Why should business interests support Joe Biden

Why should business interests support Joe Biden in 2024? Consider the alternatives: autocracy, instability,  and crony capitalism.

One of the most memorable converations I had shortly after the November 2020 election (and before the "stop the steal" Trump impetus and January 6) was with a businessman who said he had voted for Trump even though he was "an A-hole" because he liked his tax policies, among other government policies toward his business.  He agreed with me that Joe Biden was the only Democrat who could have beaten Trump. There is a case to be made that in the longer run, Biden's win in 2024 would be far more favorable to business interests than Trump and his allies' policies. Peace and domestic stability are bedrocks of a prosperous business climate, and Trump and his allies would guarantee years of conflict and instability in the face of enormous generational and demographic shifts. The Brookings Institute noted " The simple fact is that it is hard (for private businesses) to plan and invest for the future in volatile, unstable circumstances," and Brookings agreed with the need of an accountable, capable government that sets rules of the game fairly which only democracy can insure with accountability. Free trade and keeping access to international markets are public policy plusses, but an unaccountable strong leader may or may not support with diplomacy and military power, depending upon the benefits to him.  Trump and his allies are determined to upend democracy and replace it with an autocracy. Crony capitalism is emerging in autocracies in many parts of the world.  Is democracy failing and putting our economic system at risk? | Brookings

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2023/09/07/presidential-centers-unite-to-warn-about-danger-to-u-s-democracy/70788967007/

Democracy has kept government power and crony capitalism in check for 250 years. and provided the ability for businesses to thrive and innovate.  The alternative and polar opposite to democracy is autocracy. Autocrats pick business winners and losers with favoritism dependent on loyalty to their political ideology, goals, and world views. Autocrats are fueled by greed for more power and wealth, and criteria for government favors and decisions depend on loyalty to the leader, not to a law to which they give lip service with a wink and a nod.  

  The free market,  innovation,   and competition struggle in such an atmosphere where business decisions depend upon political favoritism granted by one powerful leader, an ideologically based political party. Innovation is stolen from the innovators and then applied in business favored by the reigning powers. China is the template of how that works..   That alliance between loyal businesses and an autocrat is the model personified by Orban of  Hungary and in Russia's Putin and his oligarchs. and China.   That is how autocrats have gained and then maintained power. Crony capitalism works for them.  That is a lesson from history as even the 1930''s fascist rulers rose to power by fostering such alliances with favored businesses, as well..  Once in power, they are nearly impossible to unhide because the power centers of government are controlled by the economic self-interest of the loyalists.  

The chaos factor and instability:  The use of violence to accomplish such MAGA goals has not been denied, and Trump himself has a history of approving such tactics, including weaponizing active military and replacing the Department of Justice with yes people.    Trump is a front man of a very strong movement behind him and goals shaped by "think tanks" such as the  Heritage Foundation and an Orban-boosting CPAC.. It is also the elements of white supremacy and Christian nationalism that form part of his and the MAGA support that guarantees future domestic and internal conflicts as opposition grows. Instability and uncertainty are enemies of business. MUFTIC FORUM BLOG: How would being anti-woke unify the country? Updated 9 5 23

Accountability to keep corruption in check. Regulation by the government of business practices that support a level, fair playing field needed for a thriving, competitive business climate is possible in a functioning democracy.  Such accountability requires a free press, nosy reporters, and whistle-blowers. In an autocracy, a strong leader fears them and will attempt to suppress the opposition press at best by starving their advertising dollars. buying them out (Orban) and, at worst, poisoning and staging their murders. (Putin).   In crony capitalism empowered by a government having replaced civil service, law enforcement, and the judiciary with their loyal appointees,  favoritism toward loyal businesses and corruption, bribery, grift,  and graft, flourish. The public remains in the dark, with few who see the corruption daring to be outraged. because of the repercussions. (Navalny, one of the most extreme examples of Putin's policies.) Legislators fear being primaried or losing power, and voters are left with few or no choices.

Isolationism:  In a  second term, we expect Trump to continue with his attempt to destroy international alliances such as NATO and withdraw into isolationism. In addition, he would install high tariffs, the opposite of a long-held conservative value of free trade. Many of our US businesses are global.  Many depend on access to markets to conduct their business to sell and grow abroad.  Biden's foreign and military policy is particularly geared to maintaining trade and supply lanes as a check on Chinese efforts to control them in southeast Asia.

