Indiana Pizza Ship Cites RFRA To Refuse Catering Gay Weddings

Pizza

By the time I had time to start working on a post on the so-called Religious Freedom Restoration Act in Indiana earlier this week the national outraged had already reached such a level that there was no longer any point in the original post. The negatives have all be adequately spelled out at many sources. The best defense for conservatives on this was the claim that the law was not intended to promote discrimination and would not do so. We quickly have a case proving them wrong:

A small-town pizza shop is saying they agree with Governor Pence and the signing of the controversial Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

The O’Connor family, who owns Memories Pizza, says they have a right to believe in their religion and protect those ideals.

“If a gay couple came in and wanted us to provide pizzas for their wedding, we would have to say no,” says Crystal O’Connor of Memories Pizza.

She and her family are standing firm in their beliefs.

The O’Connors have owned Memories Pizza in Walkerton for 9 years.

It’s a small-town business, with small-town ideals.

“We are a Christian establishment,” says O’Connor.

The O’Connor family prides themselves in owning a business that reflects their religious beliefs.

“We’re not discriminating against anyone, that’s just our belief and anyone has the right to believe in anything,” says O’Connor.

So, when Governor Pence signed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act into law, the family was not disappointed.

“We definitely agree with the bill,” says O’Connor.

I certainly have not read everything posted by supporters of the law, but I can’t help but wonder if there are any such examples of people actually being denied religious liberties who would be helped by this law. I mean true religious liberties. Quite often when people on the right speak of freedom of religion they are really advocating the freedom to impose their religious views on others.

And why must a pizza shop be “a Christian establishment?”

At least the backlash against the law in Indiana has also had some positive impact with Governor Asa Hutchinson backing away from signing a similar law. I believe we are at a tipping point where discrimination against gays is no more acceptable than discrimination based upon race. That doesn’t man it will disappear from our society, but even Republican politicians will find it difficult to openly support such legislation.

New York Times Helps Outline Path To Defeating Clinton For Democratic Nomination

Clinton Defeating

Among many liberals the question with Clinton preparing to announce her candidacy is not whether it is desirable to stop Hillary Clinton from becoming the Democratic nomination but whether this is even possible. Last week The Boston Globe urged Elizabeth Warren to run, and many liberals are pushing for this despite Warren’s statements that she is not interested. Now a story at The New York Times looks at the general strategy of defeating Clinton.  Maggie Haberman, the presidential campaign correspondent for The New York Times, spoke with people she referred to as “three of the smartest Democratic strategists we know.” Their identities were not divulged “so as not to anger Mrs. Clinton.”

Even before getting to the strategy points, this raises the question as to whether this is an isolated article or if it is a sign that Clinton is losing The New York Times. The need to keep the identities of the strategists secret can be taken as both a sign of the reluctance of those who depend upon Democrats for their likelihood to anger Clinton and as a sign of what people feel about her.

There were three main strategic points in this article. The first was Populism:

Any Democrat who takes on Mrs. Clinton should be a truth-telling populist, challenging the party from within and tapping into the energy and aspirations of the Democratic base.

This is especially crucial given Mrs. Clinton’s popularity with African-Americans, a significant voting bloc in Democratic primaries. One suggestion for reaching those voters? Focus on improving policing, after a national debate and protests set off by the deaths of unarmed black men in Missouri and New York City.

Another area that the right candidate could seize upon: immigration. Pound away at Democratic leaders for not passing a comprehensive overhaul when there was a chance to do so in 2014.

Another strategist said the challenger should focus on a few big-ticket ideas, like a transaction tax on Wall Street that would finance renewable energy, and hammer the utilities for harming energy independence.

“I wouldn’t give Hillary hell, I’d tell the truth and make her think it’s hell,” the strategist said, echoing former President Harry S. Truman. “I’d try to build my own momentum, not blunt hers.”

