Here is a news article: CHARLOTTE -- The second day of the Democratic convention features one president -- Bill Clinton -- promoting another -- Barack Obama.

 USA TODAY is providing full coverage of the Democratic National Convention online and in print. Check local TV listings for when you can catch the action from the Time Warner Cable Arena.

 Here are five things to watch for Wednesday, Sept. 5:

 1) Bubba is back: Observers will be looking to see how much Bill Clinton talks about Obama, and how much he talks about his own record from the 1990s. Also in the back of every Democrat's mind: Will Hillary Rodham Clinton run for president in 2016? The former president speaks last, probably starting after 10:30 p.m. ET

 2) Elizabeth Warren is ready for her close-up: Warren, a Harvard law professor and long-time consumer advocate, is the Democratic nominee for Senate in Massachusetts. It's one of the nation's hottest Senate races, and could determine which party controls the chamber. She is challenging Republican incumbent Scott Brown, who won the seat after the death of Edward Kennedy.

 3) Locking down the women's vote: Warren is one a series of female speakers at the convention, as Obama seeks to exploit his advantage over Republican challenger Mitt Romney among female voters, using such issues as contraceptives and abortion rights. Among the speakers tonight: Sandra Fluke, who was called a "slut" and "prostitute" by radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh after she testified on behalf of contraception services in health care plans.

 4) The "great state" roll call: Officially, the convention is about nominating Obama and Vice President Biden to a second term and to do that, the roll call is required. Obama had no major party opposition in the primary season, so guess who's the favorite? But it's unclear how much TV viewers will see: The roll call is supposed to begin after Clinton speaks.

 5) The arrival: President Obama arrives in Charlotte this afternoon. Will he make a "surprise" appearance at the convention? Perhaps on stage with Bill Clinton? We don't know. We do know Obama will address the convention on Thursday night. ||||| President Obama's campaign manager Jim Messina and deputy campaign manager Stephanie Cutter downplayed questions about Bill Clinton's speech not being vetted by the campaign at a Bloomberg News breakfast this morning, calling it a "mountain out of a molehill."

 "We have had lots of conversations with President Clinton," said Messina. "This is a mountain out of a molehill. He's going to give a great speech tomorrow."

 Has he seen the speech? No, Messina acknowledged at the start. Cutter added, "Someone in our organization is likely to see the speech before [Clinton] gives it just because that's the normal course of business."

 She added that everyone believes Clinton will give a strong endorsement of Obama's policies, which Messina said Clinton will describe as similar to his own. .

 "We are not one bit worried about what President Clinton is going to say" in his speech, she added.

 Still, there was no illusion about controlling the former president — asked at the outset who is editing Clinton's speech, Cutter replied, "Bill Clinton." ||||| BOSTON -- Ask any Republican or Democrat to name the most important Senate races in the fight for control of the Democratic-led chamber, and they will undoubtedly include one state in particular: Massachusetts. The state's Republican Sen. Scott Brown will go up against Democrat and Harvard law professor Elizabeth Warren in what polling indicates is likely to be a close race.

 Such a contest, so far the most expensive U.S. Senate race, was not unexpected in this traditionally Democratic state. Brown, 52, shocked the political establishment in 2010 with his victory in the special election to fill the late Ted Kennedy's seat. This is the year that Kennedy would have been up for re-election, so Brown is up again a mere two years after his first win.

 Those familiar with Massachusetts politics, including Brown himself, always expected Democrats to mount an attempt to take back the seat this time around.

 WHAT TO KNOW A closer look at what's going on in the most closely watched Senate race in the country

 "They want the Kennedy seat back very badly," Brown told ABC News. "They've made that clear. But bottom line is, it's not the Kennedy seat, it's not the Democrats seat, it's still the people's seat."

 What was unknown was who would jump in to challenge the freshmen senator. That candidate turned out to be Warren, a professor at Harvard Law School and creator of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, a newly formed, federal department that came about under the Obama administration.

 With a good level of name recognition established as a result of her work with the agency, as well as her oversight of the Troubled Asset Relief Program (more commonly known as TARP) and a lengthy resume, Warren was the Democrats' answer to the much-considered question of who could challenge the popular senator. Warren, 63, announced her candidacy in September 2011, and the race has been fierce ever since.

 The candidates share the same wedding anniversary date, and each one has proven to be a strong fundraiser. But the similarities end there. Brown, who was recently promoted to colonel in the Army National Guard, plays up his regular-guy image (he famously drove his pickup truck around the state when campaigning in 2010) and his bipartisan record. His campaign has run a series of ads featuring a slew of prominent Massachusetts' Democrats, such as former Boston Mayor Ray Flynn, endorsing the Republican candidate. His history of reaching across the aisle is something Brown highlights himself.

 "Bottom line is, I'm the second-most bipartisan senator in the U.S. Senate," Brown said. "I've done exactly what I said I was going to do, which is to read the bills, understand them, see how they affect Massachusetts, our country, our debt, our deficit and vote."

 Warren's campaign has also talked a lot about her humble beginnings: Her father worked as a janitor in Oklahoma, she received a scholarship from George Washington University at age 16. But the campaign has also emphasized her history of protecting the consumer, and of fighting for the middle class.

 "I didn't get into this race based on some strategic vision of I could check off six boxes and somehow win the Senate seat," she said. For me, it truly is around the urgency of the movement. I guess you could say the fight came to me."

 The conversation in the Senate race has mirrored the presidential race, with Brown attacking Warren for comments she made in 2011 when she said "there is nobody in this country who got rich on his own." The comments mirror Obama's "you didn't build that" remarks last month on which Republicans have pounced.

 Brown last week launched a "Thank You for Building This" tour, as part of his campaign's efforts to highlight the senator's support for free enterprise. Brown kicked off the tour Friday by bringing coffee and donuts to a construction crew in Framingham, Mass.

 "I've visited over 500 businesses, this is an extension of what I've been doing since I was elected," Brown said. "I'm going to go out there and thank those job creators, people who have put their hard earned sweat equity, their livelihood on the line, and my word to them is, 'Thank you.'"

 Warren isn't backing down from her comments, however. Indeed, the first-time candidate has made infrastructure a big part of her proposed policy agenda, recently launching her "Rebuild Now" tour that calls for an investment in the country's infrastructure.

 "American businesses can compete with anyone so long as they're competing on a level playing field," Warren said. "But when the Chinese are making big investments in infrastructure, that means that their businesses will get their goods to market on state-of-the-art roads and bridges, they'll have state-of-the-art communications and power ... that gives their businesses a real competitive advantage over the next 25 years."

 Warren's unapologetic support for such government investment has helped to make her a rising star within the Democratic base. Her status was highlighted by the recent announcement that she would have a prominent speaking slot at the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, N.C., next month. Warren will be introducing Bill Clinton.

 "I'm going to talk about what I've talked about for years now," Warren said when asked about her speech. "America's middle class is getting hammered and Washington is rigged to work for the big guy. That's what got me into this race, and that's what I will talk about."

 Whether it will win over the hearts of a majority of Massachusetts voters is the bigger question, though. The race is everywhere in the state: turn on the radio, glance a newspaper, even just walk down the streets of Boston and you will hear an ad, see an article, or pass by a bumper sticker for one of the two candidates. And that presence is only going to increase in the coming weeks and months.

 The race is the most expensive Senate race in the country so far in terms of money raised. A combined total of $46 million has been raised already, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, and so Massachusetts residents can expect to be blanketed with a lot more TV, radio and Internet advertising as November draws closer. Voters will also get a chance to see Brown and Warren go head-to-head soon. In the fall, the candidates will face off in a series of four televised debates.

 What voters might not see, however, are ads from outside groups. Brown and Warren in January signed an agreement called "the People's Pledge," which vowed to keep advertisements from third-party spending groups out of the race. Eight months later, the pledge is still in place. Warren says she believes the plan has allowed the candidates to focus more on the issues.

 "It has at least opened the space to be able to talk about issues," Warren said.

 For months now, polling has shown the two candidates in a statistical tie, and barring any big surprises, it's expected to stay that way. Unsurprisingly, each candidate holds a different opinion on what the race is ultimately about.

 "This is really about jobs and the economy and how we are going to get our country moving again," Brown said. "You're going to have somebody down there who has been doing his job, me, working on the issues that matter, jobs and the economy, versus somebody who's a rock- thrower and doesn't want to compromise."

 Warren said, "I think it's about the kind of people we are, and the kind of people we're trying to be.

 "To me, it's about this vision, what kind of people are we and what kind of country are we trying to be?" ||||| For Barack Obama, the risk of Bill Clinton is worth the reward. Their sometimes awkward relationship will be showcased tonight when the former president takes the stage to place the current president’s name in nomination at the Democratic National Convention.

 “There’s the possibility of Clinton outshining Obama,” said Douglas Brinkley, a presidential historian at Rice University in Houston. “But that’s a minor fear if you’re Obama, to having Clinton embrace you in prime time.”

 Read More: Bloomberg Insider - Convention 2012

 Bloomberg Insider - Convention 2012 Download:Bloomberg Insider 9/5

 The relationship between the two men has long been a complicated one. Clinton, 66, often referred to as the Big Dog by fans and foes alike because of his stature in the party, was outraged by Obama’s treatment of his wife, Hillary Clinton, during the 2008 primary campaign and miffed he didn’t often seek his advice until after the Democrats’ losses in the 2010 midterm elections.

 Brinkley said tension between past and present presidents isn’t unusual. Hillary Clinton’s role as secretary of state in the Obama administration has added a level of complexity to the relationship.

 “It sort of forces camaraderie between Obama and Clinton,” he said. “They are not intimate or close or personal friends, but they are sort of forced to tolerate each other.”

 Boom Times

 The threat of losing the White House has united the two leaders, the most popular figures in their party in recent history. Still, Clinton’s prominent role in Obama’s re-election convention could remind voters of the booming economic times during the former president’s tenure in the 1990s.

 Matthew Dowd, a Bloomberg analyst and political consultant, told those gathered yesterday at a Bloomberg-sponsored panel discussion near the convention site in Charlotte, North Carolina, that Obama’s campaign needs to be careful about contrasting Clinton and Obama too much.

