July 12 and 13, 2016


News and Views


DEMS MARSHALLING FORCES


http://www.cbsnews.com/news/bernie-sanders-endorses-hillary-clinton-in-new-hampshire/

Sanders endorses Clinton in New Hampshire
CBS NEWS
July 12, 2016, 11:39 AM

Play VIDEO -- Sanders expected to endorse Clinton at Tuesday rally


At long last, Bernie Sanders gave Hillary Clinton his endorsement at a campaign event Tuesday in Portsmouth, New Hampshire.

"I have come here to make it as clear as possible as to why I'm endorsing Hillary Clinton and why she must become our next president," Sanders told a roaring crowd. "I have come here today not to talk about the past, but to focus on the future," he said, a future will be shaped by what happens in voting booths on Nov. 8th, when Americans go to vote. And Clinton, Sanders said, "is far and away the best candidate" to address the needs of the American people. Clinton, standing next to him, nodded her head and clapped her hands periodically during his speech.

Before his endorsement, Sanders told the crowd he was "proud of the campaign we ran here in New Hampshire," and reminded them that he had "won in 22 states, and when the roll call at the Democratic nomination is announced, it will show that we won almost 1,900 delegates," which he said, "is not enough to win the nomination."

Clinton, he said, has "389 more pledged delegates than we have and a lot more superdelegates. Secretary Clinton has won the Democratic nominating process. And I congratulate her for that. She will be the Democratic nominee for president, and I intend to do everything I can to make certain she will be the next president of the United States."

For her part, the presumptive Democratic nominee praised Sanders, saying that he has energized and inspired a generation of young people who care deeply for this country.

She thanked Sanders not just for his endorsement, but "for your lifetime of fighting injustice. I am proud to be fighting alongside you," she told her former rival for the nomination.

Clinton also acknowledged the violence of the last week between police and black Americans. "These have been difficult days for America," she said, adding that rebuilding bonds between communities and police will require contributions from everyone.

Their appearance at the Tuesday rally takes place less than a week before the Republican National Convention in Cleveland.

Sanders and Clinton fought a long primary battle, in which each after each other's policy positions and voting records. [sic] Sanders at one point even questioned whether Clinton was qualified to be commander-in-chief, although he quickly walked the statement back.

Sanders' longer timetable for endorsing Clinton has attracted attention, compared to Clinton's quick endorsement of then-Senator Obama just a few days after the end of the presidential primary cycle in 2008.



TRUMP GAINING GROUND


http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ahead-gop-convention-donald-trump-gaining-hillary-clinton-election-2016/

Ahead of GOP convention, is Donald Trump gaining ground?
By JAKE MILLER CBS NEWS
July 13, 2016, 1:59 PM

Photograph -- Presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump delivers a speech in Virginia Beach, Virginia U.S. July 11, 2016. REUTERS/GARY CAMERON
Play VIDEO -- How FBI director undermined what Clinton said about private email server
Play VIDEO -- Poll shows Trump ahead in two key states


Is Donald Trump gaining ground on Hillary Clinton?

After a rough few weeks, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee got a welcome bit of good news on Wednesday with the release of new Quinnipiac polls showing him rising in several key swing states.

And it's a good time for some good news: as Republicans begin gathering in Cleveland ahead of next week's GOP convention, the party is striving to project an image of unity and forward momentum after a bruising and divisive primary season.

Quinnipiac found Trump ahead of Clinton by three points in Florida, 42 to 39 percent - a stark turnaround from last month, when Clinton was up by eight points, 47 to 39 percent.

In Pennsylvania, Trump is now up by two points, 43 to 41 percent. Last month, he was down one point in the Keystone State. In Ohio, the race is tied, with both candidates at 41 percent.

All three results are within the poll's margin of error, so they shouldn't be interpreted as a sure sign that Trump has taken the lead in these battleground states. But the numbers should worry Clinton's team - as Quinnipiac's polling team points out, no candidate since 1960 has won the presidency without carrying at least two of the three states in the poll.

It's possible the survey simply comes at an inauspicious time in the news cycle for Clinton. Apart from the media focus on Trump and the GOP veepstakes ahead of the Republican convention, Clinton herself hit a rough patch last week with the conclusion of the FBI investigation into her emails. Investigators decided not to recommend charging her with a crime for her use of a private email server as secretary of state, but they panned her "extremely careless" stewardship of sensitive, classified information, and they cast doubt on several explanations she's provided to explain the controversy.