Eating into Clinton’s support among blacks is important from the standpoint of primary votes, but the legendary Clinton support from blacks has been diminished by her attacks on Barack Obama in the 2008 primaries, which many feel went over the line f or what is acceptable in a primary battle.  Her Wall Street connections have been mentioned frequently in criticism of Clinton, with this issue being raised by open challenger Martin O’Malley and non-challenger Elizabeth Warren. A successful challenge on her economic views could also help cut into Clinton’s blue collar support.

Foreign Policy was listed second:

“She’s to the right of where the party is on a lot of these issues,” one of the strategists said. Mrs. Clinton has traditionally favored a more muscular response in places like Syria, the source of one of her biggest policy disagreements with President Obama while she was secretary of state.

Clinton was on the far Joe Lieberman right win of the Democratic Party on Iraq, pushing for war based upon non-existent ties between Saddam and al Qaeda. She was generally the strongest supporter of military action in the Obama administration (often countered by Joe Biden). The degree to which this matters from a political perspective will depend upon how war weary the country is a year from now.

The third factor was Authenticity:

For more than a decade, Mrs. Clinton has tried to swat away a persistent concern about her ability to connect with voters. “Saturday Night Live” recently captured that problem in a sketch featuring an actress playing Mrs. Clinton, who said of herself at one point, “What a relatable laugh!”

Years of security-infused Bubble Wrap around her travels and a wealthy lifestyle have done little to pull Mrs. Clinton closer to voters.

The best hope for someone running against her, all three strategists said, was to be real. And the best environment to showcase that genuineness may be Iowa. A challenger could camp out there, have a lot of up-close voter interactions, build a relationship with activists in the state and hope to catch fire.

Mrs. Clinton has always had trouble in Iowa, and she never totally connected with voters there. One of the strategists advocated saving as much money as possible to spend in Iowa for a late media push.

Clinton’s authenticity and integrity have been further challenged by her claims of  being dead broke after leaving the White House and with the recent email scandal. While few people will vote based upon her having a private email server, this scandal does demonstrate what critics have often said about Clinton. It verifies the suspicions of her dishonesty. Her two main defenses, convenience due to not wanting to carry two devices (even though she actually did), and claims that she did not break the rules, were both shown to be false.

Clinton’s attacks on Republicans for shredding the Constitution when they used a server from the Republican National Committee, and the citing of use of personal email as one reason for the firing of an ambassador under her, are consistent with the view that the Clintons believe that the rules do not apply to them.  This also ties into Clinton’s long-standing propensity towards secrecy, both in her political life and in policy matters. Her contributions from foreign donors raises further suspicions, but Clinton has made it quite difficult to follow the money.

Much of the criticism raised of Clinton by these Democratic strategists are similar to questions raised in the past about the poor judgment she has shown throughout her career.

While strategies discussed above include means for cutting into Clinton’s support among black and working class voters, some liberal feminists are also coming out to criticize Clinton’s history on feminist issues. While this is beyond the scope of this post, I will briefly note the main points which are generally raised:

  1. Clinton undermines the case for abortion rights with calls for abortion to be safe, legal, and rare, stigmatizing women who do seek abortions
  2. Clinton’s history of undermining women who have been subjects of sexual harassment
  3. Anti-feminist actions as an attorney including her attacks on a rape victim
  4. A relative lackluster record on women’s issues and taking contributions from counties with a pitiful record on women’s rights such as Saudi Arabia

Clinton is similarly weak on other social issues such as gay marriage which might have some impact in primaries among the Democratic base.

Despite these thoughts from the Democratic strategists, defeating Clinton for the Democratic nomination will not be easy. While difficult, the attempt should be made in order to have a liberal choice in the 2016 election.

