June 25, 2016


News and Views


REPUBLICANS REBEL – THREE ARTICLES


http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/delegates-file-lawsuit-challenging-binding-rules-n598696

Could Delegate's New Lawsuit Derail Trump's Nomination?
by ALEXANDRA JAFFE
POLITICS JUN 24 2016, 5:25 PM ET

Play -- GOP delegate: Systemic problems in Trump campaign 5:47
Play -- The fight to stop Trump continues 4:05


A Virginia delegate to the Republican National Convention filed a class action lawsuit in federal court Friday challenging a state law that binds delegates to support the primary winner at the nominating convention.

. . . .

They argue that state laws requiring delegates to vote for a specific candidate are unconstitutional, on the grounds that they violate the First Amendment's protection of the right to assemble — and that delegates to the national convention should be allowed to vote for whomever they please.

Beau Correll, a Republican National Convention delegate who served as one of Cruz's campaign co-chairs in Virginia's 10th district, is the only named plaintiff in the suit, but he's filed it on behalf of Virginia's 49 Republican and 110 Democratic delegates. It challenges a Virginia law that states: "Delegates and alternates shall be bound to vote on the first ballot at the national convention for the candidate receiving the most votes in the primary unless that candidate releases those delegates and alternates from such vote."

Read the full complaint here. (Web site)

The complaint reads: "The First Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees delegates to the Republican Party's and Democratic Party's national conventions the right to vote their conscience, free from government compulsion, when participating in the selection of their party's presidential nominee. Nonetheless, Virginia law acts to strip them of that right, imposing criminal penalties on delegates who vote for anyone other than the primary winner on the first ballot at a national convention. That law cannot be sustained under the First Amendment or as a legitimate exercise of Virginia's authority under the United States Constitution."

Virginia Republican Party rules actually conflict with the state statute — they allocate their 49 delegates proportionally. But Correll's attorneys write in the complaint that he's concerned, because Trump "is known to be litigious and has…brought lawsuits of questionable merit against persons for the apparent purpose of harassing or punishing them," that Trump could use the state statute to prosecute Correll for voting against him.

. . . .

"Correll, like many other Republicans, refuses to cast his first-ballot vote—or any other vote—for Virginia primary winner Donald Trump because Correll believes that Trump is unfit to serve as President of the United States. Yet, if he does not vote for Trump, he faces criminal penalties, including fines and imprisonment," they write in the injunction.

They've asked that consideration of the case be expedited in hopes of getting an answer before the Republican National Convention, which is less than a month away.

A finding that Virginia's law is indeed unconstitutional would help eliminate a major roadblock to the small but growing grassroots effort to challenge Trump at the convention, as it would offer a test case for delegates concerned about legal action for breaking state or party binding rules.

. . . .

Still, Cruz has backed Trump since he nabbed the nomination, and those in his orbit say he's not interested or involved in any effort to orchestrate a coup.

And there are other obstacles to a contested convention.

Even if this case makes clear state laws binding delegates are unconstitutional, party rules — with their own penalties — still remain. The movement to oust Trump has yet to find a viable alternative, and RNC leadership has panned their effort. And the Trump campaign is taking the possibility seriously, building a 150-person whip team to keep delegates in line at the convention.



This article is interesting because Correll’s suit would make both Republican and Democratic delegates free to vote their mind without restraint in a convention. Given the several negative events within the DNC, especially the Nevada performance and the lining up of Super Delegates pledge to Clinton even before the primary votes were finished. We should not have delegates who can vote against their own constituencies before the first ballot. In the event of a tie, then simply empower the REGULAR delegates to do that, and totally eliminate the idea of a “Superdelegate.” That’ just the old smoke filled rooms politickin’ again.

I think we need US Constitutional rules to cover all states governing how candidates are selected on the local level to represent the public, from the voting booth to the conventions, both Democratic and Republican. Unfairness and undemocratic processes invalidate the election process, to me. It reminds me of the news article several years ago about Taiwan, in which the people are still allowed to vote for a candidate, but not one of their own choice. The party bosses chose the candidates.

It should not be the right of the party nor of the state to make those rules. The “states’ rights” people will hate that, but it seems that every time some really noxious political arm twisting or abuse of civil rights occurs, it’s on the state level. States at their discretion have made schools separate and unequal increasingly since the rise of the Tea Party, abortion rules more and more restrictive the last few years, and rules against religion’s tampering with the work of government in lots of ways – especially evolution, “liberal” teachings, the Ten Commandments posted in the courthouse, and so on. Our country is coming apart at the seams. We need a modern day Betsy Ross to come in with her needle and thread to put us back together.

If the Republicans are really serious about initiating a new Constitutional Convention, I have some suggestions I’d like to make. We do need a way to keep totally insane people like Trump from even getting to the point that he has. We could start with some much more specific rules on what qualifications a US President must have before being elected. Last time I looked, which was about ten years ago, there wasn’t even a requirement for a president to have a college degree. I think it does specify that he be a natural born citizen and of a minimal age (35), but in my opinion, that is unfair and simply unhelpful. A naturalized citizen should be able to serve in my opinion, unless he has been involved in anything “shady,” like a Nazi Party member, for instance. I think, however, that he should be required to have a full background check back into the country of origin for political/ethical/mental health/and criminal irregularities to be president. Whether he is a natural born American or not, to be president he should have such an FBI check it seems to me. Trump’s being involved in major fraud with his “Trump University,” should immediately disqualify him.

