying firm. The firm represented the Catholic Conference from at least 2007 through the end of 2015 and was paid more than $1 million during that time, according to online filings with the state Joint Commission on Public Ethics.

After several key people either left the firm or reduced their responsibilities, the Church did not renew the contract with Wilson Elser for 2016, sources said.

Wilson Elser, which was being paid $10,000 a month by the Catholic Conference, had no comment.

In its place, state records show, the Catholic Conference hired another prominent firm, Greenberg Traurig, which it is paying $6,000-a-month. The lobbyist from the firm representing the Church is Michael Murphy, who used to be an assistant counsel for the Senate Republicans.

Dems challenge state Senators stalling child abuse victims bill

Mamadou Diallo beats ex-con Earl Nash to death when he rushes home to catch him attacking his wife in their apartment. He was initially charged with manslaughter, but the charges were dropped to assault.

The Senate GOP opposes the one-year “lookback” window that Democrats are calling for.

The Catholic Church, some Orthodox Jewish groups, and other private entities oppose legislation by Assemblywoman Margaret Markey (D-Queens) and Sen. Brad Hoylman (D-Manhattan) that would eliminate the time limit that prohibits adults who were victimized as children from bringing civil cases after their 23rd birthdays.

Another top firm, Patricia Lynch & Associates, whose namesake had close ties to now disgraced Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, was hired by the Catholic Conference in 2009. Lynch’s firm for many years was ranked in the top 3 of well-paid lobbyists.

Lynch’s hiring by the Catholic Conference came after the Assembly passed different versions of the Child Victims Act four times from 2006 to 2008. The measure never came up again for a vote after Lynch was hired.

Kathryn Robb, who was abused as a child, said the Catholic Conference is hiding something if it has to spend big money on lobby firms. (JEFFERSON SIEGEL/NEW YORK DAILY NEWS)

“Once Ms. Lynch lobbied for the Catholic Conference, Mr. Silver’s support for our bill ended, and the bill did not come out of the Assembly’s Codes Committee ... which as speaker, he controlled,” John Aretakis, a former lawyer and an advocate for victims of clergy sex abuse, wrote in a scathing letter recently to a judge handling Silver's recent criminal sentencing.

State lobbying records show the firm’s contract with the Catholic Conference was terminated earlier this year, not long after Lynch was outed in court papers as having had an affair with Silver.

Silver was sentenced earlier this month to 12 years in prison after his conviction on federal corruption charges.

Lynch, whose firm was being paid $7,500-a-month, would only say her contract with the Catholic Conference was ended by “mutual consent.”


Sheinkopf, meanwhile, has had close ties with Gov. Cuomo, the former leadership of the Senate Democrats when they were in control of the chamber, and even the Senate Republicans.

Like the others who were hired by the Catholic Conference, he would not discuss the specifics about what he does for the $5,000-a-month he is being paid.

“They like me,” he said. “They think I’m smart.”

In an email, Catholic Conference spokesman Dennis Poust wouldn’t comment directly on his organization’s lobbying efforts. He also would not comment on the reasoning behind why specific lobbying firms were chosen.

“The Catholic Conference lobbies on many issues, from assisted suicide to farm worker rights to school choice to criminal justice reform,” Poust said.

He said the conference’s lobbying activity is in full compliance with the law and is reported, as required, to the state Joint Commission on Public Ethics.

“As such it is all a matter of public record,” Poust said. “We have no further comment beyond that.”



“Filings show the lobbyists were retained, in part, to work on issues associated with “statute of limitations” and “timelines for commencing certain civil actions related to sex offenses.” Other issues included parochial school funding and investment tax credits. Cardinal Dolan ripped for stalling to talk child sex abuse -- “They are willing to spend limitless money in order to basically keep bad guys from being accountable for their actions,” said Melanie Blow, chief operations officer of the Stop Abuse Campaign. “I think they’re doing it because they don’t want to have to pay out settlements.” …. The Catholic Church, some Orthodox Jewish groups, and other private entities oppose legislation by Assemblywoman Margaret Markey (D-Queens) and Sen. Brad Hoylman (D-Manhattan) that would eliminate the time limit that prohibits adults who were victimized as children from bringing civil cases after their 23rd birthdays.”