Quinnipiac found Clinton Trump leading Clinton in all three states on the question of who is more honest and trustworthy, by margins ranging from 10 to 15 points - a marked increase in Trump's lead on that question. And on the question of who has higher moral standards, the two candidates are effectively tied in all three states.

"While there is no definite link between Clinton's drop in Florida and the U.S. Justice Department decision not to prosecute her for her handling of e-mails, she has lost ground to Trump on questions which measure moral standards and honesty," explains Peter A. Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac poll.

Only time will tell whether Clinton is able to arrest Trump's rise and swing the pendulum in the opposite direction. The endorsement she received yesterday from her erstwhile primary rival, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, could help pull a few more skeptical liberals into her fold. But with the GOP convention slated to begin next Monday, Clinton may have to wait for the Democrats' own convention the following week to really find the breathing room to reassert herself.

Some other polls out this week show the race remains close nationally and in several battleground states.

A Monmouth poll released Tuesday found Trump barely edging Clinton out in Iowa, 44 to 42 percent, with six percent going to Libertarian nominee Gary Johnson.

In Nevada, though, Monmouth found Clinton ahead of Trump 45 to 41 percent, with Johnson nabbing five percent.

In Colorado, Harper Polling, a Republican-aligned outfit, found Clinton ahead of Trump 45 to 38 percent in a poll released Monday.

Nationally, according to a McClatchy/Marist poll released Wednesday, Clinton is ahead of Trump, 42 to 39 percent. If Johnson and Green Party nominee Jill Stein are added to the mix, Clinton's lead increases to five points, 40 to 35 percent, while Johnson draws 10 percent and Stein draws five percent.

And in the same four-way matchup, an Economist/YouGov survey released Wednesday found Clinton up by three points, 40 to 37 percent, with five percent going to Johnson and two percent going to Stein.



I’m not going to go through this and try to analyze it, but rather to present it as is. The analysis of several leading polls show a small but increasing lead by Trump over Clinton. I know that the paths of polls, just like those of a hurricane, taken hour to hour do indeed change rapidly, but this is a dangerous trend if it continues. I hope this doesn’t reflect those Sanders followers who are not planning to vote for Hillary in order to vote against Trump, because that is what the problem is. An article in the last few days was on the subject of the failure of younger voters under 30 to champion Hillary, even as Sanders has requested that they should. He is not teaming up with Clinton because he has thrown in the towel, but in order to unite forces against the loony tunes Rightist, Trump. My heart isn’t in it, but my head is. I will vote for Hillary.




http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ruth-bader-ginsburg-doesnt-like-trump-should-she-be-saying-that-publicly/

Ruth Bader Ginsburg doesn't like Trump. Should she be saying that publicly?
CBS NEWS
July 13, 2016, 1:22 PM

Play VIDEO -- Antonin Scalia and Ruth Bader Ginsburg's lasting friendship


Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has been saying unflattering things about Donald Trump over the course of the past week in three different interviews. She called Donald Trump "a faker," criticized him for not releasing his tax returns (and the media for not being hard enough on him about it). She worries for the next four years if he wins the presidency, and shudders for the future of the court. Far away New Zealand is looking like more than a scenic vacation spot if he wins, she seemed to half-joke.

It's no secret that Supreme Court justices have their presidential preferences, but should they be talking about them out loud?

Trump, the subject of Ginsburg's recent volubility, thinks not. In a 1 a.m. tweet, he said "her mind is shot," and he called for her to resign. He told the New York Times what she's said about him is a disgrace to the Supreme Court.

The Washington Post weighed in with an editorial published late Monday afternoon. While the ed board felt that nothing she said about the presumptive GOP nominee was untrue, her comments the Washington Post editorial said, were "much better left unsaid by a member of the Supreme Court."

Federal judges live by a code of conduct that demands they not "publicly endorse or oppose a candidate for public office." While Supreme Court justices are not held to that standard, the Post thinks they probably should be.

"Justice Ginsburg's off-the-cuff remarks about the campaign fall into that limited category of candor that we can't admire, because it's inconsistent with her function in our democratic system," the Post's editorial board wrote.