 Instead of punishing with high tariffs, Biden is emphasizing making critical industries competitive and benefitting from "buy America.. make it in America" government policies. He has given positive reinforcement of green energy manufacturing(Chips ac, green energy plan) while beating Trump's oil drilling records and moving us to energy independence to a level not seen in the past 70 year,.The US has become a net exporter of crude oi and natural gas via liquified natural gas (LNG).  Biden is a realist. He recognizes fossil fuels are a current and national security necessity.  Biden has little ability to control prices at the pump, though he gets blamed for price increases. That debt, deficit and inflation are worrisome to the business community, the problem is bi-partisan and the reasons are complicated. None the less, Biden can boast the US is the strongest economy in the world:7 Reasons the U.S. Economy Is Among the Strongest in the G7 - Center for American Progress

US Debt by President: Dollar and Percentage (thebalancemoney.com)  

Yes, inflation is down. No, the Inflation Reduction Act doesn't deserve the credit | AP News  

Many realize, too, that our economy is interdependent with Europe and that Russia is intent on reconstituting the power of the former USSR and control of former satellites. That is the stated goal of Putin..MUFTIC FORUM BLOG: What is wrong with "America First" and isolationism? It depends; updated 9/9/23

Trump Says He'll Impose Huge New Tariffs If Elected in 2024 (businessinsider.com)

Conservative groups draw up plan to dismantle U.S. government - Los Angeles Times (latimes.com) 

NPR

https://www.npr.org › 2022/08/04 › why-hungarys-auth...

The CHIPS and Science Act: What is it and what is in it? | McKinsey

https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2020/09/06/the-highlights-of-joe-bidens-energy-plan/?

sh=4aa171e53bfe

Under Biden, US oil production is poised to break Trump-era records | CNN Business

https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2023/05/02/us-energy-independence-soars-to-highest-levels-in-over-70-years/?sh=53ce0eea977f

EIA: US to remain net exporter of petroleum products through 2050 | Oil & Gas Journal (ogj.com)

Natural gas imports and exports - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

https://www.convenience.org/Media/conveniencecorner/Does-the-President-Control-Gas-Prices

That debt, deficit and inflation are worrisome to the business community, the problem is bi-partisan and the reasons are complicated. None the less, the US is the strongest economy in the world:7 Reasons the U.S. Economy Is Among the Strongest in the G7 - Center for American Progress

US Debt by President: Dollar and Percentage (thebalancemoney.com)  

Yes, inflation is down. No, the Inflation Reduction Act doesn't deserve the credit | AP News  

What is wrong with "America First" and isolationism? It depends; updated 9/9/23

Updated 9 6 2023 Reopening the issue: Bracing for Trump 2.0: His Possible Return Inspires Fear in America’s Allies—and Hope in Its Rivals (foreignaffairs.com)

Continuing with the original post but updated 9/9/2023 

So what's wrong with "America first" and isolationism.  It depends if we are talking about national defense or economic interests.  Sometimes, they cannot be separated.  Trade and military might have been partners throughout history,  with the military either used to preserve trade routes or to expand them. When it comes to national defense and security, isolationist policies shoot us in our own feet by making America alone, not first, with defense all on our own dime and blood. Acting isolationist does not make us isolated; it makes us a target, naive and unprepared in a very interconnected world with predators ready to fill vacuums left by those who withdraw. The power-hungry love vacuums. It is low-hanging fruit for them, and China and Russia are prepared, ready, and able to fill that vacuum America gifts them. The ability to look out after US national interests in a world in which there are powerful adversaries depends upon having a seat at the table and, better still, serving as the chairman of a powerful caucus of like-minded allies.  Isolationists would leave these seats vacant to be filled by those who have no interest in supporting US national interests. Biden attending the G20 and meeting with Modi of India in advance exemplify how involvement serves US national security interests. G-20 Summit: US says India is disappointed Xi and Putin aren't attending G-20, but Biden sees it as an opportunity | CNN Politics