I also think that as for their educational credentials, a mere Business degree as Trump has should not be sufficient, though coursework in business, economics, geography, international relations, history, and law should all be mandatory. We could call it the “Pre-presidential degree!!” That way Trump couldn’t come along and say he has “foreign policy experience,” just because he has made some business deals abroad, as he did a couple of months ago. I don’t remember the exact wording, but that was the gist. In other words, in the interests of being “free” enough, we are perhaps too loose in the way we think about it. We need to prevent people like Trump from making it to first base.

By that list of necessary skills, of course, Abraham Lincoln wouldn’t have been eligible, but he did, after all, “read the law” – which is no small feat -- and qualify as an attorney in Illinois. He was, of course, a very, very intelligent man.



https://www.yahoo.com/news/unconventional-28-colorado-history-teacher-000000818.html

Unconventional #28: How this Colorado history teacher and 400 of her fellow delegates are planning to block Trump in Cleveland
Andrew Romano 8 hours ago
June 24, 2016

Photograph -- Colorado delegate Kendal Unruh; the 2012 Republican National Convention. (Photo illustration: Yahoo News; photos: Andy Cross/The Denver Post via Getty Images; Adrees Latif/Reuters)
Photograph -- Colorado delegate Kendal Unruh; the 2012 Republican National Convention. (Photo illustration: Yahoo News; photos: Andy Cross/The Denver Post via Getty Images; Adrees Latif/Reuters)
Photograph -- California delegate Joan Clendenin tries to block Jeremy Blosser, who was shouting, “Out of order, out of order” in an attempt to disrupt roll call, during the 2012 Republican National Convention. (Photo: Lucian Perkins/The Washington Post via Getty Images)


Unconventional is Yahoo News’ complete guide to what could be the craziest presidential conventions in decades. Here’s what you need to know today.

One week ago, the Washington Post reported that dozens of Republican convention delegates had hatched “a new plan” to block a stumbling Donald Trump in Cleveland by adding a “conscience clause” to the convention’s rules.

As regular Unconventional readers know, there is a convincing case to be made — and in his new e-book Unbound, Rules Committee member Curly Haugland of North Dakota makes it — that Republican convention delegates are already technically free to nominate whomever they want in Cleveland, despite the impression that they are bound by the results of the primary votes in each state.

A conscience clause would make this freedom explicit by saying that every delegate is allowed to vote his or her conscience on the first ballot — even if state laws or party rules say otherwise.

At first, this new “Dump Trump” faction was fairly small. Roughly 30 delegates from 15 states participated in a conference call last Thursday night. Since then, however, the unlikely campaign appears to have picked up steam. A second conference call on Sunday night attracted a claimed 1,000 participants, and this week, both the RNC and Trump have begun to fight back with delegate strategies of their own.

The group that started all this commotion calls itself Free the Delegates. Its founder — and self-proclaimed “loudmouth” in chief — is Kendal Unruh. She is a history teacher, a born-again Christian, a Rules Committee member, and a former Ted Cruz supporter from Colorado. On Thursday, she hopped on the phone with Unconventional to discuss how Free the Delegates came together, why she is “anybody but Trump” — and what exactly she’s planning to do in Cleveland.

(Hint: If Unruh’s conscience clause dies, she has a Plan B. And a Plan C.)

Unconventional: How did Free the Delegates begin?

Kendal Unruh: It began with me and the other Colorado Rules Committee member, Guy Short, grousing about how we didn’t even want to go to the convention anymore after Cruz dropped out. But once we went through the grief process, we started talking about our options. We discussed various types of rules we could pass. Eventually, we settled on the idea of a conscience clause.

By that time, I had heard Curly on YouTube. I’d heard him on CNN. I read his book as soon as it came out, and I was like, “Eureka!” [Laughs] This is my eighth convention. We have been deceived. I’ve always had the power to unbind myself — I just never knew it. I had the kryptonite, but I’d been told it was glass.

Mitt Romney wasn’t your first choice, but you accepted him. Same with many other Republican nominees before him. Why do you suddenly want to unbind yourself? What’s different this time?

I’m a grassroots activist. I’ve been a grassroots activist for 30 years. I’ve always been against the establishment. And, honestly, that’s why I was initially amused with Donald Trump — because he was breaking down the walls of the establishment. I was thrilled. But then the bloom wore off the rose.

Why?

I’ll tell you when he slapped my blinders off: when he mocked the reporter with disabilities. That was a game changer for me. I am the mom of a son who died of his disabilities. I believe every single life is sacred. Having worked with families that have disabilities, having been in those circles, there is no variation with me. You do not mock people with handicaps.

May I ask what your son’s disability was?

Sure. He had dilated cardiomyopathy, which is a heart condition. He also had a form of autism. Back then — this was 15 years ago — we didn’t have nearly as much information as we have now. He died at 6. He was three weeks shy of his 7th birthday. That’s why Trump’s actions triggered a mother lion instinct in me. And then came all his subsequent acts of extreme prejudice and racism.

There were 30 people on your first conference call last Thursday. A few days later, you had another call with — you claim — 1,000 participants. Where did that surge of interest come from?

We started driving the media. And we started organizing. We got a key group of people in place. We are activists. We are not just laypeople who have never done this before. Our people have organized and run campaigns; they are elected officials. We’re active in the party. This is not our first rodeo.

For instance, we were the ones who won all of the Colorado delegates for Cruz. We worked extraordinarily hard with our own time and treasure. We reached out to thousands of voters to get them to support us as delegates. And it wasn’t one election and one group of voters. It was five, from the local level up to the state convention. So, it wasn’t an easy process. We can do this.