“Added Kathryn Robb, an advocate and survivor who says she was abused by her brother as a 9-year-old: “If they need to spend that much money on lobbying, clearly, then, they have some pretty big secrets to hide.” This statement, to me, describes the situation better than the mere fact that they don’t want to pay out so much money in settlements. It is an intricately entwined part of the Catholic way of thinking, along with the Pope’s infallibility, and the idea that a priest acts literally for God when he “forgives” selected sinners.

The fact is that grown men who don’t want to marry and enjoy sex with an adult woman, are almost always getting their outlets in other ways, except for the few who are truly celibate, and that sort of use/abuse of young people is horrible. It was common in the ancient world, of course, and often considered to be superior to heterosexual adult relationships – “more pure,” somehow!

I hope I’m wrong in that, but I don’t think I am. The church wouldn’t have this sordid problem if they would pay attention to the nature of humans and animals, and stop trying to take away all the human instincts, to replace them with spiritual “purity.” I relish my whole person and consciousness, and I don’t want to be a disembodied “pure” soul. The idea that sex is dirty and demeaning has made religious young women’s lives miserable. They’re supposed to allow their husband to exercise his sexual “rights,” but not to enjoy it themselves, and by no means to give in to fornication/adultery BECAUSE they are not enjoying it.

Now, when our instincts lead us to do something very harmful, like sexually abusing anyone at all, we should be punished within the church and in the law as well, if it amounts to rape. Rape of any person is a sin and a crime. The people who do it should be in jail. The church has been considered subject only to the Pope and church officials, rather than the legal powers of the society in which the church exists, and that is unfortunate. Many young people of both sexes have been entreated or even commanded by church powers not to report such a crime to the police, and by no mean are they allowed to have an abortion even in the case of rape. No church should be a separate part of human society, but a type of service organization within it. That’s my view, at any rate.

Celibacy is very difficult for both men and women, and I have never seen why it is superior to a loving relationship with a good man or woman. Children are not ready for it either physically or emotionally, and should never have to endure it. If they would go back to the oldest days of Catholicism, their priests would be married! As usual the following discussion on the subject by Wikipedia is much longer if you care to see more, but this selection shows the theory behind celibacy and its’ historical emergence as church practice.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clerical_celibacy_(Catholic_Church)

Clerical celibacy (Catholic Church)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

“Clerical celibacy is the discipline within the Catholic Church by which only unmarried men are ordained to the episcopate, to the priesthood (as a rule to which exceptions are sometimes made for individuals) in some autonomous particular Churches, and similarly to the diaconate, though in this last case exceptions exist not only for single individuals but for whole categories of people. The other autonomous particular Churches, the discipline applies only to ordination to the episcopate.

Chief of the Catholic particular Churches that follow this discipline is the Latin Church, but, among the Eastern Catholic Churches, at least the Ethiopic Catholic Church applies it also.

In this context, "celibacy" retains its original meaning of "unmarried". Though even the married may observe continence, abstaining from sexual intercourse, the obligation to be celibate is seen as a consequence of the obligation to observe perfect and perpetual continence for the sake of the Kingdom of heaven.[1] Advocates see clerical celibacy as "a special gift of God by which sacred ministers can more easily remain close to Christ with an undivided heart, and can dedicate themselves more freely to the service of God and their neighbour."[1]

. . . .

The Church considers the law of clerical celibacy to be not a doctrine, but a discipline. Exceptions are sometimes made, especially in the case of married Protestant clergymen who convert to the Catholic Church, and the discipline could in theory be changed for all ordinations to the priesthood.

. . . .

Paul, within a context of having "no command from the Lord" (1 Cor 7:25), recommends celibacy, but acknowledges that it is not God's gift to all within the church: "For I wish that all men were even as I myself. But each one has his own gift from God, one in this manner and another in that. But I say to the unmarried and to the widows: It is good for them if they remain even as I am ... I want you to be without care. He who is unmarried cares for the things of the Lord—how he may please the Lord. But he who is married cares about the things of the world — how he may please his wife. There is a difference between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman cares about the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit. But she who is married cares about the things of the world — how she may please her husband. And this I say for your own profit, not that I may put a leash on you, but for what is proper, and that you may serve the Lord without distraction." 1 Corinthians 7:7–8, 7:32–35

Historical origins[edit]

In the earliest years of the church, the clergy were largely married men. C K Barrett points to 1 Cor 9:5 as clearly indicating that "apostles, like other Christians, have a right to be (and many of them are) married", and the right for their wife to be "maintained by the communities in which they [the apostles] are working".[3] . . . .

