Joining today's show are Mike Barnicle, Richard Haass, Al Hunt, David Ignatius, Walter Isaacson, Kasie Hunt, Eugene Robinson, Sen. Tom Cotton, Steve Schmidt, Chuck Todd, Fmr. Gov. Jeb Bush, Tavis Smiley, Gov. Chris Christie, Sen. Rand Paul, Sara Eisen, Josh Barro and in Taiji, Japan, it is officially a BLUE COVE DAY. The last 2 bangers are now back and appeared to be empty handed. The drivers had spent some time looking at documents perhaps they'd been for service. 2016-13-01 13:10pm #dolphinproject #tweet4dolphins.
Also, Iran frees US Navy sailors held in Gulf after incursion. By these guys *(and girl) being let go so fast tells me how badly the Iranians want this Nuclear deal. This could have escalated into a huge ordeal and I maintain that if it were not for that deal, they would not be set free this fast. Even last year, British sailors were detained for many months. We dodged a serious bullet.
They were detained Tuesday after one of their two vessels broke down during a training mission in the Gulf.
Iranian state media said the group was released into international waters after apologising.
It comes at a sensitive time, as the US and Iran try to implement the deal on Iran's nuclear activities.
The incursion was "unintentional", a statement from the Revolutionary Guards quoted by state media said.
Earlier, the naval commander of the Guards, General Ali Fadavi, said investigations found a navigational failure was to blame.
"We have concluded that passage of Americans in our territorial waters was not a hostile passage or for espionage or similar acts," he told Iranian television.
A Pentagon statement said the Navy sailors had been safely returned, and that an investigation was under way as to how they entered Iranian waters.
"Around the world, the US Navy routinely provides assistance to foreign sailors in distress, and we appreciate the timely way in which this situation was resolved," said Defence Secretary Ash Carter.
Iran-US relations pass a test: Jonathan Marcus, BBC diplomatic correspondent
The tentative and still largely potential softening of relations between Washington and Tehran in the wake of the nuclear deal seems to have passed a delicate initial test.
The Tehran authorities have quickly accepted that the US patrol boats strayed into their waters by accident and the crews - according to Iranian State Television - have now been released.
The process to begin lifting the sanctions imposed on Iran due to its nuclear activities is expected to get under way at the end of this week.
There are many conservatives and hardliners in both countries who would dearly love to sabotage the deal and consequently both governments may well have been eager to get this episode resolved as quickly as possible.
Clearly the economic benefits of lifting the sanctions may have been too great an inducement for the agreement to be derailed now.
US Secretary of State John Kerry called Foreign Minister Javad Zarif shortly after the incident. The pair developed a personal rapport during the nuclear talks.
Those detained - nine men and one woman - were taken to Farsi Island, in the middle of the Gulf, where Iran has a naval base.
US opponents of the nuclear deal, which will see Iran limit its nuclear activities in exchange for the lifting of sanctions, had expressed outrage at the sailors' detention.
"Iran is testing the boundaries of this administration's resolve," said Marco Rubio, who is in the running to be the Republican party candidate.
Iran's deputy nuclear chief has meanwhile denied a report the Arak heavy-water reactor had been decommissioned, which would be a final step towards implementation of the nuclear deal.
Restraint in Iranian media, by BBC Monitoring
Iranian state media's coverage of the incident has been studiously restrained and measured in tone.
The usual pejorative terms usually reserved for the US and other Western powers - such as "global arrogance" and "enemies" - have been conspicuous by their absence.
State TV and radio reports did highlight that the US incursion had been "illegal" and that Tehran wanted an apology, later reporting that it had got it.
The mood music was far less tense and confrontational than during the capture of British sailors in in 2007, with Iran insisting they strayed into its water - an accusation London denied.
Then, the Iranian media initially accused the UK servicemen of spying, and later mockingly reported that one of them had cried when his music player was confiscated.
Iran's influential Revolutionary Guard - tasked with protecting the country's 1979 Islamic revolution - has strongly defended Iranian sea borders in the past.
Fifteen British sailors and marines were held for 13 days in 2007 after they were captured in a disputed area between Iran and Iraq.
Despite last year's breakthrough nuclear deal tensions remain between the US and Iran.
In December, Iran's navy conducted rocket tests near US warships in the Strait of Hormuz, something the US called "highly provocative".
Q&A: Iran's nuclear deal
What is it? In July, Iran agreed a landmark nuclear deal with six world powers to limit its sensitive nuclear activities for more than a decade in return for the lifting of crippling sanctions. The US is confident the agreement will prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Iran says it has the right to nuclear energy - and stresses that its nuclear programme is for peaceful purposes only.
When is 'implementation day'? Iran will not see the UN, US and EU sanctions lifted until the global nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), certifies that it has fulfilled its commitments under the deal. The precise date of the so-called "implementation day" has not been determined. But Iran says it has met those commitments earlier than expected and last week US Secretary of State John Kerry declared: "We are days away from implementation."
What does Iran stand to gain? The sanctions have cost Iran more than more than $160bn (£102bn) in oil revenue since 2012 alone. Once they are lifted, the country will be able to resume selling oil on international markets and using the global financial system for trade. Iran has the fourth largest oil reserves in the world and the energy industry is braced for lower prices. Iran will also be able to access more than $100bn in assets frozen overseas.
Poll: Bernie Sanders leads Hillary Clinton by 14 points in New Hampshire and Bernie Sanders Takes Slim Lead Over Hillary Clinton in New Iowa Poll.
A big lead — 14 points.
Sanders has 53% support to Clinton's 39% in the Monmouth University Poll released Tuesday, with Martin O'Malley in third place at 5%.
Back in November, Clinton led Sanders in the same survey 48% to 45%.
- Monmouth University released a new poll in New Hampshire, showing Bernie with a strong 14-percent lead in the Granite State.
- A new Quinnipiac poll released later in the day indicated Bernie has moved into the lead in Iowa for the first time in MONTHS.
- An NBC poll released over the weekend showed Bernie outperforming the other Democratic candidates against every single GOP frontrunner -- in some cases by a double-digit margin.
- And according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll released late yesterday, Bernie is rapidly gaining ground on Hillary Clinton nationally: She led Bernie by 20 percentage points just a month ago, but now Bernie has pulled to within 7 points.
The Monmouth poll is one of several new surveys showing momentum for Sanders, both nationally and in early contest states like Iowa and New Hampshire.