The New York Times, too, chimed in with its own editorial Tuesday titled "Donald Trump is Right about Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg," declaring that Ginsburg "needs to drop the political punditry and the name-calling." (It is a rare thing for the Times editorial board to say that Trump is right.)

The Times editorial board pointed out that Trump hasn't exactly been a model on the topic of judicial independence with his series of race-based attacks on the judge in the Trump U case, Judge Gonzalo Curiel, but that "made it only more baffling that Justice Ginsburg would choose to descend toward his level and call her own commitment to impartiality into question."

Both editorials mentioned the 2000 presidential Gore v. Bush decision rendered by the Supreme Court as yet another reason justices should avoid giving voice to their political preferences.

One of the nation's top legal ethicists, New York University's Stephen Gillers, expanded on why justices should keep their politics to themselves, in the op-ed section of the Times.

"Acceptance of court rulings is undermined if the public believes that judicial decisions are politically motivated," he wrote. "It's not that judges don't disagree among themselves. But disagreements must be over legal principles, not a ruling's effect on a political candidate or party."

And he suggested that the best guidance on the matter came from Chief Justice John Roberts, who, during his confirmation hearing compared judges to umpires. It's their job, he said, "to call balls and strikes and not to pitch or bat."



“She called Donald Trump "a faker," criticized him for not releasing his tax returns (and the media for not being hard enough on him about it). She worries for the next four years if he wins the presidency, and shudders for the future of the court. Far away New Zealand is looking like more than a scenic vacation spot if he wins, she seemed to half-joke. …. The Washington Post weighed in with an editorial published late Monday afternoon. While the ed board felt that nothing she said about the presumptive GOP nominee was untrue, her comments the Washington Post editorial said, were "much better left unsaid by a member of the Supreme Court." Federal judges live by a code of conduct that demands they not "publicly endorse or oppose a candidate for public office." While Supreme Court justices are not held to that standard, the Post thinks they probably should be. …. One of the nation's top legal ethicists, New York University's Stephen Gillers, expanded on why justices should keep their politics to themselves, in the op-ed section of the Times. "Acceptance of court rulings is undermined if the public believes that judicial decisions are politically motivated," he wrote. "It's not that judges don't disagree among themselves. But disagreements must be over legal principles, not a ruling's effect on a political candidate or party." And he suggested that the best guidance on the matter came from Chief Justice John Roberts, who, during his confirmation hearing compared judges to umpires. It's their job, he said, "to call balls and strikes and not to pitch or bat."

All these voices are calling for judicial impartiality, but that very impartiality has been by the evidence of the eyes, largely a fiction. The Post, above says “Supreme Court justices are not held to that standard.” I will grudgingly agree that psychologically speaking, she shouldn’t have voiced those obviously pained opinions; yet she can be considered to be another of those in important positions who are obviously speaking out against Trump to warn an apparently sleeping US public of a politically dangerous situation.

Her comment that she may defect to New Zealand is prescient, though she was “half-joking.” A number of Sanders followers have said with complete sincerity the same thing, and I myself agree with the idea. I have personally been thinking of Canada, but even Canada was in the news a couple of months or so ago for having a rise in the Rightist forces there. I’m afraid those groups may be in existence and growing in power wherever the population is predominantly White.

That is scary. When the US citizenry no longer champion the freedom for all, a genuine ability to rise economically if we get the right education and work hard, and the right to food, housing and health care for all who are in need, this won’t feel quite like my country any more. Let’s face it, “the poor” includes more and more people as time goes on, and Rightists are destroying the Bill of Rights methodically (except for the Second Amendment, that is.)

It’s time for Democrats to be elected again to posts across the country, and to become once more the inclusive and idealistic party that we once were, after the Depression and before the Civil Rights changes of the 60s, that is. Ronald Reagan then came in and won disaffected Dixiecrats to his side, by his ultraconservative philosophy and his good old boy ways, and really diminished egalitarian beliefs in this country. Go Hillary and Bernie!