 History is full of examples of how isolationism as a defense strategy failed. The most famous and instructive happened within the lifetime of some of us still living. For us, it is not history but an experience. It has shaped my view of the value of strong alliances and a disdain for isolationism. More than that: I consider those who embrace isolationism to be fools.   If America was not an isolated island at the beginning of World War II, it is even more interconnected now. Even then, eventually even in 1941, we realized isolationism was no longer in our national security interests. Japan attacked us at Pearl Harbor. Fortress America did not make America great, but it made us vulnerable because our national interests extended way beyond our shores.  If we have seen that movie before, a replay will certainly be even more likely in this current era where we are now far more entwined economically and nationally security-wise in the rest of the world than in 1938-1941. This is true both in trade and in defense where alliances give us more boots on the ground. ships at sea and airpower above. Giving that up or crippling it by empowering these isolationists puts us in grave danger of losing control to determine our own destiny. We would be confirming our weakness and lack of resolve to influence events. We would be left to defend our own borders, and we know how difficult that is, don't we? We would then be at the mercy of both China or a reinvigorated Russian empire to be the pipers calling the tune to which we must dance. They are not our friends, and they will continue to build their empires until they cannot.  Always the threat of nuclear blackmail would be used to continue to keep us in line. Like the days before nuclear arms agreements (now trashed by Putin and the Iran version trashed by Trump)), the only brake on who pulls the nuclear trigger first is the fear of mutually assured self-destruction.  I do not want to even think about how that movie ends.

On the other hand, there is an advantage to decreasing dependence on manufacturing abroad, both positive impacts: increasing domestic job creation and in sectors related to national defense.  From the consumer viewpoint, we have benefitted from cheap imports from China. There is a balancing act there, and it is sometimes difficult to separate consumer advantages from national security in trade issues. Protecting trade routes and markets has always been a national security goal. We are beginning to tackle the problem by banning Tic Toc as a popular internet app that also benefits Chinese national security interests while damaging ours. Computer chips are fundamental to the operating armaments of both militaries, and we had given our domestic production to China. Cybersecurity is now a top security and economic worry, affecting both the private and national security sectors.  While we are already so entwined with China and trade in our economies, there is strong bi-partisan agreement that we should become less dependent on China for manufacturing. Trump's answer: raise trade barriers by imposing duties. That never worked partially due to Covid, but Biden's build-back better plan is just getting off the ground, and the chips act was the first initiative. The horse has already escaped from the barn when it comes to China stealing US trade secrets and academic research.  Closing the barn door in the future is problematic since industrial espionage is an international sport.

We are on the brink of conflict with China which is more adversarial than just trade and economic competition. China is threatening to supply Russia with weapons and military equipment to help them with their invasion of Ukraine.  This complicates our trade policies since we are so tied to China that sanctions to deter them could hurt us more than it hurts them.  US leverage on China over stopping an unholy alliance with Russia has been a thorny problem, sometimes successful and sometimes not, from the beginning of the Cold War until the current era.  Biden's wisdom and experience will count as never before in shaping US policy in this newest crisis.

America First Political Action Conference - Wikipedia

Biden's quiet, muscular diplomacy: A new foreign policy sheriff in town

 One autocrat got the message. There is a new foreign policy sheriff in town. Erdogan's Turkey is a member of NATO that bought missiles from another autocratic regime. Russia, an adversary and cyber attacker of the US. Biden was not pleased and still is not completely pleased as Turkey returns the experts Russia sent with their missiles, but not the missiles. More to come. Putin massed his military at the Ukraine border, implying a threatened invasion and testing Biden's intent to resist. Biden and NATO reaffirmed their commitment to defend Ukraine's embryonic democracy on the border with other NATO members. Quietly, Putin withdrew his troops after a telephone conversation with Biden. . Next, there were threats by Russia to move their influence into the Balkans through Serbia. Slovenia proposed eliminating the autonomy of Bosnia and dividing it up. That was a concept the US slapped down. That has been met as well by calls to fast-track membership of countries there not already members of NATO, including Bosnia. Most in the Balkans already are NATO members, including Montenegro with its best submarine port in the Mediterranean. The Balkans are still a work in progress. Biden is no fool, nor is he ignorant, having served both as chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for years and as vice-president. He will be meeting with both Turkey and Putin this summer. That should be interesting and maybe tense. This is a significant change from the Trump era, whose foreign policy was bootlicking and praising nuclear powers governed by autocrats, mostly adversaries of the US. The technique resembled appeasement, and the autocrats were emboldened to expand and rearm further from Russia to Iran to North Korea. His ending treaties designed to restrain China's expansion into the southeastern Pacific, and Iran's military nuclear ambitions backfired. Both China and Iran took advantage of the opportunity Trump's foreign policy gave them to expand economic and military interests into sensitive areas..of the South China Sea and Hamas and nuclear re-armament in the mid-east. Since Trump backed out of the Iran nuclear deal, it has increased its enriched uranium stockpiles. It has, however, agreed to international inspections fearing more international backlash and economic sanctions. Trump was a fool who thought flattery got him somewhere because he craved flattery himself. In foreign policy, that tomfoolery may have kept the guns from firing. Yet, it gave our adversaries a chance and breathing space to creep into our national interests and fill the void left by Trump's isolationist policies. In foreign policy, brute power and economic self-interest count above anything else.