A New York Times/CBS News poll Tuesday showed that Clinton still leads Sanders among Democrats nationally, 48%-41% — much smaller than the 20-point lead she enjoyed last month. Still, the poll said more that seven in 10 Democrats believe Clinton will ultimately win their party's nomination.
New polls maintain a sense of momentum for the independent Vermont senator. On Tuesday, Sanders also claimed an endorsement from the liberal grassroots group MoveOn.org Political Action.
“MoveOn has spent more than 17 years bringing people together to fight for progressive change and stand up against big money interests," Sanders said in a statement touting the endorsement.
Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders has climbed to a slim lead over national frontrunner Hillary Clinton in a new Iowa poll.
With just 20 days remaining until the first-in-the-nation caucus, a Quinnipiac University poll released today shows Sanders leading Clinton for the first time in the Hawkeye State with 49 percent support -- his highest support in any Iowa poll yet. Clinton garnered 44 percent support.
That's a 9 percentage point increase for Sanders and a 7-point drop for Clinton since the last Quinnipiac poll in Iowa almost one month ago.
Sanders' lead, which is still barely within the margin of error, is bolstered by a broad gender gap. Sanders, who just earned a critical endorsement from liberal group MoveOn, gets support from six in 10 men and leads Clinton by 31 points among that group. Meanwhile, Clinton leads among women by 16 points.
The poll comes as the Vermont senator's campaign continues to gain momentum in his neighboring state of New Hampshire. He's led recent polling there by double digits, threatening to deliver a blow to Clinton's campaign in the first two contests.
Clinton's top aide sent an email to supporters last week telling them he was "nervous" about Sanders' advertising strength in Iowa and New Hampshire.
Sanders has said the Clinton campaign is "panicky" and in "serious trouble," pointing to general election polling and asserting that he is the more electable candidate. And that argument seems to be moving the scales in Iowa: 68 percent of Democrats say he would have a good chance of winning the general election, up 11 points since December.
“Anybody can win," Clinton told reporters last night when asked whether Sanders can win the presidency. "Who would have thought Donald Trump is leading in national polls?"
Clinton saw across-the-board decreases in her ability to handle key issues in the Quinnipiac polls, down 11 points on healthcare and 7 points on foreign policy.
After Iowa and New Hampshire, Democrats will compete in Nevada and South Carolina, where the most recent polling shows Clinton maintaining a broad lead.
When questioned on the issues, Clinton holds wide advantages on terrorism and foreign policy, while Sanders holds smaller leads on domestic issues like the economy and climate change. They are about even on health care.
Roughly a quarter of Iowa Democrats think Clinton is not honest and trustworthy, doesn't care about their problems and does not share their values. Fewer than one in 10 feel the same way about Sanders on his weaker attributes like being a strong leader and having the right experience.
Chelsea Clinton Takes on Bernie Sanders. Chelsea Clinton made her way around New Hampshire today in attempt to convince voters that they should support her mother, Hillary Clinton, as the next president.
Bernie Sanders, Clinton's chief rival for the Democratic presidential nomination, is practically tied with Clinton in voter polls. He now leads Clinton by a slim margin in Iowa for the first time.
Until now, Chelsea Clinton has shied away from directly naming Sanders in her speeches. She took a shot at the Vermont senator when asked by a young voter how to best galvanize young Americans, who are excited about Sanders' candidacy.
The youngest Clinton was on the defensive. “I never thought that I would be arguing about the Affordable Care Act or Obamacare in the Democratic primary,” Clinton said at an event in Manchester. “Senator Sanders wants to dismantle Obamacare, dismantle the CHIP program, dismantle Medicare and private insurance.”
She then went on to say that she believes her mother has a “more robust" record on health care than anyone else in the race.
The Clinton campaign has said that Chelsea Clinton will continue stumping for her mother on the campaign trail. She will join her father, former President Bill Clinton, in Iowa for a joint campaign event this weekend.
The problem with seeing Chelsea Clinton on the stump yesterday is that she was just dead wrong. Comparing what Bernie sanders plans or planned to do vs. what the GOP wants to do is not comparable.
Trump, Cruz Running Away With Iowa GOP Caucus, Quinnipiac University Poll Finds; Cruz Way Ahead On Favorability, Character Traits
Donald Trump and Texas Sen. Ted Cruz are locking in their lead among Iowa likely Republican Caucus participants, with Trump at 31 percent and Cruz at 29 percent, while U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida trails with 15 percent, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today. Dr. Ben Carson has 7 percent, with no other candidate above New Jersey Gov. Christopher Christie's 4 percent.
This compares to the results of a December 14 survey by the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University showing Trump at 28 percent, with 27 percent for Cruz, 14 percent for Rubio and 10 percent for Carson.
Today, 5 percent are undecided, but 46 percent of those who name a candidate say they might change their mind.
Trump tops Cruz almost 4-1 on the negative list as 26 percent of Iowa Republican Caucus-goers say they "would definitely not support" Trump, with 7 percent who would not support Cruz.
The biggest loser today is former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, who gets only 3 percent support from Republicans, while 26 percent say they "would definitely not support" him.
"The Iowa Republican Caucuses are tight as a tick entering the final two weeks of the campaign. Voters like Sen. Ted Cruz better than Donald Trump and give him much higher scores for honesty, empathy, experience and for sharing their values," said Peter A. Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Poll.
"But they see the New York businessman as better able to handle some key issues. Trump is way ahead on handling the economy and terrorism."
"The imbalance in perceived personal qualities may give Cruz a higher ceiling, a key metric entering the home stretch. Only 7 percent of Republicans say they could never vote for Cruz, while 26 percent say no way to Trump," Brown added.
The economy and jobs is the most important issue for 27 percent of Iowa likely Republican Caucus participants in deciding their vote, as 18 percent list terrorism; 16 percent say foreign policy. Another 10 percent cite the federal deficit and 8 percent list immigration.
This reverses the results of the December 14 survey, in which 30 percent listed terrorism as the most important issue, with 21 percent focused on the economy and jobs.
Trump can best handle the economy, 46 percent of Republicans say, with 16 percent picking Cruz and 8 percent picking Rubio. Trump is also best handling terrorism, 36 percent of GOP Caucus participants say, with 26 percent for Cruz and 12 percent for Rubio.
Cruz is best on foreign policy, 27 percent of Republicans say, with 24 percent for Trump and 18 percent for Rubio. Trump is best on illegal immigration, 46 percent of GOP Caucus- goers say, with 22 percent for Cruz and 15 percent for Rubio.