 There’s a chance undecided voters could say to themselves, “Barack Obama is not like that kind of president. He’s never going to be like that kind of president and maybe I’m going to try a new guy,” said Dowd, a former strategist for President George W. Bush.

 “They have to be really careful with Bill Clinton,” he said. “I think they can overdo this.”

 An Obama campaign spokeswoman yesterday played down the risk that voters would compare Obama to the more prosperous days of the Clinton administration, when the national unemployment rate dropped from above 7 percent to below 4 percent.

 ‘Deeply Involved’

 “He is somebody who can speak directly from experience, not only from his time as president in the ’90s, but also as somebody who’s been deeply involved in the last decade post- presidency about what we need to do to move this country forward,” re-election spokeswoman Jen Psaki told reporters traveling with Obama in Virginia.

 Counter to typical protocol of vetting speeches well in advance of their convention delivery, Obama’s campaign hadn’t yet seen the text of Clinton’s speech as of early yesterday.

 “But we have had lots of conversations with President Clinton and his team,” Jim Messina, Obama’s campaign manager said at a separate Bloomberg News breakfast in Charlotte. “He’s going to give a great speech tomorrow night.”

 Stephanie Cutter, the deputy campaign manager, said at the same event that “someone in our organization is likely to see the speech before the president gives it, just because that’s normal course of business.”

 Courting Independents

 Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney has himself tried to draw Bill Clinton into the campaign. The former Massachusetts governor has spoken favorably about the former president’s White House tenure in an effort to appeal to independent voters and show he doesn’t disparage all Democrats.

 “President Obama tucked away the Clinton doctrine in his large drawer of discarded ideas, along with transparency and bipartisanship,” Romney said in Des Moines on May 15. “It’s enough to make you wonder if maybe it was a personal beef with the Clintons, but probably it runs much deeper than that.”

 As is the case with many presidents, Clinton’s popularity has grown since he left office. Two-thirds of Americans have a favorable opinion of him, according to a Gallup poll in July.

 Clinton could help Obama, 51, win over “white middle-class voters” in battleground states like Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, Brinkley said.

 Credibility on Economy

 “There is only one person in the world who knows how to put an economy back on its feet after a president named Bush and that’s Bill Clinton,” said Mary Anne Marsh, a Boston-based Democratic strategist, referring to the administration of President George H. W. Bush. “Given his credibility on the economy and with voters, it’s hard to imagine a better endorsement Barack Obama could get.”

 Clinton’s speech is just part of a multi-faceted campaign effort on Obama’s behalf. He’s been drafted to serve as a prime surrogate for campaign events, pitched Obama’s economic policy, raised money, endorsed the president’s rescue of the U.S. auto industry and highlighted his killing of al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden.

 Like virtually any high-profile personality, Clinton can go off-message, too. During a May 31 CNN interview, he undercut the narrative Obama’s campaign has tried to build around Romney being interested only in profits when he was a private-equity executive, saying that a “man who has been governor and had a sterling business career crosses the qualification threshold.”

 ‘More Relevant’

 In a subsequent interview with PBS, Clinton said it’s “much more relevant” to look at what Romney did as governor and what he says he’d do as president.

 In one of Obama’s campaign ads, Clinton frames the election as a “clear choice” between a Republican plan to cut taxes for upper-income earners and the president’s proposals to strengthen the middle class by spending more on education and job training.

 “We need to keep going with his plan,” Clinton says in the ad, which ran 2,299 times from Aug. 24 to Aug. 27, according to New York-based Kantar Media’s CMAG, which tracks advertising. Another Obama campaign ad cites Clinton in its response to a Romney spot that says Obama wants to remove work requirements from welfare.

 People knowledgeable about the relationship say that while the two are in a good place, it isn’t one described as overly warm. Obama and Clinton are respectful and friendly, without being effusive.

 To contact the reporter on this story: John McCormick in Charlotte, North Carolina at jmccormick16@bloomberg.net

 To contact the editor responsible for this story: Jeanne Cummings at jcummings21@bloomberg.net ||||| There’s only one president who actually came from Hope.

 Former President Bill Clinton — a native of Hope, Ark. — is expected to offer a rousing endorsement of President Barack Obama in his speech Wednesday night at the Democratic National Convention. But four years ago, while his wife Hillary competed for the Democratic nomination, Clinton wasn’t always so supportive of Obama’s “hope and change” message.

 Text Size -

 +

 reset

 (Also on POLITICO: Clinton's big speech a mystery)

 Here are Bill Clinton’s most controversial quotes about Obama:

 1. “The idea that one of these campaigns is positive and the other is negative when I know the reverse is true and I have seen it and I have been blistered by it for months is a little tough to take. Just because of the sanitizing coverage that’s in the media doesn’t mean the facts aren’t out there.” — Jan. 7, 2008; New Hampshire campaign stop

 2. “I think that they played the race card on me. We now know, from memos from the campaign, that they planned to do it all along.” — April 21, 2008, WHYY News Radio

 3. “In theory, we could find someone who is a gifted television commentator and let them run. They’d have only one year less experience in national politics.” — Dec. 15, 2007, PBS’s “Charlie Rose”

 4. “Give me a break. This whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I’ve ever seen.” — Jan. 7, 2008, addressing Obama’s record on Iraq during a New Hampshire stop

 5. “Hillary’s opponent, in his entire campaign, every two or three weeks has said for months and months and months, beginning in Nevada, that really there wasn’t much difference in how America did when I was president and how America’s done under President Bush. Now, if you believe that, you should probably vote for him, but you get a very bad grade in history.” — April 17, 2008, Lock Haven, Pa., campaign speech

 6. “Jesse Jackson won South Carolina in ’84 and ’88. Jackson ran a good campaign. And Obama ran a good campaign here.” — Jan. 26, 2008, to reporters in Columbia, S.C.

 7. “I mean, when’s the last time we elected a president based on one year of service in the Senate before he started running? I mean, he will have been a senator longer by the time he’s inaugurated, but essentially once you start running for president full time you don’t have time to do much else.” — Dec. 15, 2007, PBS’s “Charlie Rose”

 8. “Oh, I think yes.” – Dec. 20, 2011, Fox News, when asked if the media favored Barack Obama during the 2008 election.

 (PHOTOS: Bill Clinton’s career) ||||| Some things to watch for at the Democratic National Convention on Tuesday:

 Delegates cheer as First Lady Michelle Obama addresses the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, N.C., on Monday, Sept. 3, 2012. (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak) (Associated Press)

 1. THE CLINTON SHOW: The former president, no stranger to talking at length at Democratic conventions, takes the podium. How much of it will be about Barack Obama _ and how much about Bill Clinton?

 2. ELIZABETH WARREN: It's a personal mission for the Democratic Party to get the late Sen. Edward Kennedy's seat back from the Republicans. Candidate Warren's opponent, Republican Scott Brown, didn't speak at his convention last week. But Warren is a star at the Democrats' and the featured challenger in arguably the most competitive Senate race this year.

 3. THE WEATHER: As Obama's outdoor stadium speech approaches, will the sun begin to peek through?

 4. OBAMA _ GOOD FOR BUSINESS: That's what some CEOs on tap to speak are undoubtedly going to trumpet. But what will they have to say about Mitt Romney?

 5. CHARLOTTE IS HOPPING: It's a totally different feel from last week in Tampa. Streets are packed, in part because there are more delegates, in part because of a smaller security perimeter and the convention hall's proximity to the city and restaurants. |||||
A summary of this is?

– The Man From Hope, Bill Clinton, returns to the spotlight of the Democratic National Convention on its second night—and that worries some people. "There's the possibility of Clinton outshining Obama," one presidential historian tells Bloomberg. "But that's a minor fear." Clinton and Obama have famously crossed swords, but the campaign sees him as a powerful voice who can liken Obama's experience to his own. Here's what else you need to know tonight: Rumors have been swirling that the Obama team demanded to vet Clinton's speech, rumors it played down yesterday. "We have had lots of conversations with President Clinton," Jim Messina said, according to Politico. "This is a mountain out of a molehill." But Obama aides say someone is likely to see it. Clinton will be introduced by Elizabeth Warren, who's locked in possibly the nation's most competitive Senate race against Scott Brown. "I'm going to talk about what I've talked about for years now," Warren told ABC last month. "America's middle class is getting hammered and Washington is rigged to work for the big guy." It's worth noting that Brown didn't speak at the RNC. Warren won't be the only woman, either; Democrats intend to showcase many, USA Today reports, including Sandra Fluke, whom you might remember from her run-in with Rush Limbaugh. A number of CEOs are also on the docket, ready to affirm that an Obama presidency would indeed be good for business, the AP reports. Tonight will also mark Obama's official nomination. Since he ran essentially unopposed in the primary, this will simply be a roll-call of all the states, scheduled for after Clinton's speech. Obama himself is set to arrive in Charlotte today, meaning he could make a "surprise" appearance on stage with Bill Clinton, USA Today speculates.


Write an article based on this summary:

– Paul Ryan is making not running for president look a lot like running for president. Time reports the speaker of the House released a 45-second video Friday that "plays like a campaign ad." In the video, titled Politics These Days, Ryan gives a speech lamenting that the GOP—and politics in general—is currently trying to divide people rather than unite them, according to ABC News. Rumors that Ryan will seek the Republican presidential nomination at a contested convention have dogged him for months, and Time states "this quasi-campaign video from Ryan will only add fuel to the fire." Ryan says he isn't interested in being the Republican nominee, even going so far as to threaten legal action against a group that sought to get him the nomination. "I think you need to run for president if you’re going to be president," Time quotes him as saying. He says even if offered, he won't accept the nomination at the convention. But he's said something similar in the past. A month before he was sworn in as speaker of the House, he said he wouldn't even be a candidate for the position. Ryan, one of the most popular figures the party has, will also chair the Republican National Convention.

House Speaker Paul Ryan released a video Friday promoting his unity strategy for the House GOP. But the clip, which shows Ryan giving a speech to a rapt audience, plays like a campaign ad.