AP Finds Proof That Clinton Lied In Email Obtained Through FOIA Request

Clinton Email

The coverup is worse than the crime in politics, and in Hillary Clinton’s case the lies might be her undoing. It was clear during her press conference on her use of a private email server that she was lying, and fact checkers quickly debunked many of her claims. Her justification for using a private server because of not wanting to use two email devices never sounded plausible considering that it was quickly established that she stated in recent interviews that she was using two devices, and that while Secretary of State she had shown her use of a large purse which contained other electronic gadgets. AP has now showed that Clinton was lying and had carried two devices for email while Secretary of State:

Hillary Rodham Clinton emailed her staff on an iPad as well as a BlackBerry while secretary of state, despite her explanation she exclusively used a personal email address on a homebrew server so that she could carry a single device, according to documents obtained by The Associated Press.

The State Department released a total of four emails between Clinton and her top advisers as part of a Freedom of Information Act request filed in 2013 by the AP, which sought Clinton’s correspondence with senior advisers over a four-year period relating to drone strikes overseas and U.S. surveillance programs.

While limited, the emails offer one of the first looks into Clinton’s correspondence while secretary of state. The messages came from and were sent to her private email address, hosted on a server at her property in Chappaqua, New York, as opposed to a government-run email account…

Clinton spokesman Nick Merrill said early Tuesday that the secretary used her iPad from time to time, primarily to read news clippings…

The emails obtained by AP stem from several public-records requests filed with the State Department, starting in 2010. Most were unfulfilled until this week, when the State Department said it could find only four messages that met the search terms of one such request.

Earlier this month, AP sued the department to force the release of email correspondence and government documents from Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state, including those provided by the department this week.

It has also been demonstrated that Clinton was in violation of the rules in effect in 2009 despite her claims of not having broken the rules. Last Friday it was revealed that Clinton has erased the server.

Both the revelations of Clinton’s violation of rules related to government transparency, and her dishonest handling of the matter, have many questioning the wisdom of letting Clinton walking into the nomination unopposed. For example, H.A. Goodman wrote the following in a post on the challenge from Martin O’Malley (which I wrote about yesterday):

…it’s important to note that recent polls stating Hillary Clinton enjoys advantages over the competition were taken before “Emailgate” evolved into a contentious issue. For example, a Gallup Poll titled Clinton Favorability Among Dems Better Than Last Campaign reads, “Results for this Gallup poll are based on telephone interviews conducted March 2-4, 2015.” Since March 2, the scandal mushroomed, so perhaps it’s time for a paradigm shift within the Democratic Party. People like Martin O’Malley, Elizabeth Warren, Jim Webb, and Tim Kaine are just as capable of getting 270 Electoral Votes in 2016, and none of them own their own server.

Martin O’Malley So Far The Only Liberal In Democratic Race For 2016

omalley-abc-this-week

The prospect of Hillary Clinton becoming the Democratic candidate has many liberals increasingly worried considering how out of step Clinton is with liberal views on foreign policy, social issues, government ethics, and the economy. If it comes to it, I believe most liberals will hold their nose and vote for Clinton as opposed to risking another Gore v. Bush campaign in which the Nader votes helped determine the result. However that would be a purely defensive vote for a candidate who does not share our values to prevent a greater evil from being elected. While we are still in the nominating process, many liberals do prefer to see the Democrats nominate a liberal candidate.

There has been considerable excitement around Elizabeth Warren, including recent calls from the Boston Globe, and just recently Lawrence Lessig, for Warren to run. There is even a draft Joe Biden web site. Martin O’Malley might not be as exciting to the grass roots as Warren but he does have one thing going for him. Unlike Warren, O’Malley is actually talking about running.

O’Malley appeared on ABC’s This Week. From MSNBC:

Former Maryland governor Martin O’Malley took a swipe at likely 2016 contenders Hillary Rodham Clinton and Jeb Bush on Sunday, saying that “the presidency of the United States is not some crown to be passed between two families.”

Appearing on ABC’s “This Week,” O’Malley, who is weighing a possible run against Clinton for the Democratic nomination, called the presidency “an awesome and sacred trust to be earned and exercised on behalf of the American people.”