Studies by some Catholic scholars, such as the Ukrainian Roman Cholij[8] and Christian Cochini,[9] have argued for the theory that, in early Christian practice, married men who became priests—they were often older men, "elders"—were expected to live in complete continence, refraining permanently from sexual relations with their wives.[10][11] When at a later stage it was clear that not all did refrain, the Western Church limited ordination to unmarried men and required a commitment to lifelong celibacy, while the Eastern Churches relaxed the rule, so that Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Catholic Churches now require their married clergy to abstain from sexual relations only for a limited period before celebrating the Eucharist.

The Church in Persia, which in the fifth century became separated from the Church described as Orthodox or Catholic, decided at the end of that century to abolish the rule of continence and allow priests to marry, but recognized that it was abrogating an ancient tradition. The Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church, whose separation, along with the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria, came slightly later, allows deacons (who are ordained when they are boys) to marry after ordination, but not priests: any future priests who wish to marry must do so before becoming priests. . . . . This theory would explain why all the ancient Christian Churches of both East and West, with the one exception mentioned, exclude marriage after priestly ordination, and why all reserve the episcopate (seen as a fuller form of priesthood than the presbyterate) for the celibate.

Some Catholic scholars, such as Peter Fink and George T. Dennis SJ of Catholic University of America, have argued that we cannot know if priests in early Christianity practised sexual abstinence. Dennis says "there is simply no clear evidence of a general tradition or practice, much less of an obligation, of priestly celibacy-continence before the beginning of the fourth century".[13] Fink says that a primary book used to support apostolic origins of priestly celibacy "remains a work of interpretation. There are underlying premises that seem to hold firm in this book but which would not stand up so comfortably to historical scrutiny".[14]

The earliest textual evidence of the forbidding of marriage to clerics and the duty of those already married to abstain from sexual contact with their wives is in the fourth-century decrees of the Council of Elvira and the later Council of Carthage. According to some writers, this presumed a previous norm, which was being flouted in practice.[15]

Council of Elvira (c. 305)

(Canon 33): It is decided that marriage be altogether prohibited to bishops, priests, and deacons, or to all clerics placed in the ministry, and that they keep away from their wives and not beget children; whoever does this, shall be deprived of the honor of the clerical office.

Council of Carthage (390)

(Canon 3): It is fitting that the holy bishops and priests of God as well as the Levites, i.e. those who are in the service of the divine sacraments, observe perfect continence, so that they may obtain in all simplicity what they are asking from God; what the Apostles taught and what antiquity itself observed, let us also endeavour to keep… It pleases us all that bishop, priest and deacon, guardians of purity, abstain from conjugal intercourse with their wives, so that those who serve at the altar may keep a perfect chastity. . . . .

Medieval Christendom[edit]

Teaching at Paris, in a late 14th-century Grandes Chroniques de France: the tonsured students sit on the floor.

Beyond the fact that Clerical celibacy functioned as a spiritual discipline it also was guarantor of the independence of the Church and of its essential dimension as a spiritual institution ordered toward ends beyond the competence and authority of temporal rulers.[18]

During the decline of the Roman Empire, Roman authority in western Europe completely collapsed. However, the city of Rome, under the guidance of the Catholic Church, still remained a centre of learning and did much to preserve classical Roman culture in Western Europe. The classical heritage flourished throughout the Middle Ages in both the Byzantine Greek East and the Latin West. . . . .”


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/06/01/sanders-dnc-vetoed-union-leader-pick-for-platform-committee/

Post Politics
Sanders: DNC vetoed union leader pick for platform committee
By David Weigel
June 1 at 4:17 PM

Photograph -- Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders, wearing a Warriors cap, speaks during a campaign rally at Oakland's City Hall in California on May 30. (Anda Chu/Oakland Tribune via AP)
Goto: The Daily Trail newsletter, A daily briefing of what's happening on the campaign trail.

SPRECKELS, Calif. — When the Democratic National Committee announced that Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont would get to pick five of the 15 people who'll write the party platform, it was seen as a small coup. But at a news conference today, Sanders revealed that the DNC had actually vetoed his nomination of a key labor ally, and said he was told not to pick anyone else from the labor movement.