 The video, titled “Politics These Days,” is part of Ryan’s agenda for House Republicans, which he is calling “#ConfidentAmerica,” according to the Speaker’s website.

 “What really bothers me the most about politics these days is this notion of identity politics,” Ryan says in the clip. “That we’re going to win an election by dividing people, rather than inspiring people on our common humanity and our common ideals and our common culture on the things that should unify us.”

 Ryan has repeatedly dismissed the idea that he will enter the Republican presidential race. He flat out denied Monday that he would be the “fresh face” that the GOP was looking for to take the party’s nomination at a potentially contested convention in July.

 “I’m not that person. I’d like to think my face is somewhat fresh, but I’m not for this conversation,” Ryan said. “I think you need to run for President if you’re going to be President, and I’m not running for President. So period, end of story.”

 There are, however, countless theories about what could happen should a contested convention take place and this quasi-campaign video from Ryan will only add fuel to the fire. On Twitter, many users speculated that the Speaker may be planning a shadow run at the convention, despite his previous denials. ||||| A new video from House Speaker Paul Ryan's office is fueling speculation that the Wisconsin Republican could wind up with the GOP presidential nomination at a contested convention, despite his repeated assurances that he is not interested in running for president.

 Interested in ? Add as an interest to stay up to date on the latest news, video, and analysis from ABC News. Add Interest

 Ryan's progressively insistent denials can't seem to stick, largely because last year he at first insisted that he would not "be a candidate" for speaker of the House following John Boehner's unexpected retirement announcement. Roughly a month later, however, he was sworn in.

 Here's a review of what he calls two "different" situations:

 That Time When Ryan Denied Calls Before Accepting

 Many have pointed to Ryan's reluctance to immediately accept the speakership back when his name first came up following Boehner’s retirement last September as a reason to question his statements about 2016.

 On the day House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy withdrew his name from consideration for Boehner's job, Oct. 8, Ryan, the then-House Budget Committee chairman and former 2012 GOP vice presidential candidate, said that he was "disappointed" in McCarthy's decision and called for new candidates, but didn't put himself in the running.

 "While I am grateful for the encouragement I’ve received, I will not be a candidate," Ryan said in a statement.

 Sam Loeb/AFP/Getty Images

 Three weeks later, he was sworn in as speaker of the House after another alternative to McCarthy failed to materialize.

 Ryan’s Denials About 2016

 The Wisconsin Republican -- whose communications-savvy office has released similar videos in the past -- has aggressively downplayed the possibility that he could wind up as the GOP presidential nominee at the Republican National Convention in Cleveland, which he will chair as the speaker of the House.

 “There are people out there campaigning. That’s who should be president,” Ryan told reporters last month. "Let’s just put this thing to rest and move on.”

 "Get my name out of that," he said of the speculation in an interview with conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt from Israel earlier this week.

 Ryan's political operation moved quickly to shut down a nascent "Draft Ryan" for president movement in March, disavowing the group and threatening legal action.

 In a recent interview with Politico, when reminded of the similarities between the speaker’s race and the calls for him to get involved with the presidential race, Ryan said, “It was a different situation. I'm already in Congress. That's a totally different situation.”

 Ryan appeared to be suggesting a distinction between the jump from being a rank-and-file House Republican to Speaker, and the jump from not even being a presidential candidate to becoming the GOP nominee.

 On Thursday, Ryan's office came out most forcefully against the possibility of a presidential run in a Shermanesque statement -- a clear and direct statement from a candidate definitively saying he/she will not run for a particular position -- from spokeswoman AshLee Strong: "The speaker is grateful for the support, but he is not interested. He will not accept a nomination and believes our nominee should be someone who ran this year."

 AP Photo

 The term originated with Civil War Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman, who didn't want to be nominated in the 1884 election, telling supporters, "I will not accept if nominated and will not serve if elected."

 That quote has been cited by other politicians as a clear way to say they are not going to run, including President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1968, when he used a tweaked version in announcing he was not going to seek re-election.

 Fueling the Fire

 Facing the prospect of a Donald Trump or Ted Cruz nomination, top Republicans have continued to float Ryan's name as a potential nominee through the spring.

 The release of the campaign-style video from Ryan -- who remains one of the most popular Republican figures in the country -- comes as Republicans grapple with the implications of a likely contested convention.

 Liberals & conservatives are going to disagree with one another. No problem. That’s what this is all about.https://t.co/GmKdRtQdWC — Paul Ryan (@SpeakerRyan) April 8, 2016

 The slick, 45-second video, titled "Politics These Days," recaps the message Ryan delivered in a speech to Capitol Hill interns last month, where he bemoaned the divisive tone of election-year politics at a time in the GOP race when Trump was threatening to "spill the beans" about Cruz's wife, Heidi, after an anti-Trump group ran a series of Facebook ads using photos of Trump's wife, Melania.

 "What really bothers me the most about politics these days is the notion of identity politics -- that we're going to win this election by dividing people, rather than inspiring people," Ryan, who has periodically commented on the presidential race out of concerns about damage to the GOP brand, says in the video.

 Boehner said recently that Ryan should be Republicans' pick for a nominee if the party is unable to select a candidate on the first ballot, though he later walked back that comment through a spokesperson.

 Ryan’s predecessor isn’t the only one looking to the 46-year-old for hope.

 "[Ryan] does represent the kind of vision and values that as a Republican you would want to put forward," Rep. Tom Cole, R-Oklahoma, said in a C-SPAN interview last month.

 Despite the denials, all eyes will once again be on Ryan when he returns to Washington, D.C., from overseas next week. |||||


– A controversial bill in Kansas that gives individuals and businesses the right to refuse service to gay people on religious liberty grounds looks to be doomed, reports the Kansas City Star. The measure—read it in full here—passed the Republican-controlled House and immediately triggered howls of protest from around the nation. In the Daily Beast, for example, Jamelle Bouie writes that it's not a stretch to liken it to Jim Crow laws. "Like its Southern predecessors, this proposal is meant to isolate and stigmatize a despised minority, under of the guise of some higher priority ('religious liberty')." But the measure doesn't appear to have a chance in the state Senate. Its Republican president, Susan Wagle, said that while her members "support laws that define traditional marriage," they "don't condone discrimination." What's more, the state's business community also sided with opponents, reports the Topeka Capital-Journal, which says the legislation will have to be "substantially reworked." (In Virginia, meanwhile, a judge struck down the state's ban on gay marriages.)

Expand this summary.

On Wednesday, the Kansas House of Representatives took a step back to the 1890s with a shameful bill that borrows from Jim Crow to legalize discrimination against gay couples. Approved by a vote of 72 to 49, House Bill No. 2453 would allow businesses and government employees to deny service to same-sex couples on the basis of their religious beliefs. The law specifies businesses with “public accommodations,” but—in effect—that covers almost everything.

 What does this mean in the real world? If you and your partner want to go buy groceries, but the owner—or manager—doesn’t “agree” with your relationship, they can refuse you service. If you want to go the movies, and the owner decides she’s uncomfortable—she can kick you out. Hotels can deny entry, gyms can deny access, and restaurants can eject you without consequence.

 Obviously, some gay couples will want to sue. But under the law, anyone who turns away a gay couple is immune to a civil suit. What’s more, the couple will have to pay their opponents attorney’s fees.

 On top of all of this, the bill authorizes anti-gay discrimination by anyone who works for the state of Kansas. Ambulances can refuse to come to the home of a gay couple, park managers can deny them entry, state hospitals can turn them away, and public welfare agencies can decline to work with them. Yes, the bill requires private managers and state employees to refer the couple to another person who will conduct their business, but in reality, those rules have a habit of falling by the wayside.

 And while the bill is presented as a measure directed explicitly at same-sex couples, the language is much more ambiguous. One clause allows discrimination as long as the transaction is “related to the celebration of, any marriage, domestic partnership, civil union or similar arrangement.”

 There’s no way to know if a given transaction is related to a gay partnership. In most cases, there’s no way to know if someone is gay. But that doesn’t matter. Under this bill, if you believe someone is gay and purchasing something or making arrangements for the sake of a civil union or same-sex marriage, you can deny them service. Indeed, they don’t even have to be gay. Anyone suspected of working towards those ends could be subject to legalized harassment.

 To put this simply, the Kansas House has just endorsed a comprehensive system of anti-gay discrimination. If it becomes law—which isn’t unlikely, given Republican control of the statehouse and governorship—it will yield a segregated world for gays and their allies, as they are forced to use businesses and other services that aren’t hostile to them.

 When asked about the bill, Kansas Governor Sam Brownback told The Topeka Capital-Journal that “Americans have constitutional rights, among them the right to exercise their religious beliefs and the right for every human life to be treated with respect and dignity.” The question is whether he thinks this applies to gays.

 Looking at this bill, I don’t think it’s an exaggeration to call it a close cousin—if not sibling—of Jim Crow (natch, for black gays and lesbians in the state, there’s little difference). Like its Southern predecessors, this proposal is meant to isolate and stigmatize a despised minority, under of the guise of some higher priority (“religious liberty”). And while this bill doesn’t sanction violence, that was also true of Jim Crow. During the period, African Americans had legal equality under criminal law. In theory, if you beat a black person, you could be arrested and tried for assault. In practice, however, this rarely happened. Legal stigmatization fed social stigmatization (and vice versa) which led to a world where blacks were all but outside the protection of law.

 Obviously, we are far from that in Kansas. But one thing is true: Wherever legal stigma of minorities is in place—separation, segregation, etc.—violence isn’t far behind. A Kansas that enshrines discrimination against gays is, implicitly, a Kansas that has declared its contempt for their lives. ||||| — A Kansas bill shielding anyone refusing to provide service to same-sex couples on religious grounds appears to be in serious jeopardy.

 Senate President Susan Wagle took the unusual step Thursday night of issuing a statement saying the bill — which has drawn an avalanche of national criticism — didn’t have the support of a majority of Republicans in her chamber.

 “A strong majority of my members support laws that define traditional marriage, protect religious institutions and protect individuals from being forced to violate their personal moral values,” Wagle said.