O’Malley — who at times has been reluctant to take on Clinton directly — declined to say whether he thought the former secretary of state would stand up to Wall Street and other special interests. “I don’t know where she stands,” he told host George Stephanopoulos. “Will she represent a break with the failed policies of the past? Well, I don’t know.”

O’Malley is trying to position himself as a more liberal and forward-looking alternative to Clinton, who holds a commanding lead in early polls among Democratic voters and is expected to make her bid official next month.

Chris Cillizza is among the journalists who see O’Mallley as getting more aggressive against Clinton:

So, what’s changed? Well, for one, O’Malley and his team quite clearly see an opening — no matter how small — caused by Clinton’s unforced error on her e-mails. Ramping up the rhetoric is a probing attempt by O’Malley to see whether there really is a plausible path to beat — or at least seriously challenge — Clinton in a primary. Could a liberal’s liberal without a famous last name have a chance — if that person was willing to push (and push hard) the idea that Clinton represents an unnecessary compromise of ideals and an unnecessary continuation of the dynastic politics that people say they don’t like?

Many front runners have lost in the past, including Ed Muskie, Joe Lieberman, Gary Hart,  Rudy Giuliani, and Hillary Clinton in 2008. Clinton does have an unprecedented lead, but she is also in an unusual situation. Her support comes from a combination of her name and gender, but her views are to the right of the party base which turns out in primaries. She has been a poor campaigner, including stumbling in her book tour and response to the email controversy, in addition to the problems in her 2008 campaign. She remains the most likley winner, but not inevitable.

On the other hand, while O’Malley looks like an unlikely winner, the Democrats have often nominated governors who were not well-known nationally before the campaign. This includes ultimate general election winners such as Carter and Bill Clinton, and losers such as Dukakis. O’Malley has a long-shot, but not impossible, chance at winning just by showing up in the nomination race if more Democrats reconsider whether they really want to see the party move to the right, under a leader with a history of poor judgement and loose ethics.

SciFi Weekend: The X-Files To Return; Huge Twist on 12 Monkeys; Werewolf Don Draper 2043; Another Unforgettable Scene on The Americans; Jason Katims and Craig T. Nelson Returning To Television

X Files

Fox has officially decided to go ahead with a six episode revival of The X-Files. Here is what we know from various web reports, including an interview with Chris Carter at XFilesNews.com.  Gillian Anderson and David Duchovny will be back and Carter is looking into the availability of others, including William B. Davis and Mitch Pileggi.

Chris Carter mentions that there will be a nice mix of mythology and stand alone episodes, but what is the set up after all is said and done? Will this be the final ride or are we keeping the door open?

“It’s a good question,” he snickers. “I don’t want to answer it exactly because I wanna keep people guessing.” If the man of mystery and I were in the same room, I’m betting that statement would have come with a wink.

The reality is that it’s been seven years since the last movie, and we always wonder what would be the storyline to tackle? How would time affect these characters, and how would time shift the way in which these stories would be told? After all, the world has changed, and so has TV and you would expect that time has also shown face in Mulder and Scully’s universe.

But Carter is firm in his response, “I don’t think it will actually change anything, of course, with the new technology we’ll certainly see Mulder and Scully carrying different cell phones.”

…Still, he assures me that time won’t influence the stories, per se. “We’re going to tell X-Files the way that we’ve always told them; we will of course set them in the time and place that they exist. We’re telling contemporary stories about contemporary situations, true to Mulder and Scully’s characters and their relationship and the passage of time.”

“But where do we land? Are we going to have a time jump? Are we going to address the 2012 deadline? And what about William?” I ask.

“I’ve thought about that,” he says referring to the colonization date. “I don’t know exactly how I’m going to address it, in a big way, a mild way, a modern way, a mention or a plot point.” Then he adds, “And of course you can’t avoid to deal with the William (arc) in some way or another.”