“What we heard from the DNC was that they did not want representatives of labor unions on the platform-drafting committee,” he said. “That’s correct.”

Yesterday, Wall Street Journal reporter Peter Nicholas was the first to report that Sanders had included RoseAnn DeMoro, executive director of National Nurses United, on his list of preferred platform committee members. "He told me that he really wanted me on the committee to advocate for Medicare for All, especially," DeMoro told The Washington Post today.

According to Sanders and DeMoro, the DNC nixed her, resulting in a Sanders delegation of four men, one woman (Native American activist Deborah Parker), and no one from organized labor. While many progressive commentators cheered Sanders's picks, which include the environmental writer and activist Bill McKibben and the academic iconoclast Cornel West, the gender and work balance opened him up to criticism.

"I think it was a set-up," said DeMoro. "It fed into the 'Bernie bro' narrative and meme -- oh, Bernie picked one woman, he's a sexist. As soon as the list was out, there were articles about how he chose two 'anti-Israel' people. The truth of the matter is that they were choices the DNC had signed off on."

In an interview Wednesday, DNC platform committee spokeswoman Dana Vickers Shelley confirmed that the DNC had not wanted labor leaders on the platform drafting committee, limiting labor's presence to Paul Booth of the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees union.

“Because union leadership was represented on the full platform committee, a decision was made no union leadership would be represented on the platform drafting committee,” said Vickers Shelley. “That was communicated to the campaigns, and they understood our rationale.”

That was cold comfort to DeMoro. "The most insidious thing, frankly, is that only one of 15 people on this drafting committee is for labor," she said. "It shows you how insidious the DNC has become. Labor built this party. Labor built this country. One person is enough to represent all of that? If you look at the composition of who they chose, besides Bernie’s choices, K Street’s far better represented than the labor movement."

Juliet Eilperin contributed reporting from Washington.


The Democrats have taken to ignoring some of their most loyal constituencies, and I know that is a mistake. I don’t know exactly when it will blow up in their faces, but I feel sure it will. Like I said, I’m ready for a formal party split, with a progressive group whom I can join with enthusiasm. When that does happen, we will make progress as a democratic nation.

Bernie has said he won’t do that until after November if then, and I wouldn’t want to either. I’m not wild-eyed enough to weaken the Democratic Party before we have the satisfaction of beating the pants off Donald Trump.



http://www.cbsnews.com/news/poll-voters-dont-believe-donald-trump-hillary-clinton-campaign-promises/

Poll: Voters don't believe Trump's or Clinton's campaign promises
By REENA FLORES CBS NEWS
June 2, 2016, 8:40 AM

Photograph -- A combination photo shows Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton and Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump in Los Angeles, California, on May 5, 2016, and in Eugene, Oregon, on May 6, 2016, respectively. REUTERS/LUCY NICHOLSON AND JIM URQUHART
Play VIDEO -- Hillary Clinton calls Donald Trump a "fraud"


When it comes to campaign trail promises, voters aren't buying what Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are selling, according to a new national poll out Thursday.

A Quinnipiac survey found that on several key platforms put forth by the presidential candidates, most voters are skeptical that they will keep their promises. On the issue of building a wall along the southern border and getting Mexico to foot the bill, less than a quarter of voters believe Trump would actually be capable of closing that deal. Thirty-nine percent believe he'll try and fail, while 29 percent think he won't even make the attempt.

Only 19 percent of voters also believe the presumptive GOP nominee will be able to deport the 11 million undocumented immigrants living in the U.S., while 45 percent say he'll fail at doing so. Twenty-nine percent believe he won't try.

Trump's promise to bar Muslims from entering the U.S. nets the billionaire his highest score: Twenty-nine percent believe he can and will carry out that pledge, 42 percent think he'll make the attempt but won't succeed, and 21 percent believe he won't even make the effort.

Clinton fares worse on her campaign vows to rein in Wall Street -- an undertaking 56 percent of voters believe Clinton won't even attempt. Twenty-one percent think she'll try and fail, while just 15 percent expect her to carry out her promise.