 “However, my members also don’t condone discrimination.”

 With fewer than half the 32 Senate Republicans supporting the bill, it would need Democratic support to pass the 40-member chamber, an unlikely prospect since Democrats are lined up against it.

 Senate Minority Leader Anthony Hensley of Topeka applauded Wagle’s comments.

 “The Kansas Legislature should never advocate discrimination of any kind based on a perceived notion of religious freedom,” Hensley said in a statement.

 Wagle, however, allowed a little wiggle room for negotiation on the bill, suggesting in her statement there might be a way to find common ground.

 If not, “I believe a majority of my caucus will not support the bill,” the Wichita Republican said in her statement.

 The Kansas House passed the bill Wednesday, spurring a national outcry that it was tantamount to state-sanctioned discrimination. The critics gained traction on social media, where a Facebook page set up opposing the measure received nearly 40,000 “likes” by late Thursday.

 Supporters said the bill was intended to address court decisions overturning bans on gay marriage in Utah and Oklahoma and, maybe, one day in Kansas. They believe the state’s ban on gay marriage is in the “cross hairs.”

 They said they drew up the legislation to protect the religious liberties of anyone on either side of the same-sex marriage debate. They vehemently denied the bill was a vehicle for discrimination.

 They pointed to a number of cases across the country where actions were taken against photographers, bakers and florists who refused to provide service to same-sex weddings.

 Consider a few:

 • A Colorado judge found last December that a baker discriminated against a gay couple when he refused to bake a wedding cake because he thought homosexuality was a sin. The judge said he couldn’t refuse gay couples again.

 • The New Mexico Supreme Court found that a photography business that refused to photograph a lesbian couple’s commitment ceremony violated the state’s anti-discrimination law. The business has taken the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.

 • Vermont innkeepers were sued in 2011 after refusing to host a lesbian couple’s wedding reception. They settled the lawsuit by agreeing to pay a $10,000 civil penalty and agreeing to no longer host any weddings or receptions, according to The Associated Press.

 The Kansas bill would bar legal action — government sanctions or civil suits — for people who refuse to provide services relating to marriages or civil unions that are contrary to their faith.

 It would allow someone employed with the government or “nonreligious entity” to invoke their faith as a basis for not providing service.

 Supporters said the bill was narrowly written to apply to the marriage ceremony. But critics said it potentially would apply to thousands of Kansas workers who might cite religious conviction to get out of performing their duties.

 Rep. Charles Macheers, a Shawnee Republican, led efforts to pass the bill. Macheers told The Star earlier Thursday that the bill did not go beyond marriage.

 But critics said the wording was broad and vague, opening the door for discrimination.

 “The ACLU is pleased to hear that (Wagle) saw this bill for what it is,” an effort to legalize discrimination in Kansas, said Holly Weatherford, Kansas advocacy director for the American Civil Liberties Union.

 “Religious liberty is alive and well in Kansas, and religion shouldn’t be used to discriminate.”

 State Rep. Lance Kinzer of Olathe, who supported the bill, said it was never intended to deny general services to anyone based on sexual orientation.

 He said he would support adding language ensuring there was no discrimination if that would ease fears in the Senate.

 He also said he would agree to jettison another clause that has been interpreted as extending beyond marriage to private- sector employees.

 The bill was a model developed by the Washington, D.C.-based American Religious Freedom Program, lawmakers said.

 The project is part of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, which a couple years ago encouraged legislatures to form religious freedom caucuses aimed at keeping the government from stepping on religious liberties.

 The program’s legislative director testified for the bill. No one from the program could be reached for comment Thursday. ||||| Legislative leaders said Friday that a bill House supporters passed with the stated intent of protecting religious freedom will be substantially reworked after the state's business community sided with opponents who argued it promoted discrimination.

 The House passed the bill 72-49 with proponents arguing it is a needed buffer for those with a "sincerely held religious belief" against same-sex marriage in advance of courts striking down Kansas' constitutional amendment banning the practice.

 But a national outcry ensued after gay-rights groups contended the bill also would allow businesses and government employees to deny a broad range of services to same-sex couples.

 Senate President Susan Wagle, R-Wichita, said that as soon as the House passed the bill to her chamber, business leaders weighed in with concerns it would weaken state laws that allow them to hire and fire employees at will.

 "This bill negatively impacts both small and large businesses," Wagle said, adding that she had sent it to the Senate Judiciary Committee for a thorough review and revisions.

 Tom Witt, executive director of Equality Kansas, said his organization was glad Wagle saw potential for discrimination in the bill.

 “Equality Kansas proposed amendments in the House that we believe would have made the bill more acceptable, and if the Senate chooses to move forward with hearings, we look forward to working with them to draft language that will protect the religious liberties of all Kansans, while at the same time ensuring the dignity of gay and lesbian couples across the state,” Witt said.

 House Speaker Ray Merrick, R-Stilwell, said he supports changing the bill and will let the legislative process play out.

 “I have talked to the Senate president, and we’re going to work on this together," Merrick said. "It won’t be immediately, but we’ll be working on it.”

 House Bill 2453 passed the House on Wednesday, and by Friday morning a slew of business interests had weighed in against it. By that afternoon a new lobbying group, the Employers for Liberty Coalition, had been formed.

 “While we believe this bill may have been brought with good intentions of protecting religious freedom, the unintended consequences far outweigh the good,” said Tom Witsman, president of the Wichita Independent Business Association. “We want Kansas to be open for business. HB 2453 limits recruiting ability for workers and the state’s ability to bring new visitors and businesses to Kansas.”

 Chuck Caisley, vice president of coalition member Kansas City Power and Light, called the bill "discriminatory and also unworkable."

 AT&T Kansas president Steve Hahn agreed, calling it "impossible to implement."

 "The bill promotes discriminatory behavior by businesses against their customers, and it interferes with AT&T's management of our employees," Hahn said. "It eliminates the use of fair business practices with customers in Kansas."

 The Kansas Chamber, one of the state's most influential lobbying groups, said lawyers from a number of businesses found "potentially costly legal questions" within the bill and thanked Wagle for putting the brakes on it.

 Business concerns were raised when the House voted on the bill, but Rep. Lance Kinzer, R-Olathe, assured the body they were "spurious."

 Merrick said the bill should only be interpreted as a statement of support for religious freedom, not a license to discriminate. But he acknowledged "it is increasingly apparent that the language of the bill can be interpreted in different ways."

 Three House Democrats voted for the legislation, and Equality Kansas criticized House Minority Leader Paul Davis, D-Lawrence, despite his "no vote" for what it felt was a lukewarm defense of LGBT Kansans.

 But the vast majority of the "yes" votes came from House Republicans, and Merrick said members of his caucus were "getting beat up" online and in phone messages. When asked if the bill would pass the House in its current form again he said "probably not."

 "With as much heat as (is) being put on them, it would probably back some people off," Merrick said.

 Much of the heat has fallen on Rep. Charles Macheers, R-Shawnee, who carried the bill on the House floor. But Merrick said the author was "probably" Kinzer.

 Kinzer and other bill supporters also scuttled an amendment to remove government workers from the bill. Rep. Emily Perry, D-Mission, said during a committee hearing she worried that a portion of the bill was so broad it could allow police officers to refuse to respond to domestic abuse calls involving gay couples.

 Wagle said she can’t support it if public employees remain in the bill.

 "I believe when you hire a police officer or fireman, they have no choice who they serve," Wagle said. "They serve anyone who's vulnerable."

 Merrick said he agreed and government employees should be removed.

 Merrick said "the buck stops" with him and took responsibility for bringing the legislation up for a floor vote, saying he thought it was ready. But when asked about HB 2453 and other bills regarding social issues, Merrick said it would be instructive to remind House members of one of "Ray's rules."

 "If it's not helping the state economically, why are we doing it?" Merrick said. |||||


Here is a news article: When British Prime Minister David Cameron visits President Barack Obama this week, one detail may stay bottled up: the labels on the wines the White House pours at the state dinner tomorrow night.

 For Obama’s first three state dinners, honoring the leaders of India, Mexico and China, the White House released the name, year and appellation of wines -- all-American -- paired with each course.

 Part of a tradition observed by previous presidents, including George W. Bush, that disclosure stopped after Obama’s dinner last year for Chinese President Hu Jintao. One of the wines served on Jan. 19, 2011, was a top-rated 2005 Cabernet Sauvignon from Washington state that originally sold for $115 a bottle and went for as much as $399 by the time of the dinner. The price the White House paid per bottle was not made public.

 At the next state dinner, on June 7, 2011, for German Chancellor Angela Merkel, the menu made public by the White House didn’t include details on the wines.

 “An American wine will be paired with each course,” stated a note at the bottom of the menu released by the White House. So went as well the menu released for the Korean State Dinner honoring President Lee Myung-Bak on Oct. 13, 2011.

 Tyler Colman, who writes the Dr. Vino wine blog and teaches at New York University, said in an interview that the shift in menu protocol may reflect political considerations given the sluggish U.S. economy.

 “They’re probably sensitive to displays of wealth at a time when the economy is not firing on all cylinders,” said Colman, whose blog had noted the absence of wines on the German state dinner menu the White House released.

 No ‘Picnic’

 Still, keeping the wine list under wraps undercuts promotion of U.S. winemakers at a time when markets in developing nations such as China have potential to be “really hot” for U.S. labels because of the rising middle- and upper- income classes, he said.

 A state dinner “isn’t a picnic or casual get-together,” and it’s justifiable from diplomatic and trade standpoints for the White House to spend money to showcase fine American wines, Colman said.

 Dorothy Gaiter, wine and food editor for the quarterly France Magazine and a former wine columnist for the Wall Street Journal, said Obama was private about his wine preferences before his election.

 ‘Good for America’

 If the Obama White House has decided to stop publicizing which American wines are served at official events, she said, “I don’t understand this. It’s good for America.”

 Rick Small is co-owner of the Woodward Canyon winery in Lowden, Washington, whose 2009 Chardonnay was among the wines poured for the German dinner.