HEALTHCARE TWO ARTICLES

http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/07/12/485722217/red-tape-leaves-some-low-income-toddlers-without-health-insurance

Red Tape Leaves Some Low-Income Toddlers Without Health Insurance
MICHELLE ANDREWS
July 12, 20162:51 PM ET

Photograph -- Toddlers need consistent care from a pediatrician to make sure, among other things, that they are hitting developmental milestones and their vaccinations are up-to-date., Tetra Images/Getty Images


Many babies born to mothers who are covered by Medicaid are automatically eligible for that health insurance coverage during their first year of life. In a handful of states, the same is true for babies born to women covered by the Children's Health Insurance Program.

Yet, this smart approach is routinely undermined by another federal policy that requires babies' eligibility for these programs to be reevaluated on their first birthday. Although they're likely still eligible for coverage, many of these toddlers don't get it because of a tangle of red tape.

People often cycle in and out of Medicaid and CHIP, state/federal health programs for low-income residents, as their income or family circumstances change. Such churning is a long-recognized problem. The requirement that people renew their coverage annually may also cause hiccups.

"Many people lose Medicaid coverage for procedural reasons," says Shelby Gonzales, a senior health policy analyst at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. "But there are all sorts of things that are unique about babies turning 1" that present extra challenges.

"You hate any baby to lose coverage," says Jill Hanken, a lawyer with the Virginia Poverty Law Center who has worked on this issue. "A 1-year-old needs to have consistency with their health care and visits with the pediatrician." Regular well-baby visits ensure kids are developing properly and get scheduled vaccines, among other things.

One potential snag in retaining toddlers' coverage is that their first-year review is pegged to their date of birth, which is generally different from the annual renewal date for other family members' coverage.

In other instances, states that don't seek babies' Social Security numbers until they turn 1 may have a tougher time getting the income and other data they need to process the renewal. And some states mistakenly ask for documentation proving the baby's citizenship, which is not required if Medicaid or CHIP paid for the birth.

Antiquated computer systems sometimes automatically drop babies after their first birthday unless a renewal has been processed. This can be a problem in states that are behind in renewals, which is not uncommon, Gonzales says; some states have scrambled to implement the many requirements of the health law.

It's hard to quantify the extent of the problem nationally. An analysis of data from the 2014 American Community Survey of 700,000 children found that children between the ages of 1 and 2 were less likely than infants to be covered by Medicaid or CHIP. That suggests "some children may be losing Medicaid/CHIP coverage at their first birthday," says Genevieve Kenney, a co-director and senior fellow at the Urban Institute's Health Policy Center.

The experience of the state of Connecticut offers a window on the problem. Connecticut Voices for Children, a policy research and advocacy organization, has tracked the issue closely for several years. In 2008 and 2009, 42 percent of babies who had been considered automatically eligible for Medicaid at birth lost their coverage at the end of the month they turned 1. That's compared with roughly 6 percent of babies who were in other Medicaid coverage groups, such as those whose mothers had employer-sponsored insurance. [i.e. not the automatic coverage, I assume. Lacks specificity. List more of the “other programs.” LMW]

By 2013, when Connecticut Voices revisited coverage gaps, Medicaid and CHIP coverage retention when infants turned 1 had improved significantly. Still, nearly 23 percent of babies with guaranteed coverage for their first year were uninsured after their first birthday. That was true for less than 2 percent of other babies in the state.

During that time the state had revised confusing notices to families that, for example, announced that coverage was ending for infants because, "You are not the right age to be eligible for this program." Advocates also played a role in improving the troubling statistics by working to alert pediatricians and community services providers about the problem.

Though coverage for 1-year-olds has improved, "the problem still persists," says Mary Alice Lee, senior policy fellow at Connecticut Voices for Children. Advocates hope that a new eligibility management system, scheduled to roll out next year, will make a difference.

Elsewhere, advocates in Virginia are also awaiting a computer system fix so that infants who were guaranteed Medicaid coverage for the first year aren't automatically canceled after their birthday. In the meantime, Hanken says, the state changed its policy so that the determination of a newborn's Medicaid eligibility at one year of age is a streamlined renewal, instead of a totally new application for coverage.

"We're about halfway to a solution," Hanken says.

Outdated technology is no excuse for states not addressing this longstanding problem, says Tricia Brooks, a senior fellow at Georgetown University's Center for Children and Families.

These newborns are easily identified, Brooks says, so "if nothing else, [state officials] could go in on a manual basis and trigger a review."