More at Entertainment Weekly

12 Monkeys Shonin

12 Monkeys finally showed why 1987 was so important in Shonin’, and it was sure a surprise. Going into the episode we knew that Cole was in 1987 and this is possibly the last time jump he can take. Ramse went to the same year, wanting to preserve the current timeline so that his son would be born. I’m sure everyone expected there would be a fight between Cole and Ramse, but not how it would turn out. Ramse spent several years in prison after apparently killing Cole, but was ultimately freed from prison and brought to the United States by Olivia, where he winds up at an estate with The Pallid Man.

Ramse, thinking that Cole is dead, thought he only had to prevent any changes in order for his timeline to come about. Ramse and Olivia are working behind the scenes to make sure things occur as we have seen them during the season, and making sure that Cole’s plans inevitably failed. The plan would probably work if Jones didn’t come up with a great idea. Possibly only having one time jump left, she splintered him to Cassie’s apartment in 2015 rather than bringing him back to her present. Presumably Cassie will arrange for medical treatment for Cole’s knife wounds, and now they both realize what Ramse has been doing. This sets up for quite a confrontation for the end of the first season. The show has already been renewed for a second season.

Shield Second Shield

Kirk Acevedo, who plays Ramse, also appeared on Agents of SHIELD last week as a deputy for Robert Gonzales, the head of the “other SHIELD” played by Edward James Olmos. In other comic-based television shows, all over at The CW, The Flash reversed the shocking events of the previous week thanks to time travel, but viewers now know far more. There are promotional pictures floating around of Stephen Amell in League of Assassins attire but Marc Guggenheim won’t comment as to what that means. iZombie has gotten off to a good start.

Among unconfirmed rumors flying around this week, ABC might be ready to renew Agent Carter next week and CBS might be thinking of going ahead with another Star Trek television series.  Matt Weiner is swearing television critics to secrecy on four points regarding the final episodes of Mad Men, including what year it takes place in. The top rumors on Twitter are that it takes place in 2043 and that we learn that Don Draper is a Space Werewolf. I hope the rumors regarding the first two shows are true, and it would be absolutely awesome if the third was true (not).

the-americans-do-mail-robots-dream-of-electric-sheep_article_story_large

The Americans is primarily a cerebral spy show which critics and its small base of viewers love, but some hate for its slow pace. That hasn’t kept it from having four unforgettable scenes this season: packing Annelise‘s body in a suitcase, home dental work, death by fire, and perhaps its most chilling death scene last week. It was probably not possible to top the incineration scene last week with violence which would be acceptable on television. Instead they topped it in yet a different way, in an episode which also had the greatest name: in an homage to Philip K. Dick: Do Mail Robots Dream of Electric Sheep?

On what seemed like a simple mission to plant  bug on the FBI’s mail robot while in for repairs,Elizabeth and Phillip found that Betty, played by Lois Smith,  had picked “a bad time” to do paperwork at night when she didn’t expect interruptions. In cases like this, the witness is frequently killed, but sometimes they do find ways to spare them. There was a battle of wits between Elizabeth and Betty. Their conversation was fascinating, with obvious comparisons to Elizabeth’s feelings for her own mother, and to a lesser degree to the relationship between Philip and Martha.

For a while the drama was enhanced by not knowing if Betty would live or die. Then everything changed when Elizabeth mentioned her mother, Betty asked where she lives, and Elizabeth answered honestly that she was in Russia.

Betty: “You aren’t going to let me leave. Are you?”
Elizabeth: “It’s not possible, no.
Betty: “This is not how I expected it to end—the story.

At least Betty rationalized this is a better ending than dying drunk in the street, alone in front of the television, or withering away in a hospital. Elizabeth forced her to overdose on her heart medicine, and the two continued their conversation as long as possible while Betty took the pills one by one. Just before dying, Betty asked Elizabeth why she was doing what she was doing and Elizabeth, always the good Russian, said it was to make the world a better place:

Betty: “Do you think doing this to me will make the world a better place?”
Elizabeth: “I’m sorry, but it will.”
Betty: “That’s what evil people tell themselves when they do evil things.”