 He and his wife noticed the shift because they had gotten billing on the menu when their wine was served at a Clinton administration dinner. He said he didn’t know why the practice was changed and that it probably does help the industry overall to have U.S. wines publicized by name.

 At the same time, Small said, it’s an honor to be chosen at all. “You’re not going to get pushy about it since they picked your wine,” he said.

 The White House declined to comment for this article or to make available Daniel Shanks, the usher who has managed wine selection since the Clinton administration, or social secretary Jeremy Bernard. First Lady Michelle Obama’s office referred questions to the White House press office.

 No Disclosure

 White House deputy press secretary Josh Earnest declined to disclose which wines were served at the German or Korean state dinners, identify wines from non-state dinners, make menus of past meals available for inspection or answer questions about the shift in practice.

 Earnest also declined to say whether the White House would release the names of wines at the Cameron dinner.

 The White House has promoted its release of other documents and data. On March 8, it announced a website, www.ethics.gov, to expand access to government databases tracking White House visitor records, lobbying disclosures and Federal Election Commission reports.

 “From the day he took office, the president committed his administration to work towards unprecedented openness in government,” said the official statement announcing the site.

 At the state dinner for Hu, the 2005 Quilceda Creek Cabernet Sauvignon Columbia Valley from Washington state, one of the wines poured that night, was $115 a bottle at release, the winery’s general manager, John Ware said in an interview.

 Turning Point

 The wine earned a rare 100-point rating from wine critic Robert Parker. By the time of the White House dinner, Ware said, it sold for $300-$350. It was listed for as much as $399 per bottle, according to wine websites.

 Ware said the winery was approached by the White House and asked to choose which of its wines to serve. The price the winery charged the White House was “closer to the $115” than to $399, Ware said, while declining to name the price.

 Afterward, he said, the winery’s profile in Asia got a “pretty significant” boost.

 The White House selection drew derision.

 The day after the Hu dinner, the anti-Obama website Gateway Pundit carried a posting entitled, “Sacrifice Is For the Little People... Obama White House Serves $399 Bottles of Wine at State Dinner.”

 Comedian Stephen Colbert said that, given the U.S. debt held by China, the Hu dinner “should have been a sweatpants- potluck with box wine and a sleeve of Oreos.”

 Social Secretaries

 Other changes were taking place at the White House at the time. Between the Chinese and German state dinners, the White House changed social secretaries, hiring Bernard that February.

 Since the start of his presidency, aides also have avoided endorsing specific brands such as which golf clubs Obama favors.

 Not all wines served by the administration are shielded. At Vice President Joe Biden’s dinner last month for Chinese Vice President Xi Jinping, the list included a 2010 Sauvignon Blanc and 2009 Cabernet Sauvignon from the Hall winery in California’s Napa Valley. The wines sell for $22.99 and $48.99 per bottle, respectively, on the wine.com website. Vintner Kathryn Hall was U.S. ambassador to Austria during the Clinton administration. She didn’t return calls for comment.

 Wine has been regularly served at the Executive Residence since 1800, except from 1877-1881 under President Rutherford B. Hayes, Shanks wrote in 2007 for an article for the Journal of the White House Historical Association.

 Kennedy and Nixon

 In the 20th century, John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon were known for their familiarity with French wine. The policy of serving American wine took hold in Lyndon Johnson’s administration, according to an article in last month’s Wine Spectator. Ronald Reagan, a former actor and California governor, raised the profile of his home state’s wines.

 Ulises Valdez, 42, of the Valdez Family Winery and Tasting Room in Cloverdale, California, said he is “still celebrating” having his 2008 Silver Eagle Vineyard Chardonnay served at the White House for the Mexico state dinner on May 19, 2010.

 Valdez snuck into the U.S., from Mexico, as a teenager and found work picking grapes. He got amnesty during the Reagan administration. Today he owns a vineyard management company and the winery. “This is the beauty of the U.S. --if you’re a hard worker and good and honest you can do it,” he said.

 White House menus can be a point of pride and business builder for individual vintners whose wines are chosen.

 China Sales ‘Quadrupled’

 Kerry Murphy, proprietor of DuMOL Wines in Orinda, California, whose wines have been served at the White House since 2002, said he’s become a collector. “God knows how many menus I have -- I love ’em,” he said.

 “I’ve been blessed by the association,” Murphy said. “It sets the wine to high standards,” he said, because the White House “can buy whatever they want.”

 His Chardonnays sell for $50-$60 per bottle.

 After his 2008 Russian River Chardonnay was served at the Hu dinner, he said, “our sales in China quadrupled.”

 “I think that has a lot to do just with exposure from that one dinner,” he said. ’’It makes me feel good because we’ve got some dollars coming back’’ to the U.S. from China. “That’s a patriotic thing in itself.”

 To contact the reporter on this story: Margaret Talev in Washington at mtalev@bloomberg.net

 To contact the editor responsible for this story: Steven Komarow at skomarow1@bloomberg.net ||||| President Barack Obama is giving an enthusiastic visitor, British Prime Minister David Cameron, his first taste of college basketball _ and for Obama a chance to tap into a sports audience in Ohio, a state important to his re-election hopes.

 President Barack Obama and Britain Prime Minister David Cameron attend the Mississippi Valley State game against Western Kentucky in a first round NCAA tournament basketball game, Tuesday, March 13, 2012,... (Associated Press)

 President Barack Obama and Britain's Prime Minister David Cameron greet fans as they arrive for the Mississippi Valley State versus Western Kentucky first round NCAA tournament basketball game, Tuesday,... (Associated Press)

 President Barack Obama and Britain's Prime Minister David Cameron eat hot dogs as they attend the Mississippi Valley State versus Western Kentucky in a first round NCAA tournament basketball game, Tuesday,... (Associated Press)

 Obama, an avid basketball fan, on Tuesday took Cameron to Dayton on Air Force One for an NCAA basketball tournament game between Mississippi Valley State and Western Kentucky.

 Obama's verdict on the game during a halftime interview on truTV was that "both teams are shooting terrible" in the low-scoring contest, but that maybe the teams were nervous.

 Cameron said he was enjoying the fast-and-furious action in what marked the British leader's first college basketball game.

 Cameron quipped that Obama was going to help him fill out his bracket.

 THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP's earlier story is below.

 Basketball fan-in-chief President Barack Obama is giving British Prime Minister David Cameron a front-row seat to March Madness, taking his European partner to an election swing state for an NCAA tournament basketball game.

 Amid cheers, the two leaders entered the University of Dayton Arena on Tuesday for a "First Four" matchup between Mississippi Valley State and Western Kentucky, a gesture of goodwill during Cameron's official visit to the United States and a way for an incumbent president to reach sports fans in an election year.

 Adding to the heavy hoops flavor of the day, Obama announced his NCAA tournament bracket picks to ESPN, the sports network he watches on a daily basis. On Tuesday, the network teased Obama's selections by revealing his Final Four picks: Kentucky, Ohio State, Missouri and North Carolina.

 It was the fourth straight year that Obama filled out an NCAA tournament bracket for ESPN. On the women's side, he selected Baylor, St. John's, Connecticut and Notre Dame to advance.

 ESPN will reveal the president's full men's bracket Wednesday.

 Cameron's sporting tastes run more toward tennis, cricket and soccer. Tuesday's was the first college basketball game he's seen.

 The White House said the trip to the NCAA tournament game was intended to showcase the special relationship between the two key allies during Cameron's three-day visit. Obama and Cameron will discuss the upcoming NATO and G-8 summits on Wednesday, followed by a state dinner at the White House.

 Obama and Cameron were scheduled to appear in a live halftime interview on truTV, which was airing the game, with sportscaster Clark Kellogg. Kellogg interviewed Obama at halftime of a Duke-Georgetown game in 2010 and spoke with the president later that year during a White House game of "HORSE" aired on CBS during the NCAA tournament.

 Joining Obama at the game was Ohio's Republican Gov. John Kasich, who greeted Obama with a big handshake at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base. Kasich gave Obama two letters, which his office said were from the governor's twin daughters, who wanted to welcome the Democratic president to the state.

 Still, other Republicans panned the trip, saying many Americans would prefer Obama to focus on more pressing issues.

 "While showing off our amazing college basketball teams is great, many Americans struggling to find jobs, dealing with soaring gas prices, or concerned with our rising deficit and debt would probably like the president spend at least as much time dealing with those issues," said Sean Spicer, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee

 Obama's quick trip to Ohio gives him a chance to connect with basketball fans and generate attention in Ohio, which he carried in the 2008 election and is considered one of the top toss-up states in 2012. The trip comes one week after Republican front-runner Mitt Romney captured Ohio's GOP primary.

 It also lets Obama lavish praise and attention on Cameron at a time of weighty foreign policy challenges in Afghanistan, Iran and Syria. Britain has been an important U.S. ally in Afghanistan and the bombing campaign in Libya that led to the removal of Moammar Gadhafi.

 Cameron is frequently spotted running near his official Downing Street residence, flanked by his security detail. But he's not much of a basketball fan; British Ambassador Peter Westmacott told reporters in Washington on Monday that Cameron was "busy briefing himself on March Madness."

 Basketball has been a big part of Obama's life. At his Hawaii high school, Obama frequently carried a basketball along with his school books and bonded with his teammates on the court. His brother-in-law, Craig Robinson, played college basketball at Princeton and is now head coach at Oregon State.

 The president regularly plays pickup basketball and keeps close tabs on his favorite NBA team, the Chicago Bulls. In a recent interview, the president said he gets League Pass on his iPad, letting him watch out-of-market NBA games on his tablet computer.

 Obama kicked off the basketball season with a Veterans Day game between Michigan State and North Carolina on the flight deck of the USS Carl Vinson in November, enjoying a game on the aircraft carrier that took Osama bin Laden's body to a burial at sea after the U.S. raid that killed the al-Qaida leader.

 The president said in an interview last month with journalist Bill Simmons that the "mythology of sports" is deeply embedded in the U.S., allowing viewers to discern who is winning and who is losing _ a principle that could easily be transferred to politics.