If I have any bone to pick, it would be Biden turning over Afghanistan to the Taliban as he pulled out our skeleton force there. Whether Afghanistan will be a terrorist threat in the future to the US remains to be seen. However, the damage it will do to the rights of women there is going to be heartbreaking. The US has spent the past 20 years empowering and educating girls and women, and they will be the Taliban's first victims.

MSN.COM

Turkey to Send Russian Missile Experts Home in Signal to Biden
Russia Announces Withdrawal of Troops From Ukraine Border | World Report | US NewsNATO - Topic: Relations with Ukraine
Biden proposes summit with Putin as Russia amasses on Ukraine border (cnbc.com)

US commander warns NATO is ready to respond to aggression (defensenews.com)Russia's strategic interests and tools of influence in the Western Balkans - Atlantic Council


US rejects Slovenia-linked plan to break up Bosnia (euobserver.com)
Why Biden Should Fast-Track Bosnia's NATO Accession | RUSI | Official Press Release (wired-gov.net)
Balkans rocked as leaked memo explores redrawing Bosnia’s borders along ethnic lines | Euronews
Biden Seeks U.S.-China Defense Hotline (foreignpolicy.com)
US going to hold China 'accountable' in the region; press Beijing to follow rules: Biden - The Economic TimesThe big trade move America got wrong (yahoo.com)

Iran Extends Nuclear Program Inspections Agreement - The New York Times (nytimes.com)
Iran's help has boosted Hamas rocket force, posing Israel a dilemma - CSMonitor.com

So what's wrong with soliciting dirt on an opponent from a foreign government.

10/18/19:  Nick Mulvaney said yes the US denies aid all of the time to influence foreign policy and politics are always involved, but yes aid was withheld to get Ukraine to investigate the theory that Ukraine hacked the DNC emails in 2016, not the Russians.  Oops. Use of military aid was used to force Ukraine to act to help Trump politically.  So what's wrong?" Just get over it", Mulvaney said.
( 10/12/19 revision of a form posting asking So What's wrong with getting dirt on an election opponent  from a foreign government?)
Here is your Colorado Senator Cory Gardner  (R) at work. Gardner is no profile in courage. When a Channel 9 KUSA reporter asked Cory Gardner, ' would  (it) be appropriate for a president to ask a foreign government to investigate an opponent, Gardner did not give a "yes" or "no" answer. 

'The Senate Intelligence Committee is starting an investigation, a bi-partisan investigation. Unfortunately, though, what we've seen is a very political process take over,' he said." https://www.9news.com/article/news/local/next/sen-cory-gardner-interaction-with-the-press/73-e72b2587-5057-403f-80f1-42f93f562a83?fbclid=IwAR2QUKAl-f2

When asked a  question of a matter of principle with a yes or no answer, Gardner responded with an answer that implied that the answer depended upon whether the Senate Intelligence Committee agreed or not with impeachment charges that asking foreign governments to find dirt on a political opponent.  He added a swipe that it is a partisan matter. So much for standing on principle. So what's wrong with the President soliciting help from a foreign government to help him get elected? The easiest answers: it is illegal and it endangers US political independence from foreign control of our own governance.

While the reporter's question was simple,  to answer yes would have put Gardner in hot water with a President who threatens to primary any GOP member of Congress disloyal to him. To answer no would put him in the category of a pure Trump loyalist in a state that has turned blue and bluer.  He is up for re-election in 2020 and his opponent will be very moderate former Colorado governor John Hickenlooper.
 The correct answer to the Channel 9 reporter should have been " No".  Why? 
1. It's a crime, Mr. President and Senator Gardner
Federal Election Commission (FEC) Chairwoman Ellen Weintraub said after President Trump publicly stated he would accept foreign intelligence on opponents and saw no problem with that.."Let me make something 100 percent clear to the American public and anyone running for public office: It is illegal for any person to solicit, accept, or receive anything of value from a foreign national in connection with a U.S. election." 
FYI: impeachment does not require proof a crime was committed to be an article of impeachment.  The definition of high crimes and misdemeanors is left up to the impeachers to define.