Can you quantify how much support you currently have among the delegates?

In one week, we’ve gotten commitments from 400 delegates and alternates. In fact, we have more than 400 — the others just aren’t ready to go public yet. We have two different spreadsheets: people who will go public and people who will not. But we have their votes.

We have a massive undercurrent of people who do not want this nominee. People who want to be the firewall — the last line of defense against the destruction of the United States as we know it. And their ranks are only growing.

What do you mean by you “have” them?

I mean they are Never Trump. They are a coalition of Cruz, [John] Kasich, [Marco] Rubio and [Scott] Walker supporters who have put their names in our database and pledged that they will not be casting their vote for Donald Trump on the first ballot — no matter what.

Do you need your conscience clause to pass in order for them to do that? Or are they willing to vote against Trump regardless?

They will vote against Trump even if the rule doesn’t pass.

So, why are you proposing a conscience clause?

We believe the delegates are already unbound. But there is a group of delegates out there that I’m going after, and I know them well because I’ve been active for 30 years. They are the grandmas. The rule followers. They’ve been working for the party. They’ve been walking precincts and licking stamps. But they aren’t outliers, like me. They don’t like to rabble-rouse. The idea of unbinding makes them uncomfortable. The Republican Party tends to have a lot of these people.

When pressure is being put on them by the delegation chair, or the state chair, or their congressman, or their RNC committee member — fill in the blank — the conscience clause will give them something tangible to point to. “Here is an RNC convention rule that says I can do this.” It’s their permission slip. People need that.

But you don’t?

No. No matter how much pressure is applied, I’m going to be philosophically motivated to do what I’m doing. Actually, the more you apply pressure, the more I’m going to do the opposite. That’s what’s reflected in the 400 delegates we have so far. Now we need the grandmas to join us.

What progress have you made since that big conference call on Sunday?

We’ve set up a PAC. People wanted to donate money. We’ve also set up a legal defense fund. We had a lot of lawyers contact us and say, “We will defend any of these delegates.” We are networking all of those lawyers together. We have some of the smartest minds in the country working with us. I’m just blown away. They understand we’re losing our party. And they understand that if nothing changes, we’re going to lose this election.

RNC spokesman Sean Spicer has said Free the Delegates is “nothing more than a media creation and a series of tweets.”

Right. Why did they have a conference call about it then? Why did they pay to have the delegates polled to see if they support us or not? One of my fellow Rules Committee members got a phone call from a pollster asking where he stood on this. Don’t tell me they’re not worried.

The Trump campaign certainly seems to be concerned. News just broke that they’ve started to organize against you.

Their whip organization is going to have to fight our whip organization. This is what politics is. We know we’re up against a machine. I know this is David and Goliath. We realize that. But I’m a mountaineer. I take it one step at a time.

What are your next steps?

We have our structure in place. We have our whips in place. And the more pressure that is applied, the more we have to flush our people out. There is strength in numbers.

So, you’re reaching out to grandmas and banking as many names as you can. What else?

Guy Short and I are both reaching out to the Rules Committee members. I know I have to close my votes. We need 57 votes on the Rules Committee to pass the conscience clause.

Do you have a sense of how many votes you have right now?

Yes, I do. I’ve got 12 solids, four soft, then, of course, Guy and I. That’s 18.

There aren’t many anti-Trump rebels on the Rules Committee roster, which was released Thursday. What happens if you don’t get to 57?

This isn’t over if the rule dies. We have a Plan B and a Plan C. Establishment people are putting incredible pressure on the Rules Committee members. I’m hearing it on my calls, OK? They’re being told that this is going to destroy the party.

I’m getting death threats on Facebook. It’s just the most vicious thing you’ve ever seen. They’ve even gone after my 17-year-old daughter on Twitter.

So, let’s say the rule dies.

Plan B is to file a minority report. I will do that. I only need 28 votes on the Rules Committee to get there. I’m extremely confident that I will get to 28. At that point, we’d need two-thirds of the convention delegates to vote with us. That’s a steep climb. So, let’s say our minority report doesn’t pass either. We’ll have to move on to Plan C.

Which is?

Activating our activists on the convention floor. We still have the right as delegates to make sure our ballots are not cast for Trump. And that’s when things get … chaotic.

How so?

When they say the roll call for each state, our [anti-Trump] delegate — and we have them in each delegation — would grab the microphone and challenge, on international TV, the tally of the delegation and the submission of the votes. Then the chair is required to poll the delegation to make sure the vote count is accurate.

Now, they can play a game like they did in 2012, when they turned off the microphone to prevent Ron Paul’s delegates from speaking. We’re ready for that. We’re going to make sure we’re standing real close to that microphone.

This is supposed to be a jubilant moment: “Colorado is known for 300 days of sunshine a year and great skiing, and we’d love to have your tourism dollars, and yay! We’re casting 37 ballots for whomever!” Our rabble-rousers would spoil that moment.

I don’t want it to come to this. I would love to have a smooth process, a fair process. As long as the process is fair, we’ll be able to walk away without any problems. If the delegates choose Donald Trump in free conscience as their nominee, that’s that: The Republican Party will own him. But we need to have that opportunity.

OK. Say this works. Who’s your candidate? Would you be happy if Cruz mounted a comeback at the convention?

I don’t care. I know reporters are going, “Come on. What’s your real motivation?” This isn’t a Cruz thing for me. All of us are in agreement. We will support anybody but Trump.

This is a historical first. There has never been a time when the delegates were running a campaign against the presumptive nominee without a replacement candidate. Our buttons should have question marks on them. Or a picture of a ghost. We don’t know. We don’t care.