 "People _ for all our differences politically, regionally, economically _ most folks understand sports. Probably because it's one of the few places where it's a true meritocracy," Obama said. "Ultimately, who's winning, who's losing, who's performing, who's not _ it's all laid out there."

 ___

 Associated Press writer Anne Gearan contributed to this report.

 ___

 Follow Ken Thomas on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/AP_Ken_Thomas |||||
A summary of this is?

– Last night, British PM David Cameron enjoyed his very first taste of March Madness, compliments of President Obama. At tonight's state dinner, he'll likely enjoy some American wine as well—but don't expect too many details about the winery, year, or appellation. That's because Obama put a stop to the tradition of revealing said info after his third state dinner ... following a brouhaha over the price tag. In honor of Hu Jintao's visit, the Chinese president was served a 2005 Quilceda Creek Cabernet Sauvignon from Washington state that garnered a 100-point Robert Parker rating. The White House didn't say how much it paid per bottle, but it originally retailed for $115, and was selling for $300 and up by the time of the Jan. 19, 2011, dinner. So when Angela Merkel was honored at a state dinner in June, the released menu said nothing more than "an American wine will be paired with each course." Ditto for South Korean President Lee Myung-Bak's Oct. 13 menu. And while the move may ostensibly make sense ("they’re probably sensitive to displays of wealth at a time when the economy is not firing on all cylinders," says one wine expert), many argue the move hurts, instead of helps. Promoting top winemakers "is good for America," says one wine editor, and Bloomberg notes that state dinners provide a prime opportunity to show China and other new big wine importers what the US has to offer. To wit, Quilceda Creek saw a "pretty significant" uptick in Asia after Hu's dinner.


Summarize this article:

Mayor Steve Adler maintains that the ridesharing firms are "welcome to stay," and has offered to keep negotiating. However, it's doubtful that either of the companies will be so quick to come back. Both tend to play hardball when new laws make life difficult, often by threatening to end service -- they give up their main bargaining chip if they don't follow through on that threat. Sure enough, Lyft says this is taking a "stand for a long-term path forward," while Uber feels nothing but "disappointment."

 No matter what, the outcome will be mixed. Opponents to Proposition 1 are happy that companies which do operate should have a stricter vetting process that reduces the chances of drivers committing crimes. It also pleases emergency crews worried that they'll have to dodge around mid-street pickups. However, the withdrawal is bound to be a hassle for both customers and drivers. Austin is a very car-focused city, and going without ridesharing means either paying much more for a cab or else using a mass transit system that's far from ideal. And of course, drivers who made significant cash through these services now have to scramble to find other work. Things aren't set in stone yet (this is just a proposition), but Austinites could still be in for a shock. ||||| AUSTIN, Texas (Reuters) - On-demand ride companies Uber and Lyft suffered an embarrassing defeat in a Saturday election in Austin as voters backed a measure requiring fingerprint background checks for drivers.

 Campaign signs concerning a municipal vote over fingerprint requirements for ride-hailing companies such as Uber and Lyft are seen along a roadway in Austin, Texas, May 6, 2016. REUTERS/Jon Herskovitz

 The two companies spent more than $8 million to repeal a city ordinance requiring the fingerprint-based criminal checks and launched what turned into the most expensive race in the Texas capital’s history. Voters said by a margin of 56 to 44 percent they wanted the fingerprint checks to stay.

 The companies outspent their opponents by 80-to-1 and when the votes were tallied their campaign contributions broke down to being more than $200 for each vote in favor of their position.

 “Disappointment does not begin to describe how we feel about shutting down operations in Austin,” Uber’s Austin general manager Chris Nakutis said in a statement.

 The stakes were high for the privately held Uber [UBER.UL] and Lyft, which say their background checks are already rigorous and ensure safety.

 “Unfortunately, the rules passed by City Council don’t allow true ridesharing to operate,” Lyft said, adding it will suspend operations in Austin as of Monday.

 The loss could prod other cities to require fingerprint criminal background checks, encouraged that they can survive a bruising electoral battle with the ride-hailing services, analysts said.

 The costly municipal election in Austin came as other cities consider imposing fingerprint-based background checks on drivers. The Austin election marked the first time a major U.S. city put the regulations to a vote, which happened after a petition drive by Ridesharing Works for Austin, the political action group underwritten by Uber and Lyft.

 Residents were asked to decide whether a transportation ordinance passed by the City Council in December should be repealed and replaced with one backed by the on-demand ride companies.

 The city ordinance calls for all ride-hailing service drivers to have fingerprint-based criminal background checks, while the ride-hailing companies backed one that does not.

 The group supporting mandated fingerprinting said the heavy spending was a signal that the Uber and Lyft campaign was motivated more by corporate profits than passenger safety.

 Other places battling over fingerprints include Atlanta and Houston, which along with New York is one of the two major U.S. cities where Uber operates even though its drivers are required to undergo the fingerprint background checks. ||||| Just One More Thing...

 We have sent you a verification email. Please check your email and click on the link to activate your profile.

 If you do not receive the verification message within a few minutes of signing up, please check your Spam or Junk folder.

 Close |||||

– Uber and Lyft have made good on their threat to terminate operations in Austin as of Monday morning after a referendum didn't go their way. The companies spent more than $8 million—more than 50 times what their opponents spent—in a failed attempt to overturn the Texas city's requirement for fingerprint-based background checks, reports Reuters. Despite blanketing the area with ads, the companies lost Saturday's vote on Proposition 1 by 56% to 44%, reports Engadget, which notes that the companies were also fighting to be able to pick up passengers in traffic lanes. Mayor Steve Adler says he wants Uber and Lyft to stay in Austin, but the companies say they are "disappointed" and they need to "take a stand." Uber says the withdrawal will leave around 10,000 people out of work. The Uber and Lyft spend on the campaign worked out to around $223 for every vote they received, making it the most expensive campaign in city history. The previous record, Adler's 2014 election campaign, cost only a seventh of what they spent on the Proposition 1 fight. Uber and Lyft "decided they were going to make Austin an example to the nation," political consultant David Butts, who led the opposition campaign, Our City, Our Safety, Our Choice, tells the Austin American-Statesman. "And Austin made Uber an example to the nation." After the Austin vote, other cities are now expected to target Uber on the fingerprinting issue. (The company's drivers are now allowed to encourage tipping.)


A settler forgot where he buried $100,000 in gold around the Bay Area. It might still be out there.

 A portrait of Granville P. Swift, California pioneer. A portrait of Granville P. Swift, California pioneer. Photo: Public Domain Photo: Public Domain Image 1 of / 20 Caption Close A settler forgot where he buried $100,000 in gold around the Bay Area. It might still be out there. 1 / 20 Back to Gallery

 Granville P. Swift was known for many things, but he was not known for his memory.

 The Kentuckian had come to California as a 19-year-old, nine years before the Gold Rush would change the state forever. Young Swift, whose great-uncle was the legendary explorer Daniel Boone, hoped he would make his fortune in fur trapping — but he soon made his name as an insurrectionist. In 1846, Swift was one of 33 Americans who captured Sonoma during the Bear Flag Revolt. He stayed on in Sonoma for another year, commanding a company and earning the rank of captain, before the lure of wealth called to him again.

 Upon the announcement of gold being discovered at Sutter's Fort, Swift set off for Bidwell's Bar with a small party. He struck it rich almost immediately.

 "Swift was one of the best miners I ever knew," a fellow prospector said. "It seems as if he could almost smell the gold. He made an immense amount of gold. When these three men had worked all winter and fall, I believe they must have made $100,000 apiece and maybe more."

 Now Playing:

 According to an 1875 story in the Sonoma Democrat, Swift left Bidwell's Bar with over half a million dollars in gold. He brought it to San Francisco and had it minted into octagonal slugs, $50 each, with a special mark designating them as Swift's.

 Loaded down with gold — and without a banking system to receive it — Swift decided to start burying his haul around the Bay Area, primarily in the Sonoma area. The only problem was, he was very bad at remembering where he'd hidden it all. Although Swift died in 1875, the secret died long before then, forgotten by the scatter-brained settler.

 Over time, some of the gold was found. In 1903, a worker on a ranch in Sonoma County dug up $7,000 in Swift's $50 slugs. A year later, $30,000 in gold was pulled from a chimney hiding place on Swift's old ranch near present-day Sears Point.

 "While repairing a chimney on the second floor of the place, workmen came across a secret receptacle containing $26,000 in gold coin," the Healdsburg Enterprise reported. "In other places more money was found, the total sum aggregating more than $30,000."

 The biggest discovery came in 1914. A.W. Lehrke, a Sonoma Valley rancher, woke one morning with the remnants of a dream still foggy in his mind. The bit he could remember clung to him: He was digging under his home for gold. The thought must have needled him, because he decided to put the dream to rest by doing just that. He descended into his basement and began digging. And there, amazingly, he found $42,600 in gold coins.

 "The [cache] unearthed as a result of Lehrke's dream is believed to have contained one of Swift's hidden hoards," the Santa Rosa Press-Democrat wrote.

 Since 1914, though, the remainder of Swift's enormous haul has gone undiscovered. Today, we have one meager hint, courtesy of a misspelling-laden note written by Swift himself.

 "1 tin box & 1 Little Bottle Boath in the saim hoal," it reads.

 As for Swift, the second half of his life was as sad as the first half was glorious. He lost most of his non-buried treasure, too, after investing in a non-existent Comstock Lode mine. In 1850, he also lost $80,000 of gold panned by his sister Polly when he buried it — sensing a pattern? — near a creek. Winter floods washed the whole lot away.

 Hoping to turn his luck around, Swift moved his family to Solano County in 1864, purchasing a ranch in Green Valley (today, it's the Green Valley Country Club) and setting out into the Berryessa area to prospect once more.

 He was visiting his quicksilver mine one day in 1875 when his mule returned home without a rider. His worried family retraced his steps and found his mangled body in the hills. It seemed Swift had been thrown by his mule and then dragged, foot caught in the stirrup, until his head was fatally struck.

 "The spoiled child was now but the plaything of fortune," the Sonoma Democrat eulogized. "One whom 'unmerciful disaster followed faster and followed faster' until death came by the wayside and put a period to his checkered life."