Cruz has a 75 - 17 percent favorability rating, with Trump at 61 - 34 percent. Republican Caucus participants give Cruz better grades than Trump on most character issues:
81 - 13 percent that Cruz is honest and trustworthy, compared to 63 - 32 percent for Trump;
81 - 17 percent that Trump has strong leadership qualities, with Cruz at 78 - 16 percent;
81 - 14 percent that Cruz cares about their needs and problems, with 64 - 29 percent for Trump;
76 - 18 percent that Cruz has the right kind of experience to be president, with Trump at 54 - 40 percent;
75 - 17 percent that Cruz shares their values, with 53 - 41 percent for Trump.
Cruz would have a good chance of defeating the Democratic nominee in the general election, 69 percent of likely Republican Caucus participants say, while 65 percent say Trump has a good chance of winning.
From January 5 - 10, Quinnipiac University surveyed 602 Iowa likely Republican Caucus participants with a margin of error of +/- 4 percentage points. Live interviewers call land lines and cell phones.
The Quinnipiac University Poll, directed by Douglas Schwartz, Ph.D., conducts public opinion surveys in Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Florida, Ohio, Virginia, Iowa, Colorado and the nation as a public service and for research.
We still have so much to go over today. Whew. What Breaking News day it is already this AM.
For instance, the State of The Union (SOTU) address which mentioned gun safety for about 3 seconds. He also downplayed the ISIS threat which i get and he touted his foreign policy which I am not sure if that is that true. What i mean is that our standing in the Middle East and in Russia are not as great as it should. Israel in particular but then again, I do realize that world does look to us to lead which he said and which is true.
But the youngest governor in the United States, and daughter of immigrants, was not just trying to differentiate the Republican Party from the president. Haley was also trying to distance the party from Donald Trump, the Republican presidential frontrunner whose calls for a ban on Muslims entering the U.S. and harsh criticism of unauthorized immigrants has risked alienating voters that the Republican establishment desperately wants to attract.
Attempting to achieve both objectives at once, Haley, at times, sounded not so different from the president, who had also tried to outline an alternative to the politics of Trump.
There was the warning. Haley took aim at the real estate mogul without ever calling him out by name as she cautioned Americans not to give in to the allure of angry and divisive rhetoric. “During anxious times, it can be tempting to follow the siren call of the angriest voices. We must resist that temptation,” the governor implored. “No one who is willing to work hard, abide by our laws, and love our traditions should ever feel unwelcome in this country,” Haley added. The words echoed elements of Obama’s speech, in which the president called on Americans to “reject any politics that targets people because of race or religion.”
There was the admission of culpability. Haley asserted: “Democrats in Washington bear much responsibility for the problems facing America today.” But, she went on to say: “There is more than enough blame to go around. We as Republicans need to own that truth. We need to recognize our contributions to the erosion of the public trust in America’s leadership. We need to accept that we’ve played a role in how and why our government is broken.” It was a message that acknowledged that the American public is frustrated and fed up with career politicians and has lost trust in Congress. To some extent, that sentiment mirrored the way the president described his own frustration with the political status quo, and echoed his calls, implicitly aimed at Democrats and Republicans, to “change the system” to create “a better politics.”
Haley, at times, sounded not so different from the president.
Finally, there was the case for optimism. Haley spelled out her vision for an America that faces great challenge, but shows great promise. “Our country is being tested,” she said. “But we’ve been tested in the past, and our people have always risen to the challenge. We have all the guidance we need to be safe and successful.” It wasn’t sugarcoating, but it left room for hope. It sounded a bit like Obama’s framing of the present day as “a time of extraordinary change,” change, the president warned, that will create challenges, but may also lead to great opportunity.
Of course, Haley did not shy away from offering explicit criticisms of the president. “The president’s record has often fallen short of his soaring words,” Haley chastised, adding: “Soon, the Obama presidency will end, and America will have the chance to turn in a new direction.” The South Carolina governor savaged the president’s foreign policy and his health-care overhaul. Haley also highlighted Republican priorities on immigration, taxes, education, and the Second Amendment that set up a clear contrast with the administration.
For all the differences on display, however, Haley made a strong case that the nation can come together. To make that point, the governor told the story of how South Carolina removed the Confederate flag from the state capitol grounds in the wake of a deadly shooting at a black church in Charleston last summer. “Some people think that you have to be the loudest voice in the room to make a difference,” Haley said. “That is just not true. Often, the best thing we can do is turn down the volume. When the sound is quieter, you can actually hear what someone else is saying. And that can make a world of difference.”
There was some backlash to her response to it. Nikki Haley's response to the president's State of the Union address on behalf of the GOP was much more a rebuttal to the Donald Trump-style of politics that has tainted her party in the race to succeed Barack Obama.
"During anxious times, it can be tempting to follow the siren call of the angriest voices. We must resist that temptation," the South Carolina governor said from the statehouse in Columbia, S.C., Tuesday night.
Haley, a daughter of Indian immigrants and considered a rising star in the Republican Party, did not mention Trump by name. But her target was clear.
"No one who is willing to work hard, abide by our laws, and love our traditions should ever feel unwelcome in this country," she said in a speech that received bipartisan praise.
Haley's call for inclusion along with conservative policies was reminiscent of goals set out by the GOP after election losses in 2012, when the party pledged to expand its reach, particularly to women and minority voters. The tone and rhetoric of her remarks also affirmed why she is often considered to be a potential vice presidential pick.
Just not likely in a Trump administration.
The governor's State of the Union response underscored how just how differently GOP leaders and the frontrunner for the presidential nomination view the future of the party.
Last weekend, while House Speaker Paul Ryan held a poverty summit here in South Carolina, Donald Trump rallied supporters in Iowa. The billionaire businessman continues to lead the Republican field in most early state and national polls, with calls to build a wall along the southern border, ban Muslims from coming to the United States, and deport undocumented immigrants. His pitch, which also hits populist themes, disregards political correctness and rages against politics as usual, has garnered consistent support in this era of the angry and anxious voter.
Invoking her immigrant heritage, Haley recalled growing up in the South where "my family didn't look like our neighbors."
The second-term governor said the broken immigration system needs to be fixed, and solutions do not include opening the borders or continuing to allow immigrants to come here illegally. And in an age of terrorism, Haley advocated for proper vetting of refugees. Immigration reform, she said, should include "welcoming properly vetted legal immigrants, regardless of their race or religion. Just like we have for centuries."