Voters also don't believe that the former secretary of state is liable to curb secret money flowing into politics, with 63 percent saying they don't believe Clinton would even try to do so. Eighteen percent believe she would make an effort but eventually fail. Only nine percent think she would succeed.

On the pledge to reduce the debt of students at public and community colleges, however, voters are more likely to believe Clinton. Twenty-two percent of voters say she would succeed at this, while 39 percent say she would try and fail. Thirty-two percent of voters believe the Democratic front-runner won't even try.

The Quinnipiac survey also asked about the ratings of the Republican and Democratic parties: Democrats garnered a negative favorability rating, 44 to 48 percent, while the Republicans also drew a negative 34 to 56 percent favorability score. The Democrats' rating was the party's best rating since November 12, 2008.

For both parties, voters disapproved of the jobs they were doing in Congress. Voters disapproved of Democrats in Congress 63 to 31 percent, and disapproved of Republicans 80 to 12 percent.

Quinnipiac University polled 1,561 registered voters nationally from May 24 - 30. The survey's margin of error was 2.5 percentage points.


I tend to believe the findings of Quinnipiac polls over some of the more politically biased ones, such as the Wall Street Journal. The Quinnipiac polls are well known for fairness and accuracy. They have called me twice and asked for my opinions. People do probably frequently answer the questions based on what they feel and hope rather than what they think is going to pan out, however, and above all on their loyalties. I am at this point unimpressed with Hillary, but over Trump I’ll vote for her in a heartbeat. That won’t be before the Democratic Convention, however
according to Sanders who has promised not to be "a spoiler."

American citizens usually believe in their party above the individual politicians – “Republicans do better in money matters and Democrats do better in social issues,” and think that to one degree or another, most politicians as individuals are dirty and dishonest. The legislature is often thought lazy and inefficient at best. I do think the politics in or huge American system lends itself to corruption of various types, unfortunately. It’s a hard scrabble way up to the top, and adequate funding is necessary, so the basic temptation to take a bribe in a quid pro quo situation is always there. People like Sanders and Trump don’t push easily, though, so they become unpopular within their party structure, while they gain thousands of admiring followers. They are dangerous, of course, to those who want to be in tight control of everyone around them, but can often bring needed and important change.

The law making process itself, with the frequently unethical and illegal activities by lobbyists, large donors, party central, etc., applied on individual legislators causes them too frequently to bend with the wind in order to keep their personal position intact. In other words, even when they haven’t been outrightly bribed, they know that saying the wrong thing can make them find themselves out of office at the next election cycle or before.

It is well-known that the “New Democrats” of whose group both of the Clintons were and are members, catered somewhat to the right leaning Democrats to keep them as party members, and now the party, philosophically, does not represent what I consider a “Democrat” to be. FDR, JFK, Bobby Kennedy, Eugene McCarthy, and Lyndon Johnson were Democrats. Those conservative Democrats or “Dixiecrats” have become Republicans, and the mainstream Democrats have retreated away from the left into the center.

That sounds “reasonable” and “good” to some Dems, but I am on the socially conscious side of things, so to me they are no longer in possession of my unwavering loyalty. If they’re afraid to vote for civil rights, justice, economic fairness, the glue that was holding me in the fold is no longer there. Though they wouldn’t have the same level of reliable supporters so that they can “win by a landslide,” I think that if both parties were to split along ideological lines rather than the line delineated by the power structure, we would have a situation that would allow neither party to be guaranteed of winning at an election, but the views that I care about might well be more available to me, and the winning and losing would be more fractionally represented in the number of votes per party. Instead of getting 60% of the popular vote, they could get 40% and still win. The losers would have to polish up their virtues and present them in a better way.

In other words, both parties have widely departed from their higher ideals to the point of cynically treating elections strictly as wars between the two “teams,” and a “lone wolf” like Sanders who has insisted on his principles throughout his numerous reelections is viewed by many as a radical and an outsider. His views will simply not be considered. To the current DNC Dems, he hasn’t paid his dues to the Democratic Party and neither has Trump. Sanders was an Independent who caucused with the Democrats, and Trump was a wannabe POTUS without a strong set of party principles, at least that is my opinion of him. He’s like Clinton, an opportunist. Both Sanders and Trump, however, voice views which represent strong segments of the American citizenry, and are putting up quite a fight. The conflict within both parties, with a strong unconventional candidate who is very possibly capable of winning against the majority and carrying his followers out of the party to a new group, could be to a formal party split. We would look more like a European country such as France.