Isn’t freeing the delegates pointless without an alternative to Trump?
Nature abhors a vacuum. When there’s a vacuum, someone will step in to fill it.

Critics are saying Free the Delegates will fizzle out by the time the convention comes around. I imagine that you disagree.

Here’s what I bank on. I know that when the delegates are faced with the sanctity of their ballot — all the pressure and tactics and fireworks aside — they will take it very, very seriously. They will say, “Can I actually vote for this man?” And if they’re honest with themselves, they will know that they can’t. You cannot tell me that a majority of delegates on that floor want, in good conscience, to cast a ballot for Trump. The only thing that is keeping them from voting against him is the fear of retaliation.

And that’s why we’re here. To tell them they don’t have to be afraid.



http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/gops-foreign-policy-old-guard-prefers-clinton-trump?cid=eml_mra_20160623

The Rachel Maddow Show / The MaddowBlog
GOP’s foreign policy old guard prefers Clinton to Trump
By Steve Benen
06/23/16 09:27 AM—UPDATED 06/23/16 09:28 AM

Photograph -- Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton speaks at the Cleveland Industrial Innovation Center, June 13, 2016, in Cleveland. Photo by Tony Dejak/AP


It may seem like ancient history, but in the not-too-distant past, the Republican Party took foreign policy seriously. When it came to international affairs, the GOP had several influential “grown-ups” who served in positions of authority.

In recent years, however, as the Republican Party has become increasingly radicalized, the GOP’s elder statesmen have fallen out of favor. Members of the party’s old guard discovered that they agreed with many key Democratic priorities – the international nuclear agreement with Iran, the New START treaty, etc. – only to discover that contemporary GOP officials no longer cared what the Republican foreign policy establishment had to say.

It’s even reached the point at which the party’s “grown-ups” are comfortable endorsing a Democratic presidential candidate.

Last week, Richard Armitage, Deputy Secretary of State in the Bush/Cheney administration and a longtime member of the Republican Party’s foreign policy establishment, conceded, “If Donald Trump is the nominee, I would vote for Hillary Clinton.” Yesterday, as USA Today noted, brought a related surprise.

Brent Scowcroft, who served as national security adviser to two Republican presidents, said Wednesday he’s backing Democrat Hillary Clinton for president.

In a statement, Scowcroft said Clinton “brings truly unique experience and perspective to the White House,” citing her time as secretary of State, as a U.S. senator and as first lady.

“She brings deep expertise in international affairs, and a sophisticated understanding of the world,” Scowcroft said. No where [sic] in the statement did he allude to Clinton’s opponent, presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump. “I believe Hillary Clinton has the wisdom and experience to lead our country at this critical time,” the statement concluded.

Scowcroft served as national security adviser to Gerald Ford and George H.W. Bush. He also held key positions in Richard Nixon’s administration and served as chairman of George W. Bush’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board.

As MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell put it yesterday, when Scowcroft endorses Clinton, “you know something is wrong in the GOP world.”

Don’t be too surprised if former Secretary of State Colin Powell follows suit before Election Day.

Also note, last week, former Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Dick Lugar (R) did not endorse Clinton, but the retired Indiana Republican conceded his party’s presidential nominee does not have a good grasp of foreign, military, or intelligence policy.

And, of course, neither H.W. Bush nor W. Bush are prepared to offer their support to Trump.

The news isn’t all bad for Trump – Donald Rumsfeld appears to be a fairly enthusiastic supporter of the 2016 candidate – but it’s nevertheless striking to watch the Republican Party’s most credible elder statesman move further and further away from the GOP, its agenda, and its national ticket.



http://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-henry-paulson-op-ed-hillary-clinton-election-2016/

Donald Trump targeted by Henry Paulson in op-ed endorsing Hillary Clinton
By REENA FLORES CBS NEWS
June 25, 2016, 1:47 PM

Photograph -- Former U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson attends a discussion at Johns Hopkins University's Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies on Feb. 16, 2010, in Washington. GETTY IMAGES/ALEX WONG

Adding to a growing list, Hillary Clinton has another prominent Republican squarely in her corner thanks to Donald Trump: Henry Paulson, the treasury secretary to former President George W. Bush.

"With Donald Trump as the presumptive presidential nominee, we are witnessing a populist hijacking of one of the United States' great political parties," Paulson wrote in a blistering Washington Post op-ed Friday, calling the billionaire's brand of populism one "rooted in ignorance, prejudice, fear and isolationism."

"This troubles me deeply as a Republican, but it troubles me even more as an American," said Paulson, a former Goldman Sachs chief executive who spearheaded the 2008 Wall Street bank bailout as treasury secretary.

"Enough is enough," he wrote. "It's time to put country before party and say it together: Never Trump."

Instead, he offered up Democrats' presumptive presidential nominee, Hillary Clinton, as the country's best alternative to Trump, encouraging his GOP colleagues to consider her when casting their ballot.

"When it comes to the presidency, I will not vote for Donald Trump. I will not cast a write-in vote," Paulson wrote. "I'll be voting for Hillary Clinton, with the hope that she can bring Americans together to do the things necessary to strengthen our economy, our environment and our place in the world. To my Republican friends: I know I'm not alone."

. . . .
Rather than carefully analyzing facts to make informed decisions, the former Bush administration official blasted Trump because he "repeatedly, blatantly and knowingly makes up or gravely distorts facts to support his positions or create populist divisions."