House Speaker Paul Ryan, who picked Haley to deliver the GOP response, applauded her remarks. "The vision she outlined for our country was inclusive and optimistic and, perhaps most important, it was grounded in reality," said Ryan.
But the governor also received backlash from some conservative activists. "Trump should deport Nikki Haley," Anne Coulter tweeted. "Too bad @NikkiHaley missed her oppty to stand w/ working ppl who want borders enforced, American workers put first, govt shrunk," tweeted Laura Ingraham.
Haley was lauded by GOP leaders and many Democrats -- a combination that could fuel Trump's support.
Still, she seemed to recognize the stakes.
"There's a tendency to falsely equate noise with results," Haley said. "Some people think that you have to be the loudest voice in the room to make a difference. That is just not true."
Haley gained positive national attention for calling for the confederate flag to be removed from her statehouse grounds after the murders at a prominent black church in Charleston over the summer. She recalled the horrific killings Tuesday night, and said the way the city responded should serve as a model.
"We didn't turn against each other's race or religion," Haley said. "We removed a symbol that was being used to divide us."
Still to come on the show are interviews with Presidential Candidates Jeb Bush, Chris Christie and Rand Paul. Tom Cotton is on the show now.
Rand Paul Won't Go To Undercard Debate: I'm Not A 'Minor Campaign'.
The Kentucky senator, along with Carly Fiorina, lost his slot on the main stage for the next Republican presidential debate due to his low polling numbers.
"I think they’ve made a mistake," Paul told the Washington Post on Monday evening. "I'm not willing to accept a designation as a minor campaign. We've raised $25 million. We've gotten on the ballot on every state. It's kind of ridiculous to arbitrarily rate the campaigns based on national polling."
Paul was not convinced that participating in the second-tier debate would raise his profile, and said he would rather focus on campaigning in Iowa and New Hampshire.
"I'm just not willing to accept that," he told the Post. "We're getting bigger crowds. Just this week, in New Hampshire, we had bigger crowds at the Exeter Town Hall than Bill Clinton."
"It won't take much for our supporters to understand why we're doing this," he added. "You want war? We’ll give it to you."
Last, Rams Moving to Los Angeles Area, and Chargers Could Join Later
After two decades, the N.F.L. has found its way back to Los Angeles.
The St. Louis Rams will move to the Los Angeles area, where they intend to build a new stadium in Inglewood, Calif., just over 10 miles from downtown. The San Diego Chargers have up to one year to decide if they will join them, and if they decline, the Oakland Raiders would have a year to decide if they would like to relocate to Inglewood.
At least 24 owners had to vote in favor of the move for it to gain approval.
Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon disagreed, calling the decision “a clear deviation from the N.F.L.’s guidelines.”
With Los Angeles the nation’s second-largest television market, the N.F.L. has longed for a return to the area, where several Super Bowls have been played. But taxpayers’ apprehension on financing stadiums or difficulties acquiring suitable sites have stymied previous efforts to put a team there.
Los Angeles football fans also have a reputation for being among the most blasé about following their teams; although civic leaders have chafed at the absence of a team, there has never been a strong outcry from the populace, in part because games from every other N.F.L. city are readily available on television.
Still, three teams were willing to bet the attraction was strong and applied to move to Los Angeles last month, with the teams’ owners planning to foot all or most of the bill for stadiums.
If an agreement is reached between the Rams and Chargers, both teams will play temporarily at the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum — previously the home to the Raiders and the site of two Super Bowls, including the first, in 1967 — starting in August 2016.
“My goal from the start of this process was to create the options necessary to safeguard the future of the Chargers franchise while respecting the will of my fellow N.F.L. owners,” Dean Spanos, the chairman of the Chargers, said in a statement. “I will be working over the next several weeks to explore the options that we have now created for ourselves to determine the best path forward for the Chargers.”
The owner E. Stanley Kroenke of the Rams has already acquired the land and rights to build in Inglewood.
The Rams will pay the league a relocation fee of $650 million, stretched out over about 20 years.
The Chargers originally teamed up with the Raiders but broke that partnership and joined hands with the Rams at the insistence of the other owners, who tried to find a compromise between teams with competing stadium deals.
In 2014, Kroenke bought a 60-acre tract in Inglewood, and he later added land where the old Hollywood Park Racetrack stood. Last January, he announced plans to build a domed stadium surrounded by an entertainment district.
Weeks later, the Chargers, who say that a quarter of their fans come from Los Angeles and Orange County, said they would build an outdoor stadium in Carson with the Raiders.
The Chargers and the Raiders also recruited Robert A. Iger, the chairman of Disney, to serve as an honorary executive and help plan the stadium. Iger’s expertise and connections in the entertainment business helped reassure other owners that this new stadium would have the requisite backing.
There was some speculation that the Chargers and the Rams would team up in Carson, but in the end, the full ownership favored the plan for a stadium in Inglewood.
The Raiders will presumably now stay in Oakland and begin fresh negotiations with the city over a new stadium. Libby Schaaf, the mayor, has said the city cannot afford to help build a stadium, but it could provide the land and infrastructure improvements needed for one.
The vote concluded one of the biggest sweepstakes in league history and will rekindle a debate about whether Los Angeles is an N.F.L. town.
The city has had professional teams for decades, and the Chargers, the Raiders and the Rams have all played in the city at some point. The Chargers, a charter member of the A.F.L., left Los Angeles for San Diego after one season.
Los Angeles has long been a favorite of the league. The area has hosted many Pro Bowls, and the league has been eager to have such a marquee city again on its map.
In 1996, the Seahawks toyed with moving to Southern California, but the team was sold to Paul G. Allen, who helped build a new stadium for the team in Seattle. Three years later, the league wanted to add a 32nd team, but when Los Angeles and the N.F.L. could not agree on a stadium site, the owners awarded the franchise to Houston.
In the years afterward, proposals were offered up to build stadiums in downtown Los Angeles, in nearby City of Industry and elsewhere. But none of the investors were able to persuade an N.F.L. team to move to a stadium that it did not control.
Nevertheless, the absence of a team in Los Angeles was used as a bargaining chip by teams trying to build stadiums in their home markets. The Minnesota Vikings, among other teams, have floated the idea of moving to Los Angeles as a way to win public funding for a stadium.
