With swing justice Anthony Kennedy signaling he may back court's liberals, Defense of Marriage Act's days could be numbered.

A woman holds up a sign that reads "REPEAL DOMA," the Defense of Marriage Act, as a group from Alabama prays in front of the Supreme Court in Washington, Wednesday, March 27, 2013.

Image by Carolyn Kaster / AP

WASHINGTON — A majority of Supreme Court justices Wednesday appeared ready to declare unconstitutional the Defense of Marriage Act's definition of marriage for federal purposes as limited to one man and one woman.

Noting that a same-sex couple could be married in a state but remain unable to retrieve any of the multitude of federal marriage benefits, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg asked Paul Clement, who was defending the law on behalf of the House Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group, "What kind of marriage is this?"

Justice Anthony Kennedy appeared ready to side with the court's more liberal members, noting that the more than 1,100 federal marriage benefits showed the 1996 law's definitions affected the many ways the federal government is "intertwined with the daily lives" of couples married under state law.

Although the justices spent the first half of Wednesday's argument discussing whether the court had jurisdiction to hear the case, few justices signaled any discomfort with deciding the underlying constitutional questions raised by the case.

Edith Windsor's case was filed Nov. 9, 2010, and, though not the first challenge to the law, it was the one that the justices chose to review. Both the trial court and court of appeals agreed with Windsor, at which point the decision was appealed, setting up Wednesday's review.

The case traversed an interesting path, having been one of the two cases that led Attorney General Eric Holder to announce on Feb. 23, 2011, that he and President Obama had determined that Section 3 of DOMA was unconstitutional and that, accordingly, the administration would no longer be defending DOMA in court challenges. That move left the House Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group, controlled 3-2 by the Republican leadership, to take up that defense.

It was that defense — and the impact of the Obama administration's decision not to defend the law — that was the subject of the first half of today's argument. The latter half, more expectedly, focused on the question of whether DOMA's marriage definition is constitutional.

As Windsor told BuzzFeed earlier this year, "The idea that I might be a piece of history blows my mind. I think it's kind of wonderful that I'm getting my chance to really ask for justice, and I suspect I'll get it."

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments and discussed the Defense of Marriage Act case, United States v. Windsor .

Image by Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images

Read the transcript:

Via: supremecourt.gov

Listen to the audio:

“Progress has been made under this and the previous administration, but given the legislation that Congress has put in place it's going to take some time to full close the facility,” spokesman says.

Image by Bob Strong / Reuters

WASHINGTON — President Obama still wants to close the controversial prison at Guantanamo Bay Cuba despite a lack of support in Congress or efforts by military officials to actually expand the facility, deputy White House press secretary Josh Earnest told reporters Wednesday.

Obama made closing GITMO one of the signature policy priorities of his first run for office, promising to shutter the facility that has become a symbol of the nation's fight against terrorism.

"I can tell you that the administration remains committed to closing the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay," Earnest said at the White House briefing. "Progress has been made under this and the previous administration, but given the legislation that Congress has put in place it's going to take some time to full close the facility."

Obama did try to close the detention facility for terrorist suspects early in his first term, but his efforts were met with stiff resistance in Congress. The most recent news about GITMO has been about Defense Dept. calls to expand the prison there.

The reiteration of Obama's commitment to closing GITMO came amid a discussion of hunger strikes at the detention facility that have drawn new international scrutiny to the prison. Earnest said the administration is keeping an eye on the situation.

"The White House is closely monitoring the hunger strikers at Guantanamo Bay," he said.

Front pages across the country cover the historic cases.

View Entire List ›

“Bottom line, we’re very close. I’d say we’re 90 percent there. We have a few little problems,” Sen. Schumer says.

Image by Spencer Platt / Getty Images

WASHINGTON — A bipartisan group of Senate negotiators Wednesday said they remain close to completing work on a comprehensive immigration reform plan, even as staff continue to struggle with key labor provisions effecting future immigrations.

"Bottom line, we're very close. I'd say we're 90 percent there. We have a few little problems, we've been on the phone all day with our four other colleagues," Sen. Charles Schumer said during a press conference in Arizona after he toured the border with Sens. John McCain, Jeff Flake and Michael Bennet, all of whom are members of the so-called "Gang of 8."