. . . .
"It doesn't surprise me when a socialist such as Bernie Sanders sees no need to fix our entitlement programs," he said. "But I find it particularly appalling that Trump, a businessman, tells us he won't touch Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid."

. . . .

Paulson's argument against the presumptive GOP nominee concluded succinctly: "Simply put, a Trump presidency is unthinkable."

Trump, for his part, didn't seem fazed by the Paulson endorsement.

When asked in Aberdeen, Scotland, on Saturday how he felt about the former treasury secretary's Clinton endorsement, Trump replied: "Don't know anything about him."



"Don't know anything about him." Yeah, sure. This is the fourth Republican today who has come out, not only against Trump, but for Hillary. I’m beginning to have a very good feeling about our chances for a Democratic win this year. I'm still not happy that the candidate is Clinton, though.



http://www.cbsnews.com/news/west-virginia-flooding-death-destruction/

West Virginia flooding brought death, destruction from out of nowhere
CBS NEWS
June 25, 2016, 7:31 AM

Photograph -- Jimmy Scott gets a hug from Anna May Watson, left, as they clean up from severe flooding in White Sulphur Springs, West Virginia, June 24, 2016. AP PHOTO/STEVE HELBER
Play VIDEO -- Deadly floods trigger state of emergency in West Virginia counties


The death toll after destructive West Virginia flooding has climbed to 23 and was expected to increase.

West Virginia's governor has called in hundreds of National Guardsmen to help with search and rescue efforts.

The flooding destroyed several homes, some torn from foundations and carried away by swollen rivers and lakes.

The trouble began on Thursday from heavy rains. On Friday, the body of a 4-year-old boy was recovered after he was swept away in floodwaters just outside his home.

CBS News correspondent Kris Van Cleave reports from the hard-hit community of White Sulphur Springs that the home of one man, Chad Agner, was completely gone, swept away by raging floodwaters Thursday night that tore through West Virginia seemingly out of nowhere.

Pieces of the home next door ended up blocks away on the city's ballfield.

"I figured there would be something left, something standing, but there's nothing," Agner said.

The flood ripped apart the house of Vicky Whitt's neighbors and sent it crashing into hers.

"Thank God it's over," Whitt said. "Not over, but we got out, so it's all that matters."

Across the state, at least 100 homes have been seriously damaged or destroyed.

It appears the river took over a mobile home park, and one house was resting partially in the street next to overturned cars.

Roads have been ripped apart, and tens of thousands were without power.

In just one neighborhood in the small community of White Sulphur Springs, more than a dozen homes were destroyed.

City police and paramedics spent Friday going door to door looking for survivors or worse.

"Everyone knew it was gonna rain, but no one knew it was gonna be as devastating as it was," Mayor Lloyd Haines said. "I can't even describe how heartbreaking it was ... that water is rushing down to you, and there's nothing you can do to help people."

At least four of the dead are city residents who were pulled from their homes into Howard Creek.

Mother of five Nicole Lewis was nearly one of them, but she managed to grab hold of a tree and withstand the punishing current for three hours.

"I just prayed to God and just kept my kids, thinking about them," Lewis said. "I had people over here talking to me, saying they were calling, trying to get help, and I just held on. There was a couple times that I thought I was gone."

The National Weather Service expected rivers in West Virginia to crest overnight. The creek in White Sulphur Springs has been dropping, so the focus has been increasingly on the cleanup.

Still, the death toll is more than the number of people killed by tornadoes and lightning so far this year combined.



Global warming? Maybe, but I couldn’t find a report of an extremely large and dangerous storm’s being predicted, but one thing that sometimes happens is that a storm with normally heavy rain is blocked by a strongly entrenched air mass from moving on, so it just sits on one locality like this and drops a great deal of rain there. Ten inches of rain is much more than any spot can absorb.



http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/06/25/483507441/pope-francis-urges-world-to-never-forget-armenian-genocide

Pope Francis Urges World To Never Forget Armenian Genocide
MERRIT KENNEDY
June 25, 201612:26 PM ET

Photograph -- Pope Francis waves to the crowd from the popemobile after an open-air mass in Armenia's second-largest city of Gyumri on Saturday. Tiziana Fabi /AFP/Getty Images
Photograph -- Pope Francis places flowers during his visit to Tzitzernakaberd Memorial Complex in Yerevan, Armenia, on Saturday. Maurizio Brambatti/AP
PARALLELS -- In Armenia Visit, Pope Aims For Reconciliation In A Tense Region


In a visit to Armenia, Pope Francis has urged the world to never forget the Ottoman-era slaughter of some 1.5 million Armenians which he termed a genocide – a characterization likely to cause tensions with Turkey.

The Pope called it "genocide" publicly for the first time last year – which sparked a furious reaction from Turkey. As Weekend Edition Saturday reported, Turkey's president Recep Tayyip Erdogan told him not to do it again and recalled its ambassador from the Vatican for 10 months.

NPR's Sylvia Poggioli, reporting from Armenia, explained that the Pope ad-libbed the politically-charged term into prepared remarks at the presidential palace Friday evening:

"At a Vatican briefing, the spokesman – Father Federico Lombardi – used the Armenian term ... which means 'the great evil.' And he bristled when asked why he didn't say genocide. So when the prepared text of the pope's speech last night used only the Armenian term, most of us thought that was a possible diplomatic overture towards Turkey.

"But in his actual delivery, the pope added the word genocide. He said: That genocide, made possible by the twisted racial, ideological, or religious aims that darken the minds of the tormentors, even to the point of planning the annihilation of entire peoples."