If our candidates are of the “wishy washy” type, they aren’t as likely to win the presidency, because in that office most Americans do want a leader with a vision. Both Trump and Clinton have made a number of convenient restatements of their beliefs and plans for the country when they caught flak from the public on their phraseology or lack of political wisdom, which makes many of us view them as liars. The difference between the parties in their unfavorability ratings does appear to give the Dems a popularity advantage over the Republicans right now, due to the political baggage of both Clinton and Trump.

I think there will be fireworks and very possibly a surprise in the Democratic Party Convention, and I hope for the progressive view to emerge as more powerful than today, if not actually the winner; and it’s my opinion that if the Clinton Democrats do give ground on the desperately important issues of social problems and the frightening gap between the rich and the poor that we have nationwide, they will win new voters in the end, rather than losing those who are loyal to principles instead of to the brand name. They need move over and make room.



http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hillary-clinton-loses-california-bernie-sanders/story?id=39501409

What Happens If Hillary Clinton Loses California to Bernie Sanders
By MARYALICE PARKS MEGHAN KENEALLY
Jun 1, 2016, 9:21 AM ET

In spite of early predictions, the race between Hillary Clinton and Sen. Bernie Sanders in California is dramatically close, prompting changes to tactics and speculation over the value of the state's 475 pledged Democratic delegates.

Vince Vasquez, a senior policy analyst at the National University System Institute for Policy Research, said he believes "there's a good chance for a Sanders upset" in California, which holds its primaries June 7.

"We may actually be witnessing the same electoral conditions here that occurred in Michigan, where Sanders had a surprise victory on election night, mostly due to spotty polling, pollsters underestimating the millennial vote and Hillary Clinton underestimating the appeal of Sanders," Vasquez told ABC News.

A loss for Clinton there would be "in a word, embarrassing," Vasquez said.

The state's delegates are divided proportionally, and Clinton and Sanders are expected to have a close finish, so it is unlikely that a Sanders win would prevent Clinton from securing the number of delegates she needs to clinch the nomination next week. Most likely, both candidates will come out of California with three-figure delegate hauls.

California is one of six states that hold their primaries next week, and Clinton needs only 73 delegates to clinch the Democratic nomination. Given that voting in New Jersey, a state that will be awarding 142 Democratic delegates, close first, there's a chance she will clear the threshold before polls in California close.

PHOTO:Presidential candidate, Bernie Sanders orders food at Tacos, Tijuana as he stops to eat following a rally at the Paul Paul Amphitheatre, May 29, 2016, in Fresno, Calif. Matt McClain/The Washington Post via Getty Images
PHOTO:Presidential candidate, Bernie Sanders orders food at Tacos, Tijuana as he stops to eat following a rally at the Paul Paul Amphitheatre, May 29, 2016, in Fresno, Calif. more +
Campaigning Tactics

Still, regardless of the outcome, Sanders may very well have already changed the expectations for Democratic candidates in the Golden State. He has been taking a retail politics approach to California, even though it’s the most populous state in the country. So far, he has held over 20 rallies there, where he has spoken to over 130,000 people, according to his campaign’s estimates. He previously said his goal was to have 250,000 people attend his events before the primary.

"I’m not sure that has been done in recent history, and the reason we’re doing that is I believe in grass-roots politics," Sanders said Monday in Oakland. "I believe that the people in California and other places have the right to see the candidate up front, ask questions with a lot of town meetings as well and find out where he or she is coming from," he told reporters over the weekend.

Hillary Clinton Has Slight Lead Over Donald Trump in New Poll
NY Attorney General: I Won't Back Off Trump 'Fraud' Case

In a possible indication of how closely Clinton's camp is paying attention to Sanders, one of her super PACs, Correct the Record, has continued to send workers and video cameras to keep tabs on Sanders events in the state, and just yesterday she announced that she will be changing her schedule to campaign more in the state.

Vasquez said that Sanders' campaigning schedule has helped him get more media attention beyond the $1.5 million ad buy he announced last week.

"Sanders has been campaigning aggressively here in California with large public rallies. That’s kept him in the local news cycle and generated millions of dollars’ worth of earned media," Vasquez said.