"We're on track to having a bill when we get back to congress in the next couple of weeks," an upbeat Schumer added.

But positive rhetoric aside, serious problems remain as immigration rights groups who over the last year have become one of the biggest heavyweights in American politics find themselves in the cross fire between two of its original titans — labor and big business.

While a pathway to citizenship for the millions of undocumented workers in the United States has long been the primary roadblock to reform, with Republicans like Sens. Marco Rubio and Rand Paul and conservative Reps. Like Raul Labrador now endorsing it, the more difficult problem of labor rules has come to the fore.

The fight is as old as it is difficult. On one side are unions like the AFL_CIO and United Farm Workers, who have demanded sweeping protections for current workers that would prevent a collapse in wages in the future. The "future flow" restrictions would, in many cases, essentially eliminate the ability of businesses to bring in non-native workers unless unemployment dropped significantly.

On the other side are business interests, who have insisted on as few labor protections as possible, arguing that a steady flow of relatively inexpensive labor into low and mid skill professions is key to their economic success.

Tinker with the language a bit, and the fight could just as easily be about government contracting rules, minimum wage or any of the dozens of legislative wars the two sides have fought over the decades in Congress.

Whether or not the Latino community and immigration reform advocates can overcome that age old animosity remains to be seen: If the Gang of 8 can come to a agreement that all its members can endorse, the Senate will almost certainly fall in line behind the bill, and likely with significant bipartisan support.

But the House presents a much trickier situation. Speaker John Boehner, at least at this point, doesn't appear interested in breaking the "Hastert Rule" on immigration, meaning he'll need between 190 to 200 Republicans will to support the bill. If the legislation leans too far toward labor interests that could be extremely tricky.

At the same time, if Democrats see the bill as giving into business and hurting labor, the assumed widespread support amongst Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi's conference may not show up.

And even if Boehner is willing to cobble together some sort of a coalition of Democrats and Republicans, a concerted effort by a coalition of union loyalists and conservative opponents to a pathway to citizenship could form up as major floor roadblock to passage.

Members of the Gang are clearly aware of the problems. "We have to do both. We have to show them that we can stop future flows of people coming here illegally" while also "being generous" in legal immigration and dealing with those that are here, Schumer said.

McCain agreed, telling reporters "nobody is going to be totally happy with this legislation."

Recent retiree Dan Burton returns to Bahrain. John Bolton and others joining as well.

A Bahraini protester holds a poster as riot police fire tear gas outside the home of jailed human rights activist Nabeel Rajab in Bani Jamra, Bahrain, on March 23.

Image by Hasan Jamali / AP

WASHINGTON — The former Indiana congressman whose paid junket to Bahrain was exposed during his last term in office is returning to Bahrain this weekend for a conference organized by the government.

Dan Burton is listed as one of the "key people" at the Bahrain International Symposium, set to take place from March 31 to April 2 in the capital of Manama. Burton will give a speech titled, "The Failure of the U.S. Congress and Administration to Understanding the Root of the Bahrain Crisis."

Last year, ProPublica broke the news that Burton, as a sitting congressman, had gone on a nearly $21,000 trip to Bahrain with his wife that was paid for by the Bahrain American Council, a Washington group set up to promote the Bahraini government's interests in the U.S. When Burton got back to D.C., he gave an impassioned speech on the House floor in support of the Bahraini regime.

Burton will be joined at the symposium by former U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton, as well as former Congressman Solomon Ortiz and two representatives of the Heritage Foundation, which has a large body of work supporting Bahrain's regime.

Bahrain runs a sophisticated, multifaceted lobbying effort in Washington, as Harpers writer Ken Silverstein wrote in 2011.

A State Department human rights report from 2011 listed Bahrain's "most egregious" human rights abuses as the "inability of citizens to peacefully change their government; the dismissal and expulsion of workers and students for engaging in political activities; the arbitrary arrest and detention of thousands, including medical personnel, human rights activists, and political figures, sometimes leading to their torture and/or death in detention; and lack of due process."

h/t al-Bab

It's all about skim milk.