The pope's comments drew a standing ovation from Armenia's president, she added. Francis has long been a vocal supporter of the Armenian cause, which dates back to his close relationship with the Armenian diaspora community in his native Argentina, as Sylvia has reported.

A worker puts final touches on the podium at Yerevan's Republic Square on June 23, where Pope Francis is to lead a service. The pontiff arrived in Armenia for a three-day visit on Friday.


Lombardi said the Vatican "wasn't aiming to renew conflict with Turkey by repeating the term, stressing that the pope has always called for reconciliation," according to The Associated Press.

Turkey did not immediately respond to the characterization. Even though "historians widely agree that 1.5 million Armenians were killed," Sylvia explained, the country "vehemently rejects the accusation of genocide, claiming the number of dead was smaller and that they were victims of civil strife."

On Saturday, Francis visited the Armenian genocide memorial in Yerevan. Sylvia said Francis prayed and then wrote this in the memorial guest book:

"Here I pray with pain in my heart, so that never again will there be tragedies like this. ...May God protect the memory of the Armenian people. Memory should never be watered down or forgotten. Memory is the source of peace and the future."

Armenians, who are primarily Orthodox with a Catholic minority, responded positively to the pope's visit. They seemed "genuinely honored to welcome the pope," as the AP reported.

"We have the memory of the genocide in our genes," 45-year-old Alexander Rubenyan told the wire service. "It used to be a gene of sadness, but with every visit of people like the pope the Armenian gene is becoming more alive and full of optimism."



I have known for years that the Armenians in the US came as refugees, and are mainly Christian, but I didn’t know any more than that about them, except that many of them have surnames ending in “ian.” I love words and especially name, so that liquid and musical sound pleases me. I knew one Armenian woman about 30 years ago, who was quite pretty in a somewhat heavyset way, with a round face and large eyes.

The following Wikipedia article on the Armenian Genocide is a long and horrific story which, from what I can see is still ongoing, at least in Turkey’s harsh treatment of modern day Armenians and Kurds living within their borders and a heated Turkish reaction against “insulting Turkishness,” which is actually against the law there even today.

A sprinkling of nations have courageously begun to recognize the existence of the genocide, though the Turks still deny it. Sadly, the US is not one of those nations. We want their military backup too much to do that.

Read the very long, but completely fascinating and informative Wikipedia article below. Beginning in the early 1900s and before, and continuing in world governments today as they almost fearfully acknowledge that the atrocity was a “genocide.” The US is still a denier of the events, or at least of characterizing it as a “genocide.”

Covering some four or five years, it did constitute a near extinction of the Armenians, and is the original conflict for which the term genocide was coined by a Jewish lawyer in 1943. It is widely recognized that Hitler modeled his attempt to “cleanse” Germany of all Jews on this Armenian slaughter. Since then “ethnic cleansing” has popped up in at least three or four nations. Apparently it’s a fine and effective way to win a conflict.



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

Armenian Genocide
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

. . . .
The Armenian Genocide[11] (Armenian: Հայոց ցեղասպանություն, Hayots tseghaspanutyun [note 3]; Turkish: Ermeni Soykırımı), also known as the Armenian Holocaust[12] and the Armenian Massacres, was the Ottoman government's systematic extermination of up to 1.5 million[note 4] of its minority Armenian subjects inside their historic homeland, which lies within the present-day Republic of Turkey.[13][14] The starting date is conventionally held to be 24 April 1915, the day that Ottoman authorities rounded up, arrested, and deported 235 to 270 Armenian intellectuals and community leaders from Constantinople to Ankara, the majority of whom were eventually murdered. The genocide was carried out during and after World War I and implemented in two phases: the wholesale killing of the able-bodied male population through massacre and subjection of army conscripts to forced labour, followed by the deportation of women, children, the elderly and infirm on death marches leading to the Syrian desert. Driven forward by military escorts, the deportees were deprived of food and water and subjected to periodic robbery, rape, and massacre.[15][16][17] Other indigenous and Christian ethnic groups such as the Assyrians, the Ottoman Greeks and the Maronite Christians were similarly targeted for extermination by the Ottoman government, and their treatment is considered by some historians to be part of the same genocidal policy.[18][19] Most Armenian diaspora communities around the world came into being as a direct result of the genocide.[20]

Raphael Lemkin was explicitly moved by the Armenian annihilation to define systematic and premeditated exterminations within legal parameters and to coin the word genocide in 1943.[21] The Armenian Genocide is acknowledged to have been one of the first modern genocides,[22][23][24] because scholars point to the organized manner in which the killings were carried out in order to eliminate the Armenians, and it is the second most-studied case of genocide after the Holocaust.[25]

Turkey, the successor state of the Ottoman Empire, denies the word genocide as an accurate term for the mass killings of Armenians that began under Ottoman rule in 1915. It has in recent years been faced with repeated calls to recognize them as genocide.[26] To date, 29 countries have officially recognized the mass killings as genocide,[27] as have most genocide scholars and historians.[28][29][30]
. . . .

“Trial of Soghomon Tehlirian
See also: Operation Nemesis

On 15 March 1921, former Grand Vizier Talaat Pasha was assassinated in the Charlottenburg District of Berlin, Germany, in broad daylight and in the presence of many witnesses. Talaat's death was part of "Operation Nemesis", the Armenian Revolutionary Federation's codename for their covert operation in the 1920s to kill the planners of the Armenian Genocide.