Of course on The Americans the world is far grayer than this.

Much more happened on the episode. Hans was so much cruder in killing Tod.  After the discussion with Phillip, Gabriel might have to find someone else to play Scrabble with. Martha is strangely going along with her fantasy marriage, but at some point this must end. Stan and Oleg are great working together and fighting against each other. Maybe they should get their own spin-off. Curing a headache is done with aspirin and a beer chaser: “It works better if you take it with beer. It’s not supposed to, but it does.” With two mail robots in the robot repair shop, are we going to see an alternate history in which they reproduce and the world is overrun with mail robots? Is this the rise of the machines?

Parenthood Zeek

If you miss both Parenthood-like storytelling and Zeek, both will be back in some form. While NBC has ended both Parenthood and About A Boy, Jason Katims will have a ten episode series next year and, like most of the talented people who previously did shows for NBC, it will be seen elsewhere. Instead of airing on NBC this show, which was part of a deal between  Katims and NBC Universal, will be on Hulu:

Based on a script Katims and his True Jack head of development Michelle Lee created with Goldberg last year, The Way examines a family at the center of a controversial faith-based movement struggling with relationships, marriage and power. Each hourlong episode will take an in-depth look at what it means to choose between the life we live and the life we want. The drama will go into production in the summer. Casting is underway with the goal of nabbing high-end premium talent comparable to Hulu’s casting coup with James Franco in Warner Bros. Television’s J.J. Abrams-Stephen King miniseries 11/22/63.

Goldberg will pen the script and executive produce alongside Katims and Lee via the Parenthood and About a Boy creator’s pact with Universal Television. The deal marks Universal TV and Hulu’s first collaboration (as well as Katims’ first streaming deal). The Way arrives as the streaming service continues to bulk up on studio-produced fare in a bid to compete with Netflix and draw top-name producers.

It looks like Universal might be interested in continuing to make quality television shows, but not air them on NBC. If Universal also owned The Food Network, I’d be waiting for them to move Hannibal there.

In a less daring move, NBC is bringing Craig T. Nelson back in a re revival of Coach:

NBC’s sequel picks up 18 years after “Coach” went off the air in 1997 following a nearly 200-episode run. Nelson’s beleaguered football coach is now retired and is called back to become the assistant coach to his own grown son, who is now the new head coach at an Ivy League school in Pennsylvania that is just starting up a new team.

Clinton Out-Nixons Nixon And Erases The Email

Rose_Mary_Woods

The conventional wisdom is that Richard Nixon would have survived Watergate if he had erased the tapes. Democrats were outraged by the eighteen and a half minutes which were “accidentally” erased by Nixon’s secretary, Rose Mary Woods. In a late Friday news dump we learned that Hillary Milhouse Clinton, who once accused the Bush administration of shredding the Constitution with their use of private email, out-Nixoned Nixon. The New York Times and Politico reported that Clinton has deleted all of what she claims to be private email after October 28 when the State Department first requested that Clinton turn over the email kept on her private server, violating rules in effect as of 2009. The server has been wiped clean.

Clinton had given contradictory answers regarding the email at her news conference, in which media fact checkers found multiple untrue statements. From The New York Times:

At a news conference this month, Mrs. Clinton appeared to provide two answers about whether she still had copies of her emails. First, she said that she “chose not to keep” her private personal emails after her lawyers had examined the account and determined on their own which ones were personal and which were State Department records. But later, she said that the server, which contained personal communication by her and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, “will remain private.” The server was kept at their home in Chappaqua, N.Y., which is protected around the clock by the Secret Service.

Multiple investigations so far have failed to show any evidence for the Republican conspiracy theories on Benghazi, but the disclosure from Clinton on Friday that she has deleted email requested by Congress will only serve to keep the witch hunt alive. While Republicans deserve to be faulted for the witch hunts they are pursuing, this does not excuse Clinton’s actions of using her private server to prevent disclosure of requested evidence to a Congressional committee. Clinton also used her private server to avoid complying with Freedom of Information Act requests for information from the news media.