Although the N.F.L. has not had a team in Los Angeles in recent years, it has kept a foothold in that region. The NFL Network is headquartered in Culver City, the owners have held meetings in the area, and the Dallas Cowboys hold their training camp in Oxnard, Calif. Television ratings for N.F.L. games are also strong in the region.
The N.F.L. has expanded rapidly in the two decades since the Raiders and the Rams left, which has led some to posit that the league did not need to return to Los Angeles. The city has two big college teams, and fans from all over the country have moved to the region and root for an array of teams from elsewhere. Some sports business experts have suggested that placing a team in Los Angeles does not guarantee success.
The owners have wrestled with numerous questions, including which city or cities they were willing to abandon, whether they favored an indoor or outdoor stadium and whether they felt Los Angeles could absorb two teams at once.
Los Angeles is merely the latest return destination for the N.F.L.; the league has put a team back in every city it has left in the past few decades, including Baltimore, Cleveland, Houston, Oakland and St. Louis, and generally succeeded.
Here are the last few paragraph's of my Diary Of A ram fan book which I finished and released to stores a few years ago:
Reagan also put through an assault weapons ban, because back then in the 80's, Reagan worked hand in hand with the N.R.A (National Rifle Association) for sensible Gun Laws, and particularly, with regard to automatic weapons. People in the USA were legally allowed to own automatic rifles until 1986. That year (1986) is when Reagan signed the Firearm Owners’ Protection Act, that banned them for sale to the general public. After he was shot with a bullet from a gun in Washington DC, and after he was out of office, Reagan still naturally supported the Brady Gun Laws, which establish most of the major restrictions placed on gun purchases today. His backing the 1994 Assault Weapon Ban is what “made the difference,” according to the two Congressmen that resulted in the final two vote margin to create that law.
Most of all, under GOP Presidencies and especially under the (Ronald) Reagan one, our federal government grew in huge ways. It is also the same with Government Spending. It was the GOP and Reagan that built the most progressive tax system that funded Social Security, and it also funded the creation of a large, new federal department (the Department of Veterans’ Affairs). Most of their spending, including the largest defense escalation of its time, was only funded by deficit spending. If that were done today, our deficits would be larger than they are in current day. Plus, Reagan, in particular, hated any “tax loopholes that allowed millionaires to skate around their tax obligations.” He put through many environmental regulations, (Although do NOT get me wrong now, because the GOP, and Reagan too, are very much responsible for some of the things that helped get us to point of danger with regard to our environmental problems we face today) that are used to this day as a way to raise awareness of any climate change debates. He was responsible for the Montreal Protocol, an international agreement mandating rules on pollution, and requiring that Science tells us what damages the ozone layer. Today, the Montreal Protocol is used, to regulate the technology that replaced the antiquated system that damaged the planets ozone layer.
There is an overall sense of there being hope in 2014, and there is an overall feeling that things are getting better for people in America. Same goes with the Rams. The team will now enter the off season with two Pro-Bowlers (DE Robert Quinn and P Johnny Hekker, who were named to the 2014 NFL Pro Bowl Friday, to give the Rams multiple players in the game for the first time since 2006). These two players are also being recognized for their outstanding seasons, by being named on the 2013 First-Team All-Pro Team by the Associated Press. This is a victory of sort, considering that last year at this time, the only representative recognized for its excellence on the field was the mascot, Rampage. Later on this year, the team will have the second overall pick in upcoming next NFL Draft (through a trade last year with Washington), along with their own first round decision to make with the 13th overall pick.
The Rams actually beat both of the first two NFL divisional playoff winners this season, by a combined score of 65-24. And, to bring things full circle again, the Rams team owner recently bought a 60 acre lot between the Hollywood Park Racetrack and the Great Western / Los Angeles Forum. Although 60 acres isn't big enough for a stadium, parking and any facilities (practice field, Club House, etc.) that are needed to build a brand new NFL Stadium, thee is plenty of empty adjacent land that could be used if the deal became a serious one. Does this mean the ownership is going to move the Rams back to Los Angeles? This is a serious step in that direction. Especially when you consider the NFL rules that state that if any owner of any NFL teams happens to buy property, and if land is purchased with having a stadium being built as part as that plan, they must notify the Leagues Officials. The Rams owner did that when he closed that deal with the Kroenke Organization.
| State of the Union: Obama Moves the Goalposts |
 | ||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
The President Obama’s 2016 State of the Union Address
Tonight marks the eighth year I’ve come here to report on the State of the Union. And for this final one, I’m going to try to make it shorter. I know some of you are antsy to get back to Iowa.
I also understand that because it’s an election season, expectations for what we’ll achieve this year are low. Still, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the constructive approach you and the other leaders took at the end of last year to pass a budget and make tax cuts permanent for working families. So I hope we can work together this year on bipartisan priorities like criminal justice reform, and helping people who are battling prescription drug abuse. We just might surprise the cynics again.
But tonight, I want to go easy on the traditional list of proposals for the year ahead. Don’t worry, I’ve got plenty, from helping students learn to write computer code to personalizing medical treatments for patients. And I’ll keep pushing for progress on the work that still needs doing. Fixing a broken immigration system. Protecting our kids from gun violence. Equal pay for equal work, paid leave, raising the minimum wage. All these things still matter to hardworking families; they are still the right thing to do; and I will not let up until they get done.
I want to focus on our future.
We live in a time of extraordinary change — change that’s reshaping the way we live, the way we work, our planet and our place in the world. It’s change that promises amazing medical breakthroughs, but also economic disruptions that strain working families. It promises education for girls in the most remote villages, but also connects terrorists plotting an ocean away. It’s change that can broaden opportunity, or widen inequality. And whether we like it or not, the pace of this change will only accelerate.
America has been through big changes before — wars and depression, the influx of immigrants, workers fighting for a fair deal, and movements to expand civil rights. Each time, there have been those who told us to fear the future; who claimed we could slam the brakes on change, promising to restore past glory if we just got some group or idea that was threatening America under control. And each time, we overcame those fears. We did not, in the words of Lincoln, adhere to the “dogmas of the quiet past.” Instead we thought anew, and acted anew. We made change work for us, always extending America’s promise outward, to the next frontier, to more and more people. And because we did — because we saw opportunity where others saw only peril — we emerged stronger and better than before.
What was true then can be true now. Our unique strengths as a nation — our optimism and work ethic, our spirit of discovery and innovation, our diversity and commitment to the rule of law — these things give us everything we need to ensure prosperity and security for generations to come.