The subsequent trial and acquitment of the assassin, Soghomon Tehlirian, had an important influence on Raphael Lemkin, a lawyer of Polish–Jewish descent who campaigned in the League of Nations to ban what he called "barbarity" and "vandalism". The term "genocide", created in 1943, was coined by Lemkin who was directly influenced by the massacres of Armenians during World War I.[108][109]:210



Go to the following website for discussion of the apparently difficult issue of why the genocide hasn’t been acknowledged by all modern civilized countries.

http://rudaw.net/english/world/08022014

Near a Century Later, US Yet to Recognize Armenian Genocide
By Zuber Hewrami
8/2/2014

For even more on this subject, watch “1915 The Movie,” which held its Hollywood premiere at the Egyptian Theater in Los Angeles on April 13, 2015. The film was screened across the world, including Canada, Russia, and Armenia. Directed by Garin Hovannisian and Alec Mouhibian, the film tells the story of a mysterious director (played by Simon Abkarian), who stages a play and intends to bring the ghosts of the Armenian Genocide back.


https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2015/04/1915.html

The term “genocide” was first coined in 1944 to define the systematic eradication of a group of people. More than seven decades later, its use—except when referring to the Jewish holocaust during WWII—remains a political hot button. Just ask Pope Francis. He recently referred to the extermination of approximately 1.5 million Armenians at the hands of the Turks during the waning days of the Ottoman Empire as the first genocide of the 20th century. The use of the word by the Pope has sent the Turkish government into an uproar because it does not officially recognize the genocide and purports that the killings happened in the midst of a civil war.

The new film 1915, written and directed by Armenian-American filmmakers Garin Hovannisian and Alec Mouhibian, purposely steps right into the middle of this loaded context. The film’s release date is timed to the 100th anniversary of the largely forgotten bloodshed, which commenced on April 24, 1915—a night during which more than 200 Armenian intellectuals were rounded up, deported and eventually executed. While the film over-edifies on occasion, the first-time directors smartly couch the larger political theme in a meta story. Hovannisian and Mouhibian build a tense film with moments of genuine suspense and psychological thrills, all while touching on the larger issues of memory, truth and denial.

1915 begins heavy-handedly: On a Los Angeles stage is theater director Simon (Simon Abkarian), who’s in the middle of a cast pep talk before a one-night-only performance of his play on the Armenian tragedy. The speech is dramatic—you’d expect nothing less from a theater director. He tells the actors, “Denial ends today,” and “Tonight, the fate of the dead will be in your hands… Bring them back to life or you’ll die with them.” Simon’s sermonizing is emphasized by Serj Tankian’s (System of a Down) score, which distracts with a rush of violins and the orchestral swells during the monologue. It’s all a bit too much, too soon.

Thankfully, after this rocky start, the filmmakers largely find their footing to deliver riveting storylines that provide important history lessons along the way. During this final rehearsal, protesters surround the theater outside. Inside, strange occurrences cause an unease among the cast, which includes Simon’s wife Angela (Angela Sarafyan) and James (Sam Page), a Hollywood film star testing his stage mettle. James begins to question Simon’s Svengali-like hold over Angela and, as the mystery unfolds, the director’s other reason for mounting the play proves to be just as personal and profound.

1915’s play-within-a-film device delivers digestible bits of background information through a love story between the production’s lead characters: a Turkish soldier and a married Armenian woman. The film also includes interstitial documentary elements, including new and old family photos, newspaper clippings and other materials that emphasize the categorical denial of Armenian eradication. Other aspects of 1915 prove a little more head-scratching, especially the inclusion of a cross-dressing character that seems added only for shock value, and Angela’s abrupt shift in personality toward the end of the film.

The theater serves as a perfect backdrop for the onscreen action, with Leigh Lisbão Underwood’s cinematography and Michael Fitzgerald’s production design taking full advantage of the old, French baroque-inspired setting. The offices and rooms are dripping in dark, rich gold and maroon tones, adding weight to the aura of mystery and fading memories.

At its core, 1915 is a ghost story in which Simon and Angela are burdened by their pasts on macro- and micro-levels. The creepy happenings throughout the rehearsal are credited to the age of the theater and the stress of the opening on the actors, but Hovannisian and Mouhibian leave room for the viewer’s imagination to draw his or her own conclusions as to whether the specters are metaphorical or metaphysical. However, during the film’s denouement, 1915 dips again into melodramatic territory, the performers overplaying heavier moments. The film ends on an almost mystical, yet hopeful note, as the filmmakers not-so-subtly merge past and present truths for the characters—and the audience—to move beyond an ugly history.


A LITTLE BIT OF GOOD NEWS”


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/06/25/democrats-reject-platform-proposal-opposing-trade-deal.html

Democrats approve platform draft with Sanders' imprint
Published June 25, 2016 Associated Press


ST. LOUIS – Democrats approved a draft of the party platform early Saturday that includes steps to break up large Wall Street banks, advocates for a $15 an hour wage and urges the abolition of the death penalty, reflecting the influence of Bernie Sanders' presidential campaign.

Supporters of presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton defeated measures pushed by Sanders' allies that would have promoted a Medicare-for-all single-payer health care system, a carbon tax to address climate change and impose a moratorium on hydraulic fracking.

Sanders said Friday he would vote for Clinton but has so far declined to offer a full-throated endorsement of her campaign or encourage his millions of voters to back her candidacy. The Vermont senator has said he wants the platform at the summer convention to reflect his goals -- and those representing him at a St. Louis hotel said they had made progress.

"We lost some but we won some," said James Zogby, a Sanders supporter on the panel. "We got some great stuff in the platform that has never been in there before." Added Rep. Keith Ellison, D-Minn., a Sanders ally: "We've made some substantial moves forward."