One of Clinton’s many bogus excuses for failing to follow government protocol in maintaining her email on a government server was that her email would be preserved because of being sent to State Department email addresses. It has since been found that the entire State Department was sloppy in maintaining email. Current Secretary of State John Kerry, who has admirably followed the law in using government email since assuming the post, has asked the Inspector General’s office to conduct “a review of our efforts to date on improving records management, including the archiving of emails as well as responding to FOIA and Congressional inquiries.” There have also been requests from the Republican National Committee and from House Benghazi Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy for the Inspector General to get involved. With the revelations that Clinton has erased the email, it might also be time for a special prosecutor to be appointed to handle the investigation of her actions.

The claim that her email is public due to being sent to State Department or other government addresses is also bogus as not all of Clinton’s email regarding State Department matters was even sent to government addresses. The first reports of Clinton’s private email came when Gawker found the email address on hacked email from Sidney Blumenthal in 2013. Gawker has recently discussed her email further, reporting that “longtime Clinton family confidante Sidney Blumenthal supplied intelligence to then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton gathered by a secret network that included a former CIA clandestine service officer.” The post has further information regarding information sent to Clinton by Blumenthal regarding the situation in Benghazi. At this point it is not known if Clinton responded to Blumenthal while in office or if email from Blumenthal is included in the email she did release.

Quotes of the Day: Meyers, O’Brien, Letterman, & Fallon On Ted Cruz

Ted Cruz

“Senator Ted Cruz has officially announced that he is running for president. But if you see a T-shirt that says ‘Ted Cruz 2016,’ those aren’t election shirts. That’s just how old he thinks the Earth is.” –Seth Meyers

Bonus Quotes

“People are questioning if Ted Cruz can legally run for president because he was born in Canada. And the last thing we want to do is pave the way for a President Bieber.” –Conan O’Brien

“Texas Senator Ted Cruz announced he is running for president. Ted Cruz was born in Canada, his father fled to the United States from Cuba, and yet Ted Cruz is against immigration. Isn’t that odd?” –David Letterman

“Texas senator and tea party favorite Ted Cruz announced he’s running for president. He pledged to lead America boldly forward into the 1950s.” –Conan O’Brien

“Republican Ted Cruz announced that he will run for president in 2016. So finally, Carnival is no longer the most dangerous cruise in America.” –Jimmy Fallon

Senator Stabenow Takes Legislative Action Against Cotton Letters

debbie-stabenow

Senator Debbie Stabenow of Michigan is taking legislative action to prevent a repeat of the type of letter sent by Senator Tom Cotton, attempting to sabotage diplomatic talks regarding nuclear energy in Iran. She introduced an amendment (pdf here) which would defund “the purchase of stationary [sic] or electronic devices for the purpose of members of Congress or congressional staff communicating with foreign governments and undermining the role of the President as Head of State in international nuclear negotiations on behalf of the United States.”

The letter signed by 47 Republican Senators was highly irresponsible, and it is understandable why Senator Stabenow would like to defund any future such letters. The letter not only interferes with efforts to attempt to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, it undermines the ability of the current and every future president to negotiate on behalf of the United States.

Of course Democrats might also like to keep this issue alive considering how unpopular the letter was with voters. It never hurts to remind the voters of how utterly irresponsible and bat-shit crazy the Republican Party has become.

Jeb Bush Had Another Secret Email Account And Conservative Group Sues Clintons For Racketeering

Clinton Bush

The Bush family and the Clinton family are tied so closely together, with many predicting, or rather fearing, that we will have another Bush v. Clinton election in 2016. Among their ties is a problem with private email accounts. While I have already noted news media reports of Jeb Bush having his own email problems, yet another problem has arisen. AP reports that Bush had yet another secret email account:

When Bush released thousands of emails from his tenure as Florida’s governor as part of his preparations to run for president next year, he did so from the email account he shared openly, jeb@jeb.org.