In fact, it’s that spirit that made the progress of these past seven years possible. It’s how we recovered from the worst economic crisis in generations. It’s how we reformed our health care system, and reinvented our energy sector; how we delivered more care and benefits to our troops and veterans, and how we secured the freedom in every state to marry the person we love.
But such progress is not inevitable. It is the result of choices we make together. And we face such choices right now. Will we respond to the changes of our time with fear, turning inward as a nation, and turning against each other as a people? Or will we face the future with confidence in who we are, what we stand for, and the incredible things we can do together?
So let’s talk about the future, and four big questions that we as a country have to answer — regardless of who the next President is, or who controls the next Congress.
First, how do we give everyone a fair shot at opportunity and security in this new economy?
Second, how do we make technology work for us, and not against us — especially when it comes to solving urgent challenges like climate change?
Third, how do we keep America safe and lead the world without becoming its policeman?
And finally, how can we make our politics reflect what’s best in us, and not what’s worst?
Let me start with the economy, and a basic fact: the United States of America, right now, has the strongest, most durable economy in the world. We’re in the middle of the longest streak of private-sector job creation in history. More than 14 million new jobs; the strongest two years of job growth since the ’90s; an unemployment rate cut in half. Our auto industry just had its best year ever. Manufacturing has created nearly 900,000 new jobs in the past six years. And we’ve done all this while cutting our deficits by almost three-quarters.
All these trends have squeezed workers, even when they have jobs; even when the economy is growing. It’s made it harder for a hardworking family to pull itself out of poverty, harder for young people to start on their careers, and tougher for workers to retire when they want to. And although none of these trends are unique to America, they do offend our uniquely American belief that everybody who works hard should get a fair shot.
For the past seven years, our goal has been a growing economy that works better for everybody. We’ve made progress. But we need to make more. And despite all the political arguments we’ve had these past few years, there are some areas where Americans broadly agree.
We agree that real opportunity requires every American to get the education and training they need to land a good-paying job. The bipartisan reform of No Child Left Behind was an important start, and together, we’ve increased early childhood education, lifted high school graduation rates to new highs, and boosted graduates in fields like engineering. In the coming years, we should build on that progress, by providing Pre-K for all, offering every student the hands-on computer science and math classes that make them job-ready on day one, and we should recruit and support more great teachers for our kids.
Of course, a great education isn’t all we need in this new economy. We also need benefits and protections that provide a basic measure of security. After all, it’s not much of a stretch to say that some of the only people in America who are going to work the same job, in the same place, with a health and retirement package, for 30 years, are sitting in this chamber. For everyone else, especially folks in their forties and fifties, saving for retirement or bouncing back from job loss has gotten a lot tougher. Americans understand that at some point in their careers, they may have to retool and retrain. But they shouldn’t lose what they’ve already worked so hard to build.
That’s why Social Security and Medicare are more important than ever; we shouldn’t weaken them, we should strengthen them. And for Americans short of retirement, basic benefits should be just as mobile as everything else is today. That’s what the Affordable Care Act is all about. It’s about filling the gaps in employer-based care so that when we lose a job, or go back to school, or start that new business, we’ll still have coverage. Nearly eighteen million have gained coverage so far. Health care inflation has slowed. And our businesses have created jobs every single month since it became law.
I also know Speaker Ryan has talked about his interest in tackling poverty. America is about giving everybody willing to work a hand up, and I’d welcome a serious discussion about strategies we can all support, like expanding tax cuts for low-income workers without kids.
But there are other areas where it’s been more difficult to find agreement over the last seven years — namely what role the government should play in making sure the system’s not rigged in favor of the wealthiest and biggest corporations. And here, the American people have a choice to make.
I believe a thriving private sector is the lifeblood of our economy. I think there are outdated regulations that need to be changed, and there’s red tape that needs to be cut. But after years of record corporate profits, working families won’t get more opportunity or bigger paychecks by letting big banks or big oil or hedge funds make their own rules at the expense of everyone else; or by allowing attacks on collective bargaining to go unanswered. Food Stamp recipients didn’t cause the financial crisis; recklessness on Wall Street did. Immigrants aren’t the reason wages haven’t gone up enough; those decisions are made in the boardrooms that too often put quarterly earnings over long-term returns. It’s sure not the average family watching tonight that avoids paying taxes through offshore accounts. In this new economy, workers and start-ups and small businesses need more of a voice, not less. The rules should work for them. And this year I plan to lift up the many businesses who’ve figured out that doing right by their workers ends up being good for their shareholders, their customers, and their communities, so that we can spread those best practices across America.
In fact, many of our best corporate citizens are also our most creative. This brings me to the second big question we have to answer as a country: how do we reignite that spirit of innovation to meet our biggest challenges?
Sixty years ago, when the Russians beat us into space, we didn’t deny Sputnik was up there. We didn’t argue about the science, or shrink our research and development budget. We built a space program almost overnight, and twelve years later, we were walking on the moon.
That spirit of discovery is in our DNA. We’re Thomas Edison and the Wright Brothers and George Washington Carver. We’re Grace Hopper and Katherine Johnson and Sally Ride. We’re every immigrant and entrepreneur from Boston to Austin to Silicon Valley racing to shape a better world. And over the past seven years, we’ve nurtured that spirit.
We’ve protected an open internet, and taken bold new steps to get more students and low-income Americans online. We’ve launched next-generation manufacturing hubs, and online tools that give an entrepreneur everything he or she needs to start a business in a single day.
But we can do so much more. Last year, Vice President Biden said that with a new moonshot, America can cure cancer. Last month, he worked with this Congress to give scientists at the National Institutes of Health the strongest resources they’ve had in over a decade. Tonight, I’m announcing a new national effort to get it done. And because he’s gone to the mat for all of us, on so many issues over the past forty years, I’m putting Joe in charge of Mission Control. For the loved ones we’ve all lost, for the family we can still save, let’s make America the country that cures cancer once and for all.
Medical research is critical. We need the same level of commitment when it comes to developing clean energy sources.
Look, if anybody still wants to dispute the science around climate change, have at it. You’ll be pretty lonely, because you’ll be debating our military, most of America’s business leaders, the majority of the American people, almost the entire scientific community, and 200 nations around the world who agree it’s a problem and intend to solve it.