The convention's full Platform Committee will consider the draft platform in Orlando, Florida, next month and it will be voted on at the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia in late July.

The platform is a statement of the party's values and positions on a wide range of issues. While it does not bind the Democratic nominee to specific policies, it serves as a guidepost for the party moving forward.

Deliberating late into the evening, the group considered the document's language on the Israel-Palestinian conflict, an issue that has divided Democrats. The committee defeated an amendment led by Zogby that would have called for providing Palestinians with "an end to occupation and illegal settlements" and urged an international effort to rebuild Gaza.

Zogby said Sanders had helped craft the language. The draft reflects Clinton's views and advocates working toward a "two-state solution of the Israel-Palestinian conflict" that guarantees Israel's security with recognized borders "and provides the Palestinians with independence, sovereignty, and dignity."

In many cases, Clinton's side gave ground to Sanders. The document calls for the expansion of Social Security and says Americans should earn at least $15 an hour, referring to the current minimum wage of $7.25 an hour as a "starvation wage," a term often used by Sanders.

Sanders has pushed for a $15-an-hour minimum wage, while Clinton has supported efforts to raise the minimum wage to that level but has said states and cities should raise the bar as high as possible.

Sanders' allies wanted the draft to specify that a $15 per hour minimum wage should be indexed with inflation. But Clinton's side struck down the amendment, noting that the document already included a call to "raise and index the minimum wage."

The committee also adopted language that said it supports a variety of ways to prevent banks from gambling with taxpayers' bank deposits, "including an updated and modernized version of Glass-Steagall."

Sanders supports reinstating the Depression-era Glass-Steagall Act, which prohibited commercial banks from engaging in investment banking activities. Clinton does not support reinstating the law but said her proposed financial reforms would cast a wider net by regulating the shadow banking system.

And it approved language calling for the abolition of the death penalty. Clinton said during a debate earlier this year that it should only be used in limited cases involving "heinous crimes," while Sanders said the government should not use capital punishment.

Sanders, a vociferous opponent of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, was unable to get language into the document opposing the trade deal, a move that allowed the party to avoid an awkward scenario that would have put the platform at odds with President Barack Obama.

Clinton and Sanders have opposed the TPP but members of the panel instead backed a measure that said "there are a diversity of views in the party" on the TPP and reaffirmed that Democrats contend any trade deal "must protect workers and the environment."

In a setback for Sanders, the panel narrowly rejected amendments offered by environmentalist Bill McKibben, a Sanders supporter, that would have imposed a tax on carbon and imposed a national moratorium on fracking.

The panel deliberated for about nine hours following several late nights and long hours of policy exchanges between the two campaigns and the Democratic National Committee.

Sanders, in a statement, said he was "disappointed and dismayed" that the group voted down the measure opposing the TPP. But he was pleased with the proposals on Glass-Steagall and the death penalty -- and vowed to fight on.

"Our job is to pass the most progressive platform in the history of the Democratic Party," he said.



EXCERPTS -- “Democrats approved a draft of the party platform early Saturday that includes steps to break up large Wall Street banks, advocates for a $15 an hour wage and urges the abolition of the death penalty, reflecting the influence of Bernie Sanders' presidential campaign. Supporters of presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton defeated measures pushed by Sanders' allies that would have promoted a Medicare-for-all single-payer health care system, a carbon tax to address climate change and impose a moratorium on hydraulic fracking. …. "We lost some but we won some," said James Zogby, a Sanders supporter on the panel. "We got some great stuff in the platform that has never been in there before." Added Rep. Keith Ellison, D-Minn., a Sanders ally: "We've made some substantial moves forward." The convention's full Platform Committee will consider the draft platform in Orlando, Florida, next month and it will be voted on at the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia in late July. …. Deliberating late into the evening, the group considered the document's language on the Israel-Palestinian conflict, an issue that has divided Democrats. The committee defeated an amendment led by Zogby that would have called for providing Palestinians with "an end to occupation and illegal settlements" and urged an international effort to rebuild Gaza. Zogby said Sanders had helped craft the language. The draft reflects Clinton's views and advocates working toward a "two-state solution of the Israel-Palestinian conflict" that guarantees Israel's security with recognized borders "and provides the Palestinians with independence, sovereignty, and dignity." …. Sanders' allies wanted the draft to specify that a $15 per hour minimum wage should be indexed with inflation. But Clinton's side struck down the amendment, noting that the document already included a call to "raise and index the minimum wage." …. Clinton and Sanders have opposed the TPP but members of the panel instead backed a measure that said "there are a diversity of views in the party" on the TPP and reaffirmed that Democrats contend any trade deal "must protect workers and the environment." …. the panel narrowly rejected amendments offered by environmentalist Bill McKibben, a Sanders supporter, that would have imposed a tax on carbon and imposed a national moratorium on fracking.”


In other words, the DNC members’ loyalty to Koch Brothers issues has been maintained; Israel will not be pushed too hard but they will be guided hopefully; US jobs will supposedly be protected and the environment as well; and a $15/hour minimum wage will be the goal. Those are good "talking points." Unfortunately, this is just a draft and I don’t trust the DNC to actually keep those things in. This is the necessary first step, so far so good. If Sanders hadn’t persistently and strongly insisted on his input being considered, I’m sure it wouldn’t have gotten this far. I’m still hoping for a Progressives Party for 2017 if we can get enough together to do any good. The other possibility is the Green Party.