2. If the foreign country agrees and produces something that would help a candidate get elected, that candidate finds himself obligated to them in the future even though the foreign country, like Russia, has their own agenda that is not ours and in fact may harm national security.  The Declaration of Independence was just about that: freedom from a foreign power, the British.  Foreign interference was one of the basic fears of the writers of our Constitution, too. The early and later Federalist papers were consumed with the fear that England would try to retake their former colonies. During the Articles of Confederation period before the Constitutional Convention, they noted many attempts by foreign governments to bribe leaders in the former colonies so they laced the Constitution with provisions like the emoluments clause against bribery  and when they could not crack the Constitution and loyalty to the new republic, it took it a step farther invading in the war of 1812.

3. A foreign power getting dirt on a US candidate's opponent is both a thing of value and an element of collusion.  Trump crowed loudly Special Counsel Robert  Mueller's report exonerated him of collusion. He knew collusion was impeachable. However, now Trump himself actively demanded a foreign government to collude. As attorney Ari Melber on MSNBC commented in soliciting dirt on an election opponent from a foreign government, as Trump has done,  is "going from no collusion to pro collusion".As Special Counsel Mueller noted, “[a] foreign entity that engaged in such research and provided resulting information to a campaign could exert a greater effect on an election, and a greater tendency to ingratiate the donor to the candidate, than a gift of money or tangible things of value.” 

_______________________________________________________________________________

 This question stands alone in importance even if there was no quid pro quo of conditioning military aid to Ukraine if their president did not do Trump the favor of re-opening an investigation into Joe Biden and his son for business dealings in Ukraine and in shifting the 2016 foreign interference in the 2016 election from Russia to Ukraine.  Both of these "asks" are based on conspiracy theories with plenty of evidence to debunk them, but promoted by Trump media. Just soliciting, accepting or receiving something of value from a foreign government in an election campaign is against the law.
The president has been on media openly welcoming, from "Russia are you listening? Find Hillary's missing emails",  the July 25 telephone call, Oct. 3, urges China to dig up on the Bidens. (The Chinese declined). The Mueller report spent pains to find no collusion with Russia in 2016; now soliciting the collusion is in the open or as Ari Melber on MSNBC  put it succinctly:  "Trump has gone from no collusion to pro collusion". On June 13, 2019, in an interview with George Stephanopoulos, Trump was asked if he considered accepting "oppo research" from a foreign country broke election laws, he replied: "It's not an interference, they have information -- I think I'd take it," Trump said. "If I thought there was something wrong, I'd go maybe to the FBI -- if I thought there was something wrong. ..... congressman, they all do it, they always have, and that's the way it is. It's called oppo research." It was during the time of the Stephanopoulos interview that Trump's "personal lawyer" was in the midst of trying to convince the newly elected President of Ukraine to re-open the Biden investigation and play ball. It was in vain until a month later that Donald Trump froze military aid to Ukraine to help that country to  beat back a Russian territorial hot war grab followed by the infamous July 25 telephone conversation in which Ukraine's president said he was ready to buy the aid Trump had frozen Trump said he had a favor to ask "though"  and stated the asks: investigate  Bidens' corruption  and for Ukraine to  take the blame for election interference in 2016 .

https://www.fec.gov/updates/foreign-nationals/

More: https://campaignlegal.org/update/yes-president-trump-violated-campaign-finance-law-asking-ukraine-favor

Tweetable quote: By directly requesting or suggesting that President Zelensky use Ukraine’s resources to help his reelection efforts, Trump violated campaign finance law.

(More technically, Trump asked Ukraine to make an “expenditure” by spending resources for the purpose of influencing the 2020 election. An “expenditure” that is coordinated with a candidate is a campaign contribution; “coordinated” means made at the “request or suggestion” of a candidate. So Trump requesting that Ukraine make an expenditure means that he solicited a contribution.)

Hamilton on emoluments from the Muftic Forum Blog 6/24/17: Alexander Hamilton did not even trust the voters or elected officials to stop such attempts. Hamilton expressed his fears in his Federalist Paper 22 “.One of the weak sides of republics..., is that they afford trust too easy an inlet to foreign corruption. ...In republics, persons elevated from the mass of the community, by the suffrages of their fellow-citizens, to stations of great pre-eminence and power, may find compensations for betraying their trust...”  Because of Hamilton’s reasoning  the writers of the Constitution included  the emoluments clause to head off such abuses…” no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.” Note Congress' responsibility in these matters.

https://www.apnews.com/d7440cffba4940f5b85cd3dfa3500fb2

https://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/1/essays/68/emoluments-clause