Kaiser Health News is an editorially independent news service that is part of the nonpartisan Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. Michelle Andrews is on Twitter:@mandrews110.



This is a great NPR news article, like so many, digging in depth into the issue. This automatic deletion of babies’ from guaranteed health care after they age to the point of one year, and the complex and often unfair way that programs work is shocking, but not surprising. This kind of legal maneuvering shows the manipulation by “conservatives,” primarily Republicans, of the legal process with no thought for the poor. Mitt Romney’s unfortunate admission that he doesn’t gear his policies and proposals to the poor because the will never vote for him, really illustrates what we Dems have known for years. There is a reason to stick to OUR party rather than collaborate with the Rightists of all stamps. People talk about the value of “bipartisan” politics, but the truth is that it usually means the writing of laws that will NOT help the poor or even the Middle Class. BIG MONEY is dominant to an even greater degree than it was when I was a young voter. That’s the real reason why the DNC is in trouble.

The way our social network is written also is a reminder, to me, of the fact that all Civil Rights, Education, medical care and our economic safety net services in general, should be federally written, administered and funded, rather than by rather than by the states. Our laws are too often a complicated and uncoordinated patchwork quilt of rules which cause babies to be dropped from healthcare, even when Medicaid and CHIP are the sources of the aid. Too many of those babies are born to parents who have been unable to get a job, or at least one with health insurance. Let’s face it, most smaller businesses are unlikely to provide health insurance, and in so many cases they have limited their employee benefits by hiring only part time, contractual or other temporary workers.

This kind of general mish mash of arcane requirements and perhaps even purposeful exclusions of individuals and groups, based on their basic lack of legal power on the part of the poor of all races. Go to Google and look up ALEC on Wikipedia. The article below comments with bias, yes, but very clearly, on the way states are getting their discriminatory new laws. I do hope our united Clinton and Sanders forces can cut down on the power of Tea Partiers and other conservative legislators to weaken the laws that help and protect the poor. Abortion rights, LGBT protection, and even voting rights are also frequently the object of such “legal” but unethical work by both the Congress and the Senate, though the Senate is usually more fair, at least until it too became dominated by Republicans.


http://www.alecexposed.org/wiki/ALEC_Exposed

108 corporations depart ALEC, fund our research today
The Center For Media and Democracy

Through ALEC, Global Corporations Are Scheming to Rewrite YOUR Rights and Boost THEIR Revenue

Through the corporate-funded American Legislative Exchange Council, global corporations and state politicians vote behind closed doors to try to rewrite state laws that govern your rights. These so-called "model bills" reach into almost every area of American life and often directly benefit huge corporations.
In ALEC's own words, corporations have "a VOICE and a VOTE" on specific changes to the law that are then proposed in your state. DO YOU? Numerous resources to help us expose ALEC are provided below. We have also created links to detailed discussions of key issues, which are available on the left.

Join the Conversation! [GO TO WEBSITE.]



http://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-latest-on-the-alton-sterling-shooting-investigation-baton-rouge/

Latest on the Alton Sterling shooting investigation
CBS/AP
July 11, 2016, 7:18 PM

Play VIDEO -- Healing begins in Baton Rouge after Alton Sterling shooting
Related: Convenience store owner sues police -- Abdullah Muflahi, the owner of the convenience store Triple S Food Mart where the shooting of Sterling took place, is suing the police.
Play VIDEO -- Baton Rouge protests turned tense and dangerous
22 PHOTOS -- Controversial killings by police



BATON ROUGE, La. -- There are new developments in the investigation into the death of Alton Sterling, the black man who was fatally shot while pinned to the ground by two Baton Rouge police officers in front of a convenience store last week.

On July 5, officers responded to a convenience store about 12:35 a.m. after an anonymous caller indicated a man selling music CDs and wearing a red shirt threatened him with a gun, Baton Rouge police have said. Two officers responded and had some type of altercation with the man in the parking lot, and one officer fatally shot the suspect.

The incident was captured on multiple cellphone videos, and has helped contribute to the growing protests against police violence, that also included the slaying of five police officers protecting a protest in Dallas.

In a statement, the U.S. Justice Department said the FBI's New Orleans Division, the Civil Rights Division and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Middle District of Louisiana have opened a civil rights investigation into the 37-year-old's death. Louisiana State Police will assist, Gov. John Bel Edwards has said.