 To see some of the places associated with Granville Swift during his life, check out the gallery above. ||||| Pioneer Swift persevered despite the odds

 [email protected]

 Kentucky native panned gold, played active role in republic

 Early pioneers often were adventure-seeking men with the ability to adapt to changing situations and seize any opportunity that offered itself. One day rich, the next day poor again - nothing seems to have stopped their intrepid spirits.

 One such man was Granville Perry Swift. His great-uncle was Daniel Boone (1734-1820), the first pathfinder of American frontier history. Granville Swift was born in Lexington, Ky., on May 1, 1821, but the family left for the new state of Missouri when he was 3 or 4 years old.

 Around 1840, at age 19, he set out with a group of trappers headed for California. During the years of 1844-46 he hunted and trapped in the Sacramento Valley and along the Cache Creek, selling meat, hides and possibly furs at Sutter’s Fort. His close companions were his cousin Franklin Sears and Henry L. Ford, whose diary is a main source for this time period.

 During the Rebellion of the Californios against the Mexican governor in California in 1844-45, Gov. Micheltorena asked Sutter to form a troop of foreign mounted riflemen, one of which was Granville Swift. Over time, though, Swift became part of the growing number of Americans who openly defied Mexican authority.

 This defiance led to the famous Bear Flag Revolt of 1846, where 33 American settlers, among them Swift and Ford, responded to the rumors that the Mexican military commandant planned to expel all foreigners.

 Swift played an active role in the military organization of the Bear Flag Republic. Together with William Todd, Ford and Peter Storm, he designed and made the Bear Flag. He also was elected to be the first sergeant of the party. William Baldridge, who served under Swift, remembered “... we all had great confidence in Swift, and thought him worth a dozen common men in fight, and consequently a good judge of fighting men and as all concerned were desirous that, if a fight should take place the work should be done in the most efficacious manner, so those requested withdrew and Swift filled their places with men of his own choosing.”

 On July 5, 1846, the “California Battalion of Volunteers” was organized, and Swift commanded one of the four companies. A few weeks later, the battalion was incorporated in the United States forces, with Swift leading Company C with the rank of captain.

 He served until the spring of 1847, after which time he settled in the Colusa area, where he ran an extensive cattle operation. In the meantime, gold had been found at Sutter’s sawmill, and in the spring of 1848, Swift took part in a gold hunting party to the Feather River. The party was quite successful, mining about $10,000 for each member in six weeks. Swift continued to dig through fall and winter with two companions and an impressed group of Indian laborers. A fellow miner remembers: “Swift was one of the best miners I ever knew. It seems as if he could almost smell the gold. He made an immense amount of gold. When these three men had worked all winter and fall, I believe they must have made $100,000 apiece and maybe more.” Swift coined his money into octagonal slugs of $50, each bearing his private mark.

 In the spring of 1849, Swift brought his whole family back from Missouri, and they all worked in the gold fields. His sister Mary “Polly” Swift, who later married Frederick S. Jones, acted as a cook for the crew. Her great-grandson, Fred Jones, who still farms in Suisun Valley, remembers, “In the afternoon when she wasn’t doing anything, she went and picked nuggets on her own. She said she picked up over $80,000 worth of nuggets. ... She entrusted her brother, Granville, to hang on to it for her. Granville buried it up there alongside Hambreck Creek, and they had a flood that winter, and it all washed away.”

 With his gain from the gold fields, Swift, his brother William and his cousin Frank Sears purchased 15,000 acres of Gen. Vallejo’s Petaluma Rancho, located near Sears Point. In 1858, he built one of the finest mansions in the Sonoma area on an additional parcel of 1,000 acres, called Telemec.

 Three stories high, it was designed in the southern antebellum style with an encircling balcony supported by great stone columns. The first two floors had 14 rooms, while the dining room could seat as many as 50 guests and featured a fireplace of imported Italian marble. Swift also reburied his gold hoard, an estimated $100,000, in seven bottles, two “Stoan Jugs in one other hoal” and “1 tin box & 1 Little Bottle Boath in the saim hoal.” The list in his handwriting miraculously survived.

 Now in his early 30s, he was both famous as well as wealthy. He married 16-year-old Eliza Jane Tate of Sonoma. Together they had three sons.

 But only a few years later, their life would change drastically. Serious financial losses in the so-called Comstock Swindle forced Swift to sell most of his ranch as well as the Telemec ranch to pay his debts. The family left Sonoma County to start a new life in Solano County, settling in Green Valley in 1864. He acquired the 130-acre ranch of James Harbin, complete with the stone mansion that today houses the Green Valley Country Club.

 His sister Mary and her family moved with the Swifts to Green Valley. In 1869, Eliza Tate Swift filed for a divorce. During that same year, Swift deeded the Green Valley property to his sister. It remains unclear whether this was as a repayment for her lost $80,000 or because he foresaw the marital breakup. The property has stayed in the Jones family since then.

 Swift returned to prospecting, this time for quicksilver in the mountains between Berryessa Valley and Knoxville. Once again he seemed on the verge of success, when, on April 21, 1875, he was riding on a mule and suffered a fatal fall from a steep mountain path. He is buried at Rockville Cemetery.

 A Sonoma newspaper wrote about him: “He was a loveable fellow. I knew him well during prosperity and adversity and all his life he was never known to turn his back on his old friends who were poor. He had, however, too large a heart to retain his own vast wealth, and through much generosity and misplaced confidence, much of his possessions were taken from him. It is a pity that the biography of such a man as Swift was not written during his life, so that the public might know to whom they were indebted for a series of untold value.”

  |||||
What is a one-paragraph summary of the above article?

– On the heels of a renewed hunt for treasure in a tiny French village comes the tale of buried treasure in California. The San Francisco Chronicle takes a look back at one of the state's colorful historical figures: Granville P. Swift, the great-nephew of Daniel Boone who came to the state in the mid-1800s with a plan to be a fur trapper. Gold called his name instead. He found it at Bidwell's Bar, with the paper quoting a fellow prospector as saying Swift was an exceptional miner who "must have made $100,000" in one prospecting season. Indeed, reports at the time indicate he arrived in San Francisco with more than $500,000 in gold, which he had minted into octagonal slugs—and began to bury around the Bay Area. The Vacaville Reporter previously reported that Swift reburied roughly $100,000 in gold after building his mansion in 1858, but the Chronicle reports a "scatter-brained" Swift failed to recall where he had put much of it. He died in 1875 with much of his haul secreted away in forgotten locations. Some was found in the early 20th century, including $30,000 found in 1904 while repairing a chimney on his property. But the last big find was in 1914, suggesting, in the Chronicle's view, there's more out there to be found ... and not much more than unhelpful-seeming clues to go on. The Reporter notes a "list in his handwriting miraculously survived," but the clues are of this sort: "1 tin box & 1 Little Bottle Boath in the saim hoal."


Write a summary based on this article:

WASHINGTON, Sept. 19, 2018 – Cargill Meat Solutions, a Fort Morgan, Colo. establishment, is recalling approximately 132,606 pounds of ground beef products made from the chuck portion of the carcass that may be contaminated with Escherichia coli O26, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced today.

 The ground beef items were produced and packaged on June 21, 2018. The following products are subject to recall: (Products List) [View Labels (PDF only)]

 The products subject to recall bear establishment number “EST. 86R” inside the USDA mark of inspection. These items were shipped to retail locations nationwide. [Distribution List PDF]

 On Aug. 16, 2018, FSIS was notified of an investigation of E. coli O26 illnesses. FSIS, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and state public health and agriculture partners determined that raw ground beef was the probable source of the reported illnesses. The epidemiological investigation identified 17 illnesses and one death with illness onset dates ranging from July 5 to July 25, 2018.

 The Cargill Meat Solutions’ ground beef products were identified following further investigation related to Recall 072-2018, conducted on Aug. 30, 2018, where ground beef products were recalled in connection with the E. coli O26 outbreak. FSIS’ traceback information indicated that case-patients consumed ground beef products purchased at various retail stores that were supplied by Cargill Meat Solutions.

 E. coli O26, like the more common E. coli O157:H7, is a serovar of Shiga toxin-producing E. coli (STEC). People can become ill from STECs 2–8 days (average of 3–4 days) after exposure to the organism.

 Most people infected with STEC O26 develop diarrhea (often bloody) and vomiting. Some illnesses last longer and can be more severe. Infection is usually diagnosed by testing of a stool sample. Vigorous rehydration and other supportive care is the usual treatment; antibiotic treatment is generally not recommended. Most people recover within a week, but rarely, some develop a more severe infection. Hemolytic uremic syndrome (HUS), a type of kidney failure, is common with STEC O26 infection. HUS can occur in people of any age but is most common in children under 5 years old, older adults and persons with weakened immune systems. It is marked by easy bruising, pallor and decreased urine output. Persons who experience these symptoms should seek emergency medical care immediately

 FSIS is concerned that some product may be frozen and in consumers’ freezers. Consumers who have purchased these products are urged not to consume them. These products should be thrown away or returned to the place of purchase.

 FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer available to consumers. When available, the retail distribution list(s) will be posted on the FSIS website at www.fsis.usda.gov/recalls.

 FSIS advises all consumers to safely prepare their raw meat products, including fresh and frozen, and only consume ground beef that has been cooked to a temperature of 160°F. The only way to confirm that ground beef is cooked to a temperature high enough to kill harmful bacteria is to use a food thermometer that measures internal temperature, http://1.usa.gov/1cDxcDQ. Consumers should take proper precautions when handling raw meat products. Proper hand washing after handling raw meat, poultry and eggs can greatly reduce the risk of bacterial cross-contamination to other foods and kitchen surfaces. It is important to prevent cross-contamination by washing counter tops and sinks with hot, soapy water.

 Media with questions regarding the recall can contact April Nelson with Cargill corporate affairs at (952) 742-9150 or at april_nelson@cargill.com. Consumers with questions regarding the recall can call 1-844-419-1574.

 Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS virtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov or via smartphone at m.askkaren.gov. The toll-free USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline 1-888-MPHotline (1-888-674-6854) is available in English and Spanish and can be reached from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. (Eastern Time) Monday through Friday. Recorded food safety messages are available 24 hours a day. The online Electronic Consumer Complaint Monitoring System can be accessed 24 hours a day at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/reportproblem. ||||| FILE - In this Jan. 11, 2016 file photo, dawn approaches over the meat processing plant owned and run by Cargill Meat Solutions, in Fort Morgan, a small town on the eastern plains of Colorado. The U.S.... (Associated Press)

 FILE - In this Jan. 11, 2016 file photo, dawn approaches over the meat processing plant owned and run by Cargill Meat Solutions, in Fort Morgan, a small town on the eastern plains of Colorado. The U.S. Department of Agriculture announced Wednesday, Sept. 20, 2018, that the company has recalled more... (Associated Press)

 FILE - In this Jan. 11, 2016 file photo, dawn approaches over the meat processing plant owned and run by Cargill Meat Solutions, in Fort Morgan, a small town on the eastern plains of Colorado. The U.S. Department of Agriculture announced Wednesday, Sept. 20, 2018, that the company has recalled more... (Associated Press) FILE - In this Jan. 11, 2016 file photo, dawn approaches over the meat processing plant owned and run by Cargill Meat Solutions, in Fort Morgan, a small town on the eastern plains of Colorado. The U.S.... (Associated Press)

 FORT MORGAN, Colo. (AP) — A Colorado meatpacker is recalling more than 132,000 pounds (60,000 kilograms) of ground beef after a suspected E. coli outbreak killed one person and sickened 17, officials said.

 The U.S. Department of Agriculture said Wednesday the beef was produced and packaged at Cargill Meat Solutions in Fort Morgan on June 21 and shipped to retailers nationwide.

 The products include 3-, 10- and 20-pound (1.3-, 4.5- and 9-kilogram) packages of ground beef under the Our Certified, Excel, Sterling Silver, Certified and Fire River Farms brands with July 11 use or freeze by dates.

 Regulators warned that people should also check for the products in their freezers. They advise throwing the products away or returning them to the location of purchase.

 In a statement on Thursday, Cargill said all of the affected products have been removed from supermarkets. Food safety teams are reviewing the Fort Morgan facility and others "to ensure we continue to deliver safe food," the statement said.

 "We were distressed to learn a fatality may be related to an E.coli contamination of one of our products," it said. "Our hearts go out to the families and individuals affected by this issue."

 The USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service did not release information about the people who died or became ill, including locations.

 A spokeswoman referred questions to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. A representative for the CDC did not immediately return messages seeking more information.

 The Cargill plant had a smaller recall of Excel ground beef in August, but no illnesses had been reported at that time.

 Most people infected with E. coli develop diarrhea and vomiting. More severe infections can lead to kidney failure. |||||

– A Colorado meatpacker is recalling more than 132,000 pounds of ground beef after a suspected E. coli outbreak killed one person and sickened 17, officials said. The US Department of Agriculture said Wednesday the beef was produced and packaged at Cargill Meat Solutions in Fort Morgan on June 21 and shipped to retailers nationwide. The products include 3-, 10- and 20-pound packages of ground beef under the Our Certified, Excel, Sterling Silver, Certified, and Fire River Farms brands with July 11 use or freeze by dates. Regulators warned that people should also check for the products in their freezers. They advise throwing the products away or returning them to the location of purchase, the AP reports. In a statement on Thursday, Cargill said all of the affected products have been removed from supermarkets. Food safety teams are reviewing the Fort Morgan facility and others "to ensure we continue to deliver safe food," the statement said. "We were distressed to learn a fatality may be related to an E.coli contamination of one of our products," it said. "Our hearts go out to the families and individuals affected by this issue." The USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service did not release information about the people who died or became ill, including locations. The Cargill plant had a smaller recall of Excel ground beef in August, but no illnesses had been reported at that time. The USDA's recall info can be found in full here.


Here is a news article: Thieves Take Neil Armstrong's Solid Gold Lunar Module Replica

 Thieves made off with a solid gold replica of the first vehicle to land on the moon Friday.

 Police in Wapakoneta, Ohio, say they found the model of the 1969 Lunar Excursion Module missing from the Armstrong Air & Space Museum after they responded to an alarm that went off at the museum late Friday night.

 The gold replica, given to famed astronaut Neil Armstrong, is one of only three made — one for each astronaut aboard Apollo 11. Police said in a statement that "the value of such an item cannot be determined."

 The museum responded to the theft on its Facebook page:

 "The truth is that you can't steal from a museum. Museum's don't 'own' artifacts. We are simply vessels of the public trust. Museums care for and exhibit items on behalf of you, the public. Theft from a museum is a theft from all of us. Three hundred people driving from across the country were robbed of their opportunity to experience the museum today. For every day that an item is missing, we are all robbed of an opportunity to enjoy it and our history."

 Enlarge this image toggle caption Keystone/Getty Images Keystone/Getty Images

 Readers of French newspaper Le Figaro gave the 18-karat gold models to Apollo 11 astronauts Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin and Michael Collins during a visit to Paris in October 1969, according to the website collectSPACE. Le Figaro commissioned French jewelry-maker Cartier to design and make the models; the newspaper asked its readers "to contribute to the cost — 10 francs, 20 francs, whatever they could afford — with two of [the readers] making the presentation," Cartier archivist Violette Petit told Barron's in 2015. Inside each model was a microfilm with the names of readers who contributed.

 The jeweler bought back Collins' model in a 2003 auction for $56,000, according to the magazine.

 The lunar module model is only 5 inches tall and 4.5 inches wide, Wapakoneta police say. They say they are investigating with help from the Ohio Bureau of Criminal Investigation and the FBI.

 Wapakoneta is Armstrong's hometown. The Armstrong Air & Space Museum opened there in 1972, exactly three years after Armstrong became the first person to walk on the moon. Today, you can see "one-of-a-kind artifacts including the Gemini VIII spacecraft, Neil Armstrong's Gemini and Apollo spacesuits, and an Apollo 11 moon rock" at the museum, in addition to two aircraft Armstrong flew.

 Armstrong died in 2012. ||||| This image provided by Armstrong Air and Space Museum shows a lunar module replica at Armstrong Air and Space Museum in Wapakoneta, Ohio. Police say the rare gold replica of the lunar space module has... (Associated Press)

 This image provided by Armstrong Air and Space Museum shows a lunar module replica at Armstrong Air and Space Museum in Wapakoneta, Ohio. Police say the rare gold replica of the lunar space module has... (Associated Press)

 CLEVELAND (AP) — Whoever broke into an Ohio museum and stole a solid-gold replica of the Apollo 11 lunar module likely intends to melt it down for the value of the gold instead of trying to sell what could be a collectible worth millions of dollars, said a retired NASA agent who has helped recover stolen moon rocks worth millions of dollars.

 The 5-inch (12.7-centimeter) replica was discovered stolen after an alarm sounded just before midnight Friday at the Armstrong Air and Space Museum in Wapakoneta, the boyhood home of astronaut Neil Armstrong, the first person to set foot on the moon in July 1969.

 Replicas made by the French jeweler Cartier were presented to Armstrong and fellow Apollo 11 space voyagers Buzz Aldrin and Michael Collins in Paris shortly after they returned to Earth.

 The NASA agent, Joseph Gutheinz Jr., noted the thief or thieves left behind a moon rock from the Apollo 11 mission that's much larger than other rocks given away or loaned to museums or foreign countries that could easily be smuggled out of the country, where a geologist could verity its authenticity. He said it would be worth millions of dollars to a collector into space items.

 "Either they didn't have easy access to the moon rock, or they weren't into collectibles," Gutheinz said Sunday. "They were into turning a quick buck."

 Gutheinz ran an undercover sting operation in 1998 that led to the recovery of a moon rock from the Apollo 17 mission originally given to the Honduran government. The seller offered the rock to Gutheinz for $5 million. Now an attorney in Texas, he more recently has led a group of criminal justice students from the University Phoenix in a project that has identified 79 missing lunar samples and rocks from the Apollo 11 and Apollo 17 missions.

 A lunar collection bag Armstrong carried on the moon sold for $1.8 million, a value enhanced by tiny amounts of moon dust engrained in the bag, at an auction of space items earlier this month at Sotheby's in New York.

 It will be difficult to catch the thief if the replica is melted down, which Gutheinz said would be a "damn shame." It's unclear how much gold the replica contains.

 The FBI and Ohio Bureau of Criminal Investigation are assisting Wapakoneta police in the theft investigation. Police have said they aren't able to place a value on the replica lunar module. No updates on the investigation have been released and authorities haven't said whether there were surveillance cameras in or around the museum that might have recorded the theft.

 Armstrong died in 2012 at the age of 82. |||||
A summary of this is?

– It was one small model for Neil Armstrong, but one giant heist for thieves: Police in Ohio are searching for a rare solid gold replica of the first vehicle to land on the moon that was stolen from the Armstrong Air and Space Museum late Friday, NPR reports. An alarm signaled cops to the theft from the museum in Wapakoneta, Armstrong's hometown. Police said it was impossible to put a value on the 5-inch Cartier-cast replica, which Armstrong received in Paris shortly after the 1969 mission. Fellow Apollo 11 astronauts Buzz Aldrin and Michael Collins also got 18-karat models, which were commissioned and paid for by France's Le Figaro newspaper and its readers. The museum, which closed for several hours on Saturday, posted a statement on Facebook saying, "The truth is that you can't steal from a museum. Museum's don't 'own' artifacts. We are simply vessels of the public trust. … For every day that an item is missing, we are all robbed of an opportunity to enjoy it and our history." The FBI was aiding local police in investigating the theft. A retired NASA agent tells the AP the replica could fetch millions among space collectors, but the thieves probably plan to melt it down for its gold. Joseph Gutheinz Jr. notes that whoever swiped the statue left behind a large moon rock also worth millions. "Either they didn't have easy access to the moon rock, or they weren't into collectibles," Gutheinz says. "They were into turning a quick buck." (Thanks to a NASA inventory error, this woman is $1.8 million richer.)