Those emails also include references to another email address, jeb@gencom.net. Bush said through a spokeswoman that he was unaware of the account, although records showed that people wrote to him there more than 400 times between 1999 and 2004.

The same records show no replies from Bush coming from that address. Instead, when Bush responded, he did so from his more well-known email address. Writers sometimes also reached the governor at jeb@jebbush.org or jeb@myflorida.com.

Bush’s spokeswoman, Kristy Campbell, said Bush had no knowledge of the other email account. “He doesn’t know what that email address is,” she told The Associated Press Tuesday…

Though Bush said he knew nothing of that address, the emails clearly reached him: Bush often wrote back from his other account. In 1999, a writer corresponded with Bush about appointments to Brevard Community College. The email chain includes a reply, “Please respond to jeb@jeb.org.”

Hillary Clinton once again might be aided by conservative over-reach with her email problems:

The conservative group Freedom Watch has filed a racketeering lawsuit against former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that accuses her of failing to produce documents under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

The civil suit, filed Wednesday in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, argues that Clinton used her private emails to sell access to other officials in return for donations to the Clinton Foundation.

It alleges that, during her tenure, Clinton withheld documents requested under FOIA regarding State Department waivers given to businesses or individuals doing business with Iran, possibly undermining U.S.-imposed sanctions.

The complaint, which lists Bill and Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation as defendants, alleges the Clintons sold access to other U.S. government officials in return for donations to their organization, which they concealed, allegedly, by using a private computer server for her emails operated from their home in Chappaqua, New York.

While it has been established that Clinton violated the rules in effect when Secretary of State, and that she used the private server to improperly evade Freedom of Information Act requests, it is different matter to prove such racketeering. I fear that this will create yet another distraction, as with Benghazi, which prevents examination of the real issues regarding government transparency. Conservatives will fail to prove their case once again, and then Clinton apologists will use this to deny what Clinton has actually done wrong.

Hillary Clinton Jokes About Her Problems With The Media

Clinton Media

Hillary Clinton spoke at the Toner Prize for Excellence in Political Reporting Monday night, and I do give her points for both humor and self-awareness:

“I am well aware that some of you may be a little surprised to see me here tonight,” she said. “My relationship with the press has been at times, shall we say, complicated.”

“I am all about new beginnings: a new grandchild, another new hairstyle, a new email account,” she quipped, “Why not a new relationship with the press? So here goes. No more secrecy. No more zone of privacy.”

So far not bad. I heard more of her speech last night and had to go through several media accounts until I found one which included a reference one of the best lines: “Before I go any further, if you look under your chairs, you’ll find a simple non-disclosure agreement. My attorneys drew it up.”  As I said, she showed self-awareness.

As is typical for Clinton, she also refused to take questions, but Dan Baltz, who won this year’s award, did offer to yield some of his time if Clinton would take some questions. She did not accept the offer.

This was a far better appearance for Clinton than her book tour or her press conference after the email scandal broke. It is questionable whether this will really repair her problems with the press. Joking around with the press hardly makes up for using her private server to block Freedom of Information Act requests for information from the media.

Clinton at least showed a better connection to reality than Breitbart which covered her speech in this manner:

“We need more than ever smart, fair-minded journalists to challenge our assumptions, push us towards new solutions, and hold all of us accountable,” she reportedly told mainstream media reporters who notoriously protect Democrats like Clinton.

I don’t think Clinton believed she was receiving any protection from the mainstream media when she received well-deserved criticism in the past month because of the email scandal from mainstream media sources such as The New York Times, NPR, AP, NBC News, MSNBC, and The Guardian. Plus there was the Boston Globe pushing for Elizabeth Warren to run against her, and far more scathing criticism from many liberal publications.