Here is the latest:

Muflahi, who shot video on his cellphone of the shooting, claims in court documents that he was illegally detained for four hours following the shooting of Sterling.

Muflahi said that after Sterling's death, police confiscated the store's security system without a warrant. Muflahi said he was then taken into custody. He said his cellphone was also confiscated, and he was locked in the back of the police car for approximately four hours.
In court documents, Muflahi said he was forced to relieve himself outside in front of officers, after being denied to use the restroom inside his convenience store. He was then brought to the police station, where he was kept behind locked doors for an additional two hours.

Muflahi previously released a video of the shooting that he said he shot from a slightly different angle. He said Sterling was not holding a gun during the shooting, but that he saw officers remove one from his pocket afterward. His video shows an officer reaching into Sterling's pocket to grab an object. Muflahi said an officer fired four to six shots into Sterling's chest.

Court documents also reveal Muflahi knew Sterling, and allowed him to sell CDs in the parking lot of the store. According to documents, Sterling was also sometimes a customer at the store.

Search warrants issued by police give a look into the police account of Sterling's death.

According to documents, officers claim they asked Sterling to put his hands on the hood of a nearby vehicle after receiving an anonymous phone-call from someone saying they were threatened by a man with a gun. When Sterling allegedly wouldn't comply with officer's orders, police tried to restrain him, using Tasers.

According to documents, when officers were trying to subdue Sterling, they observed the butt of a gun in his pants. Police said they then observed Sterling reach for the gun, and as a result, they shot him.

DA recuses himself

The district attorney in the case of Sterling announced Monday he is stepping down from the investigation.

East Baton Rouge District Attorney Hillar Moore said at a news conference he has known the parents of Blane Salamoni, one of the officers in case, for a long time, and therefore it could be inappropriate for him to be a part of the investigation into what happened.

Moore said Salamoni's parents are both high-ranking career police officers, and that he's worked with them often during his 42-year career.

Baton Rouge Police have identified the officers as as [sic] Salamoni, a four-year veteran, and three-year veteran Howie Lake II. They have been placed on administrative leave, which is standard department policy.

Video of the shooting

Police said they have dashcam video, bodycam video and store surveillance footage of the shooting that will be turned over to the Justice Department. The Justice Department will look into whether the officers willfully violated Sterling's civil rights through the use of unreasonable or excessive force.

In cellphone video, which appears to be shot from inside a nearby parked car, one of two police officers outside the store can be seen tackling a man in a red shirt and wrestling him to the ground. Then the other officer helps him hold the man down.

At one point someone can be heard saying, "He's got a gun! Gun!" and then one officer on top of the man can be seen pulling his weapon from his holster. After some shouting, what sounds like a gunshot can be heard and the camera pulls away. Then another four shots can be heard. At one point, a person in the vehicle asks, "They shot him?" as a woman can be heard crying.

An autopsy shows Sterling died of multiple gunshot wounds to the chest and back, East Baton Rouge Parish Coroner Dr. William Clark said.

CBS News correspondent David Begnaud contributed to this report.



“East Baton Rouge District Attorney Hillar Moore said at a news conference he has known the parents of Blane Salamoni, one of the officers in case, for a long time, and therefore it could be inappropriate for him to be a part of the investigation into what happened. Moore said Salamoni's parents are both high-ranking career police officers, and that he's worked with them often during his 42-year career. …. Police said they have dashcam video, bodycam video and store surveillance footage of the shooting that will be turned over to the Justice Department. The Justice Department will look into whether the officers willfully violated Sterling's civil rights through the use of unreasonable or excessive force. …. An autopsy shows Sterling died of multiple gunshot wounds to the chest and back, East Baton Rouge Parish Coroner Dr. William Clark said.”


How did he manage to get shot in the back, I wonder? I am really glad to see that this DA has recused himself and revealed the Salamoni’s parents are both high level officers in the force. I await the further unraveling of this case. In one of these two killings a high ranking official, the governor I think, personally and voluntarily called in the DOJ. In this case, according to
www.dallasnews.com/.../20160706-justice-dep..., The Dallas Morning News, the Baton Rouge head of the NAACP called in the request. All the same, the DA is responding correctly.