Seven years ago, we made the single biggest investment in clean energy in our history. Here are the results. In fields from Iowa to Texas, wind power is now cheaper than dirtier, conventional power. On rooftops from Arizona to New York, solar is saving Americans tens of millions of dollars a year on their energy bills, and employs more Americans than coal — in jobs that pay better than average. We’re taking steps to give homeowners the freedom to generate and store their own energy — something environmentalists and Tea Partiers have teamed up to support. Meanwhile, we’ve cut our imports of foreign oil by nearly sixty percent, and cut carbon pollution more than any other country on Earth.
Gas under two bucks a gallon ain’t bad, either.
None of this will happen overnight, and yes, there are plenty of entrenched interests who want to protect the status quo. But the jobs we’ll create, the money we’ll save, and the planet we’ll preserve — that’s the kind of future our kids and grandkids deserve.
Climate change is just one of many issues where our security is linked to the rest of the world. And that’s why the third big question we have to answer is how to keep America safe and strong without either isolating ourselves or trying to nation-build everywhere there’s a problem.
I told you earlier all the talk of America’s economic decline is political hot air. Well, so is all the rhetoric you hear about our enemies getting stronger and America getting weaker. The United States of America is the most powerful nation on Earth. Period. It’s not even close. We spend more on our military than the next eight nations combined. Our troops are the finest fighting force in the history of the world. No nation dares to attack us or our allies because they know that’s the path to ruin. Surveys show our standing around the world is higher than when I was elected to this office, and when it comes to every important international issue, people of the world do not look to Beijing or Moscow to lead — they call us.
As someone who begins every day with an intelligence briefing, I know this is a dangerous time. But that’s not because of diminished American strength or some looming superpower. In today’s world, we’re threatened less by evil empires and more by failing states. The Middle East is going through a transformation that will play out for a generation, rooted in conflicts that date back millennia. Economic headwinds blow from a Chinese economy in transition. Even as their economy contracts, Russia is pouring resources to prop up Ukraine and Syria — states they see slipping away from their orbit. And the international system we built after World War II is now struggling to keep pace with this new reality.
It’s up to us to help remake that system. And that means we have to set priorities.
Priority number one is protecting the American people and going after terrorist networks. Both al Qaeda and now ISIL pose a direct threat to our people, because in today’s world, even a handful of terrorists who place no value on human life, including their own, can do a lot of damage. They use the Internet to poison the minds of individuals inside our country; they undermine our allies.
But as we focus on destroying ISIL, over-the-top claims that this is World War III just play into their hands. Masses of fighters on the back of pickup trucks and twisted souls plotting in apartments or garages pose an enormous danger to civilians and must be stopped. But they do not threaten our national existence. That’s the story ISIL wants to tell; that’s the kind of propaganda they use to recruit. We don’t need to build them up to show that we’re serious, nor do we need to push away vital allies in this fight by echoing the lie that ISIL is representative of one of the world’s largest religions. We just need to call them what they are — killers and fanatics who have to be rooted out, hunted down, and destroyed.
That’s exactly what we are doing. For more than a year, America has led a coalition of more than 60 countries to cut off ISIL’s financing, disrupt their plots, stop the flow of terrorist fighters, and stamp out their vicious ideology. With nearly 10,000 air strikes, we are taking out their leadership, their oil, their training camps, and their weapons. We are training, arming, and supporting forces who are steadily reclaiming territory in Iraq and Syria.
If this Congress is serious about winning this war, and wants to send a message to our troops and the world, you should finally authorize the use of military force against ISIL. Take a vote. But the American people should know that with or without Congressional action, ISIL will learn the same lessons as terrorists before them. If you doubt America’s commitment — or mine — to see that justice is done, ask Osama bin Laden. Ask the leader of al Qaeda in Yemen, who was taken out last year, or the perpetrator of the Benghazi attacks, who sits in a prison cell. When you come after Americans, we go after you. It may take time, but we have long memories, and our reach has no limit.
Our foreign policy must be focused on the threat from ISIL and al Qaeda, but it can’t stop there. For even without ISIL, instability will continue for decades in many parts of the world — in the Middle East, in Afghanistan and Pakistan, in parts of Central America, Africa and Asia. Some of these places may become safe havens for new terrorist networks; others will fall victim to ethnic conflict, or famine, feeding the next wave of refugees. The world will look to us to help solve these problems, and our answer needs to be more than tough talk or calls to carpet bomb civilians. That may work as a TV sound bite, but it doesn’t pass muster on the world stage.
Fortunately, there’s a smarter approach, a patient and disciplined strategy that uses every element of our national power. It says America will always act, alone if necessary, to protect our people and our allies; but on issues of global concern, we will mobilize the world to work with us, and make sure other countries pull their own weight.
That’s our approach to conflicts like Syria, where we’re partnering with local forces and leading international efforts to help that broken society pursue a lasting peace.
That’s why we built a global coalition, with sanctions and principled diplomacy, to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran. As we speak, Iran has rolled back its nuclear program, shipped out its uranium stockpile, and the world has avoided another war.
That’s how we stopped the spread of Ebola in West Africa. Our military, our doctors, and our development workers set up the platform that allowed other countries to join us in stamping out that epidemic.
That’s how we forged a Trans-Pacific Partnership to open markets, protect workers and the environment, and advance American leadership in Asia. It cuts 18,000 taxes on products Made in America, and supports more good jobs. With TPP, China doesn’t set the rules in that region, we do. You want to show our strength in this century? Approve this agreement. Give us the tools to enforce it.
Fifty years of isolating Cuba had failed to promote
democracy, setting us back in Latin America. That’s why we restored diplomatic relations, opened the door to travel and commerce, and positioned ourselves to improve the lives of the Cuban people. You want to consolidate our leadership and credibility in the hemisphere? Recognize that the Cold War is over. Lift the embargo.
American leadership in the 21st century is not a choice between ignoring the rest of the world — except when we kill terrorists; or occupying and rebuilding whatever society is unraveling. Leadership means a wise application of military power, and rallying the world behind causes that are right. It means seeing our foreign assistance as part of our national security, not charity. When we lead nearly 200 nations to the most ambitious agreement in history to fight climate change — that helps vulnerable countries, but it also protects our children. When we help Ukraine defend its democracy, or Colombia resolve a decades-long war, that strengthens the international order we depend upon. When we help African countries feed their people and care for the sick, that prevents the next pandemic from reaching our shores. Right now, we are on track to end the scourge of HIV/AIDS, and we have the capacity to accomplish the same thing with malaria — something I’ll be pushing this Congress to fund this year.