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/10/03/may-ukrainian-oligarch-said-giuliani-was-orchestrating-clear-conspiracy-against-biden/

https://www.justsecurity.org/66277/the-quid-is-a-crime-no-need-to-prove-pro-quo-in-ukrainegate/

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/464227-fec-chairwoman-reiterates-illegality-of-soliciting-campaign-help-from
https://www.thedailybeast.com/meet-the-eastern-european-mystery-donors-behind-the-trump-allied-super-pac

https://www.wsj.com/articles/two-foreign-born-men-who-helped-giuliani-on-ukraine-arrested-on-campaign-finance-charges-11570714188

https://www.9news.com/article/news/local/next/sen-cory-gardner-interaction-with-the-press/73-e72b2587-5057-403f-80f1-42f93f562a83?fbclid=IwAR2QUKAl-f2

As we celebrated the 4th, let us also celebrate our freedom of religion, too.

On this 4th of July week, as we celebrated the independence of our country, let us also celebrate our founders of independence who later put into our constitution an amendment to protect the freedom to practice one's religion. It should be a reminder to those who would discriminate against believers in a religion and for us to condemn those who use hatred, ignorance and fear as a way to rise to political power. Unfortunately we are seeing much of this in Donald Trump's rhetoric and in his promotion of a Muslim ban. Even more unfortunate, many of his supporters agree. Somewhere along the way they missed or forgot that chapter about the First Amendment in their civics/social studies/American history classes but it is an element that makes this country the exceptional experiment in democracy that it is.

The First Amendment “prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion…”We have had waves of religious hatred in our past, anti-Semitism, anti-Catholicism, even in my lifetime and sadly now, but our ship of democracy rights itself because of the provisions in the Constitution and the reminders of the values our founders set in it. We have seen discrimination in institutions that refuse to let practitioners of certain religions become members and we turned away boatloads of Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany. I remember the slurs uttered when John F Kennedy was a candidate for president, the first Catholic to be elected.

Churches, mosques, and temples are still being desecrated and burned and practitioners have been targets of mass shootings.  There are those who argue their freedom means they can discriminate against those of a different religion and impose by law elements of their religion’s belief on others who do not share their doctrines. Ironically, those who irrationally fear the imposition of Sharia law in the United States as part of their fear of Muslims are also protected by the First Amendment’s forbidding the establishment of a state religion.(though banning Sharia law courts ruled is discriminatory). Fortunately court rulings have upheld the original meaning of the amendment and hate crimes have special penalties in our statute books.

I was interviewed by chance, waiting for a ride home outside the Denver Center for Performing Arts in Denver this  winter after a breathtaking performance by Shen Yun, .a New York based

Chinese performing dance company. The interview landed in a New York international newspaper focusing on uncensored Chinese news, the Epoch Times. It accurately portrayed my remarks about freedom of religion and explained my passion about that right. For the full interview, go to http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/1986176-journalist-sees-hope-for-freedom-in-shen-yun/#

Here is an excerpt:

“I’ve been through an awful lot, I’ve seen an awful lot,” said the 78-year-old journalist. Ms. Muftic had lived through the Cold War, married an Eastern European in Berlin at the time, and seen many people persecuted for their faiths under totalitarian regimes in Eastern Europe during her career.
So learning that New York-based Shen Yun was reviving a divinely inspired culture lost under China’s communist regime, and seeing those events played out in the dance, was hopeful to Ms. Muftic.
“I understand the persecution of that. I’ve seen it myself, I’ve felt it myself, I know what it is about. The hope of that to me is wonderful. And I don’t think we can lose that hope.”



Note: An attempt to ban Sharia law by Oklahoma was also unconstitutional, per a court ruling, because it would be discriminatory.  This is not the same as establishing a state religion, however.http://www.salon.com/2013/08/16/judge_rules_oklahoma_cant_ban_sharia_law/

One of the controversies regarding freedom of religion has also been whether a merchant who disagrees with the beliefs of a customer can refuse to serve them.  Is permitting that impeding a person's freedom of religion? Or is it impeding the right of the customer to practice their religion?  The issue is not freedom of relgion. It is an attempt to use religion to rationalize practicing discrimination in a public accommodation. That violates  another amendment to the Constitution forbidding discrimination. In my mind, as a business person serving someone with whom I disagree is not the same as a government keeping me from going to church and praying to my God  nor in my private life does it keep me from chosing my friends based on their beliefs.