Muflahi’s lawsuit on what is undoubtedly improper behavior on the part of police is more damning. Cops really shouldn’t do this kind of thing anymore, because citizens aren’t nearly as frightened of them as they were in some earlier times, and capably defend themselves in many instances. Whether or not he was targeted for rough treatment by the police because of his religious and ethnic background, he was surely abused and harassed for have the sheer temerity to go against the police department’s claim of self-defense. We need more citizens like that. Most people simply won’t side with a victim, probably because of fear of repercussions, but too often because they themselves lack compassion. I hope the lawsuit will help to further the Sterling family’s desire for justice.



http://www.cbsnews.com/news/alton-sterling-son-cameron-father-police-shooting-death-dallas-ambush/

Son of Alton Sterling: "Protest the right way"
CBS NEWS
July 13, 2016, 7:03 AM

Play VIDEO -- Protesters arrested during clashes with Baton Rouge police
Play VIDEO -- Alton Sterling's family speaks at emotional news conference


At just 15, Cameron Sterling is preparing for his father's funeral. He's also thinking about the protests that are happening across the country and the police ambush in Dallas, which was motivated in part by his father's fatal shooting.

Shortly after his father was gunned down and killed by Baton Rouge police, Cameron broke down as his mother, Quinyetta McMillon, spoke at a news conference.

"The individuals involved in his murder took away a man with children," McMillon said, as Cameron wept uncontrollably into a family member's arms.

"I want my daddy back," he could be heard saying as his mother demanded justice for his father.

"I really want everyone to know, everyone nationwide, everyone in this world, to know that Alton Sterling was a good man," Cameron told CBS News correspondent David Begnaud. "No matter what anyone else has to say about him, truly in my heart, I know he was a good dad."

"I'll never forget that image of you wailing on the side of your mom," Begnaud said.

"When I put my arm around her, it's like somebody else's hand touched me, like I had another hand laying on top of my hand. And when I looked over, was nobody else touching me. Nobody else was touching me. And it was like at that moment I knew: my daddy here -- he right on the side of her," Cameron said. "We're standing here as a family together once again. That's when I just started crying... I knew I can't physically have him back, so I knew I had to cry, just to be like, 'I want my daddy back.'"

"If you had an opportunity to say one thing to your dad... what would it be?" Begnaud asked.

"I love you... so dearly," Cameron said.

Still, his father's death hasn't changed his opinion that "all police aren't bad."

"They all aren't bad. There are some that are bad, but all aren't bad. How I feel? I feel all police shouldn't be punished for other police's crimes," Cameron said. "The police in Dallas, Texas... they didn't deserve that because, nobody knew if they had kids to go home to. Those kids need their parents."

Alton Sterling's shooting death by police - captured on camera - then Philando Castile's shooting death in Minnesota the following day - this time, live streamed on Facebook - sparked protests nationwide. In Dallas, that turned violent, when a sniper opened fire, targeting and killing five police officers and wounding nine others, including two civilians.

While Cameron condemns the killings in Dallas, he asked that people continue protesting, but under one condition.

"But what I want, what I ask if you truly love my father, I truly just want everyone to protest the right way -- protesting in peace. Not in violence," Cameron said. "Not beating the police, not police beating the people. That makes no sense. That make things worse. You have to make things better by making peace."

During a press conference Wednesday morning, Cameron urged protesters to not bring alcohol or guns to demonstrations. He also made a call for unity.

"I feel that people in general, no matter what their race is, should come together as one united family," Cameron told reporters. "There should be no more arguments, disagreements, violence, crimes. Everyone should come together as one united family."

Cameron will travel to Washington, D.C., Thursday, where he is expected to meet President Obama during a town hall before saying his final goodbye to his dad Friday.



This young man is very mature, gentle, intelligent and well-spoken. It surprises me that a 15 year-old would use these words. Clearly he was well-brought up and a good citizen of a fair and democratic nation. I do believe that, despite the rise lately of those old traditional elements who are anti-black, anti-ethnic, anti-safety net and anti-everything else that is gentle in our society, we still have a sizable number who are open and fair in the way they relate to other human beings. I pray they will grow stronger and more numerous and vote for our good progressives who are increasingly coming into federal, state and local offices across the country. This is another one of those articles that fills me with hope and pride. Bless you, Cameron! I hope to see you in Congress someday.