That’s strength. That’s leadership. And that kind of leadership depends on the power of our example. That is why I will keep working to shut down the prison at Guantanamo: it’s expensive, it’s unnecessary, and it only serves as a recruitment brochure for our enemies.
That’s why we need to reject any politics that targets people because of race or religion. This isn’t a matter of political correctness. It’s a matter of understanding what makes us strong. The world respects us not just for our arsenal; it respects us for our diversity and our openness and the way we respect every faith. His Holiness, Pope Francis, told this body from the very spot I stand tonight that “to imitate the hatred and violence of tyrants and murderers is the best way to take their place.” When politicians insult Muslims, when a mosque is vandalized, or a kid bullied, that doesn’t make us safer. That’s not telling it like it is. It’s just wrong. It diminishes us in the eyes of the world. It makes it harder to achieve our goals. And it betrays who we are as a country.
“We the People.”
Our Constitution begins with those three simple words, words we’ve come to recognize mean all the people, not just some; words that insist we rise and fall together. That brings me to the fourth, and maybe the most important thing I want to say tonight.
The future we want — opportunity and security for our families; a rising standard of living and a sustainable, peaceful planet for our kids — all that is within our reach. But it will only happen if we work together. It will only happen if we can have rational, constructive debates.
It will only happen if we fix our politics.
A better politics doesn’t mean we have to agree on everything. This is a big country, with different regions and attitudes and interests. That’s one of our strengths, too. Our Founders distributed power between states and branches of government, and expected us to argue, just as they did, over the size and shape of government, over commerce and foreign relations, over the meaning of liberty and the imperatives of security.
But democracy does require basic bonds of trust between its citizens. It doesn’t work if we think the people who disagree with us are all motivated by malice, or that our political opponents are unpatriotic. Democracy grinds to a halt without a willingness to compromise; or when even basic facts are contested, and we listen only to those who agree with us. Our public life withers when only the most extreme voices get attention. Most of all, democracy breaks down when the average person feels their voice doesn’t matter; that the system is rigged in favor of the rich or the powerful or some narrow interest.
Too many Americans feel that way right now. It’s one of the few regrets of my presidency — that the rancor and suspicion between the parties has gotten worse instead of better. There’s no doubt a president with the gifts of Lincoln or Roosevelt might have better bridged the divide, and I guarantee I’ll keep trying to be better so long as I hold this office.
But, my fellow Americans, this cannot be my task — or any President’s — alone. There are a whole lot of folks in this chamber who would like to see more cooperation, a more elevated debate in Washington, but feel trapped by the demands of getting elected. I know; you’ve told me. And if we want a better politics, it’s not enough to just change a Congressman or a Senator or even a President; we have to change the system to reflect our better selves.
We have to end the practice of drawing our congressional districts so that politicians can pick their voters, and not the other way around. We have to reduce the influence of money in our politics, so that a handful of families and hidden interests can’t bankroll our elections — and if our existing approach to campaign finance can’t pass muster in the courts, we need to work together to find a real solution.
We’ve got to make voting easier, not harder, and modernize it for the way we live now. And over the course of this year, I intend to travel the country to push for reforms that do.
But I can’t do these things on my own. Changes in our political process — in not just who gets elected but how they get elected — that will only happen when the American people demand it. It will depend on you. That’s what’s meant by a government of, by, and for the people.
What I’m asking for is hard. It’s easier to be cynical; to accept that change isn’t possible, and politics is hopeless, and to believe that our voices and actions don’t matter. But if we give up now, then we forsake a better future. Those with money and power will gain greater control over the decisions that could send a young soldier to war, or allow another economic disaster, or roll back the equal rights and voting rights that generations of Americans have fought, even died, to secure. As frustration grows, there will be voices urging us to fall back into tribes, to scapegoat fellow citizens who don’t look like us, or pray like us, or vote like we do, or share the same background.
We can’t afford to go down that path. It won’t deliver the economy we want, or the security we want, but most of all, it contradicts everything that makes us the envy of the world.
So, my fellow Americans, whatever you may believe, whether you prefer one party or no party, our collective future depends on your willingness to uphold your obligations as a citizen. To vote. To speak out. To stand up for others, especially the weak, especially the vulnerable, knowing that each of us is only here because somebody, somewhere, stood up for us. To stay active in our public life so it reflects the goodness and decency and optimism that I see in the American people every single day.
It won’t be easy. Our brand of democracy is hard. But I can promise that a year from now, when I no longer hold this office, I’ll be right there with you as a citizen — inspired by those voices of fairness and vision, of grit and good humor and kindness that have helped America travel so far. Voices that help us see ourselves not first and foremost as black or white or Asian or Latino, not as gay or straight, immigrant or native born; not as Democrats or Republicans, but as Americans first, bound by a common creed. Voices Dr. King believed would have the final word — voices of unarmed truth and unconditional love.
They’re out there, those voices. They don’t get a lot of attention, nor do they seek it, but they are busy doing the work this country needs doing.
I see them everywhere I travel in this incredible country of ours. I see you. I know you’re there. You’re the reason why I have such incredible confidence in our future. Because I see your quiet, sturdy citizenship all the time.
I see it in the worker on the assembly line who clocked extra shifts to keep his company open, and the boss who pays him higher wages to keep him on board.
I see it in the Dreamer who stays up late to finish her science project, and the teacher who comes in early because he knows she might someday cure a disease.
I see it in the American who served his time, and dreams of starting over — and the business owner who gives him that second chance. The protester determined to prove that justice matters, and the young cop walking the beat, treating everybody with respect, doing the brave, quiet work of keeping us safe.
I see it in the soldier who gives almost everything to save his brothers, the nurse who tends to him ’til he can run a marathon, and the community that lines up to cheer him on.
It’s the son who finds the courage to come out as who he is, and the father whose love for that son overrides everything he’s been taught.
I see it in the elderly woman who will wait in line to cast her vote as long as she has to; the new citizen who casts his for the first time; the volunteers at the polls who believe every vote should count, because each of them in different ways know how much that precious right is worth.
That’s the America I know. That’s the country we love. Clear-eyed. Big-hearted. Optimistic that unarmed truth and unconditional love will have the final word. That’s what makes me so hopeful about our future. Because of you. I believe in you. That’s why I stand here confident that the State of our Union is strong.
Thank you, God bless you, and God bless the United States of America.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Regardless of it all happening the day of the POTUS' SOTU speech, please stay in touch.