Positive Inroads for the Party

There have been calls from top Democrats, including Sen. Diane Feinstein this weekend, to have Sanders drop out, arguing that he's doing more harm than good for the Democratic Party, but one of his camp's biggest arguments in favor of his staying in the race is that he is helping grow the party by energizing and engaging new voters.

Voter registration estimates appear to back up that claim.

"We’ve had a historic surge in new voter registration since Jan. 1. Estimates are around 2 million new voters were added to the rolls," Vasquez said of California. "That includes both brand-new voters and those that are reregistering. A large chunk of those voters are millennials, Democratic-leaning and overall fit the demographic profile of Bernie Sanders supporters."

PHOTO:Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton and actress Jamie Lee Curtis speak at an event at the UFCW Union Local 324, May 25, 2016, in Buena Park, Calif. Tommaso Boddi/AFP/Getty Images
PHOTO:Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton and actress Jamie Lee Curtis speak at an event at the UFCW Union Local 324, May 25, 2016, in Buena Park, Calif. more +
Close Calls

Clinton has made changes to her campaign schedule in recent days, adding an event in Oakland on Friday and canceling a New Jersey event this coming Thursday in favor of going to California earlier.

The schedule changes come as polling suggests the race in the Golden State has been tightening. The Public Policy Institute of California released a poll last week showing that Clinton was leading Sanders by 2 percentage points, within the poll's the margin of error. The race has grown closer since the group's previous poll, released March 24, which had Clinton with a 7-point lead.

A Clinton campaign aide noted that Clinton has won seven of the last 11 primaries and that then–Sen. Barack Obama won only three of the final 10 primaries in 2008 — and lost California — but went on to win the nomination handily. That year, however, the most populous state in the union voted in February, when the nomination was still up in the air.

For his part, Sanders said he's "feeling good" about the Golden State. "We have excellent chance to win here in California, and I believe that we have a chance to perhaps win big."

Message and Momentum

Bruce Cain, a professor of political science at Stanford University, told ABC News that “it’s not about winning the nomination anymore” for Sanders and his supporters but about gaining momentum to help push his policies when it comes time for the convention.

"They want to move the party from its likely centrist direction ... They want to do what they can to prevent [Clinton] from her moving into the middle," Cain said of Sanders camp’s likely motives.

For Clinton, Cain says, it’s more about her perception heading into the general election contest because “between New Jersey and California, she’s going to be way over what she needs in the delegate count.”

"It means in the short run, there will be continued angst about her performance as a candidate and endless second-guessing as to whether the party’s made a mistake, by some anyway," Cain said.

When it comes to the general election, Donald Trump may be the biggest factor in helping Clinton and Sanders supporters resolve their differences.

"Time is on Hillary's side, and Trump is on Hillary's side, in the sense that his continued controversial statements and policy pronouncements will ultimately help to unite the Democratic Party because in politics, opposition to the other side is a far more powerful force than agreement," Cain said.

ABC News’ Liz Kreutz contributed to this story.



“Vince Vasquez, a senior policy analyst at the National University System Institute for Policy Research, said he believes "there's a good chance for a Sanders upset" in California, which holds its primaries June 7. "We may actually be witnessing the same electoral conditions here that occurred in Michigan, where Sanders had a surprise victory on election night, mostly due to spotty polling, pollsters underestimating the millennial vote and Hillary Clinton underestimating the appeal of Sanders," Vasquez told ABC News. A loss for Clinton there would be "in a word, embarrassing," Vasquez said. …. For his part, Sanders said he's "feeling good" about the Golden State. "We have excellent chance to win here in California, and I believe that we have a chance to perhaps win big." Message and Momentum. Bruce Cain, a professor of political science at Stanford University, told ABC News that “it’s not about winning the nomination anymore” for Sanders and his supporters but about gaining momentum to help push his policies when it comes time for the convention. "They want to move the party from its likely centrist direction ... They want to do what they can to prevent [Clinton] from her moving into the middle," Cain said of Sanders camp’s likely motives.”


California and Washington State are known for their left-leaning populations, and, if they are far enough over in that direction, I hope to see a resounding Sanders win. Clinton does something which really annoys me. She comes across as smug. I think she’s actually running scared, however, and that she has only a small majority in those two races. Especially with the Rightists who are now following Trump, but who were originally Reaganites along with the anarchic Militias, Sovereign Citizens and White Supremacists, plus your pure Nut Jobs, there are many of us former “liberals” who are now progressives and are strongly behind Bernie. I think her hold on the situation is probably not as strong as she wants to think. I can’t wait for the election.



http://www.cbsnews.com/news/arrests-in-burning-death-of-pakistan-woman-who-refused-marriage-proposal/

Arrests in burning death of Pakistan woman who refused marriage proposal
AP June 2, 2016, 2:29 PM


Photograph -- Pakistani family members of a female teacher who was beaten and set on fire, comfort each others in Upper Dewal, Pakistan, Thursday, June 2, 2016. Pakistani police say they have arrested two suspects and are continuing their search for five men who tortured a 19-year-old school teacher and burned her to death for refusing to marry a man twice her age. MUHAMMAD YOUSAF, AP


UPPER DEWAL, Pakistan - Pakistani police said Thursday that they had arrested two suspects and were continuing their search for five men who tortured a 19-year-old schoolteacher and burned her to death for refusing to marry a man twice her age.

The teenager's mother, Ashia Bibi, told The Associated Press that, hours before her death, her daughter Maria had given police a statement alleging that five men had stormed her house earlier that week, dragged her to an open area and kicked her as though she were a "football." Speaking from her home in the village of Upper Dewal in northern Pakistan, Bibi tearfully demanded justice for her daughter.

"Those callous people mercilessly tortured my daughter when I was not at home," she said.

Bibi said her daughter was killed for rejecting a marriage proposal from a man who owned a school and wanted Maria to marry his son.

Local police official Waheed Ahmed said that authorities were aware that Maria Bibi had been attacked days before her death. The teenager died on Wednesday at a hospital in the Pakistani capital, Islamabad. "Police are doing whatever possible to arrest all those who took part in this attack," he said.

The teenager's father, Sadaqat Hussain Abbasi, said the police response had been inadequate.

He showed AP the spot where his daughter was set on fire by her attackers, where a patch of grass was visibly charred. "My daughter told me everything before her death and we have her video statement," he said.

Farzana Bazi, a prominent human right activist, condemned the incident and demanded a "stern punishment" for the culprits.

Violence against women is not uncommon in Pakistan where nearly 1,000 women are killed each year in so-called "honor killings" for allegedly violating conservative norms on love and marriage.



“Local police official Waheed Ahmed said that authorities were aware that Maria Bibi had been attacked days before her death. The teenager died on Wednesday at a hospital in the Pakistani capital, Islamabad. "Police are doing whatever possible to arrest all those who took part in this attack," he said. The teenager's father, Sadaqat Hussain Abbasi, said the police response had been inadequate. He showed AP the spot where his daughter was set on fire by her attackers, where a patch of grass was visibly charred. "My daughter told me everything before her death and we have her video statement," he said. Farzana Bazi, a prominent human rights activist, condemned the incident and demanded a "stern punishment" for the culprits.”


Life is completely intolerable for a woman in too many parts of Asia, the Middle East and Africa. Abbasi will hopefully keep up pressure on the police and courts to refrain from the all too common reaction in these societies – to do absolutely nothing about it. I’m so glad I don’t live there. Our civil rights in this country aren’t perfect, but this kind of thing is unthinkable.

I had an acquaintance in Washington DC whose Middle Eastern husband had abused her until she left him. After one such episode he actually said to her, “You know, in my country I could kill you and the law would do nothing to me.” Humans as individuals run from the enlightened and almost saintly to a prehistoric level of personal inner development. Such things are so commonplace in the area there, that it does make me think that there is some defense for those Trumpites who want to keep all Middle Eastern people out of the US. It exists in India among Hindus also, however. Yet her father (somewhat mildly) said that “the police response was inadequate.”

I would really like to see him rage at the injustice and cruelty, at the very least. There is one lone activist in the story, thank goodness, who is “demanding a stern punishment.” Maybe he will be able to gin up a large and loud crowd marching and chanting in support of the death penalty for such hideous crimes. I do hope all five of the attackers will be found. That may be unlikely, however. I think the police are probably not only “inadequate” for the circumstances, but actually lacking in interest and sympathy for the family and the poor teenager. Pardon my cynicism. I hope I’m wrong.