Source: telstar

WASHINGTON — Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wasted no time Wednesday making clear her unhappiness with the Defense of Marriage Act's federal prohibition on recognizing same-sex couples' marriages.

Once the court, in the second portion of Wednesday's arguments, began discussing the constitutionality of Section 3 of DOMA — which defines "marriage" and "spouse" in federal law as only pertaining to marriages of one man and one woman — Ginsburg asked the first question.

In characterizing the passage of DOMA represented the federal government's decision in 1996 to stay out of the debate over same-sex couples' marriage rights, Paul Clement, defending the law on behalf of the House Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group, faced quick challenge on that point from a skeptical Ginsburg.

"Mr. Clement, the problem is if [the government in passing DOMA is] totally for the States' decision that there is a marriage between two people, for the Federal Government then to come in to say, 'No joint return, no marital deduction, no Social Security benefits; your spouse is very sick but you can't get leave' ... one might well ask, 'What kind of marriage is this?'" she asked.

Clement replied, "I think the answer to that, Justice Ginsburg, would be to say that that is a 21 marriage under State law ... and the question of what does that mean for purposes of Federal law has always been understood to be a different matter."

Ginsburg was unimpressed and later put the point more directly, asserting that, because of the many federal benefits associated with marriage, DOMA had the result of telling states that allow same-sex couples to marry that they have "two kinds of marriage: the full marriage, and then this sort of skim milk marriage."

Today's lesson: Don't mess with Justice Ginsburg's dairy needs.

Image by Jessica Hill / AP

View Entire List ›

Judd decides against taking on McConnell.

Image by American Counseling Association, Paul Sakuma / AP

Ashley Judd will not seek the Democratic nomination for Senate in Kentucky next year. She announced the decision on Twitter Wednesday.

View Entire List ›

House Democrats reach 10 million views of pro-equality image.

WASHINGTON — The campaign arm of the House Democrats reached an online milestone Wednesday by making a public statement in support of same sex marriage.

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee tells BuzzFeed it has seen more than 10 million views of an image it posted on its Facebook page of the Supreme Court and a rainbow flag Tuesday. That makes the online effort the most-viewed in DCCC history. The image also garnered nearly half a million Facebook likes.

Though not all Democrats running for reelection in 2014 favor same sex marriage rights, the party has made its support for the issue a signature heading into the next election. Polls show a growing number of Americans favor marriage equality, and Democrats are hoping to turn that support into votes and campaign cash.

See what's written on the other side of the sign.

The New York Times homepage

On Wednesday evening, the NYT front page featured a man who seemed to be a traditional marriage advocate bearing a sign that read, "Kids do best with a Mom and Dad!"

Via: nytimes.com

The featured protestor

The man wore a distinctive red-banded military hat, dark sunglasses and an olive drab jacket.

The back of the sign

Earlier in the day, Katrina Trinko of the National Review snapped the same man holding up what appears to be the reverse of the same sign. It reads, "GOOD: 1 WOMAN 1 MAN; BETTER: 1 WOMAN 6 MEN; BEST: 1 MAN 6 WOMEN."

Via: @KatrinaTrinko

Side by side

View Entire List ›

At least four Supreme Court justices appear to think not, signaling they would strike DOMA's marriage definition for being unequal treatment. Justice Anthony Kennedy also criticized the law, but focused on whether Congress had the authority to pass it.

Plaintiff Edith Windsor greets the crowd outside the Supreme Court after arguments in her case against the Defense of Marriage Act on March 27, 2013.

Image by Jonathan Ernst / Reuters

WASHINGTON — It was only 24 hours later, but the same Supreme Court justices who appeared Tuesday to be pushing off a decision on state laws about same-sex couples' marriage rights appeared very comfortable Wednesday with the prospect of striking down the federal Defense of Marriage Act's definition of marriage.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, who Tuesday expressed concern about the "uncharted waters" of allowing same-sex couples to marry across the country, was by Wednesday questioning the impact of DOMA on same-sex couples already legally married by a state.

"It [impacts] 1,100 laws, which in our society means that the Federal Government is intertwined with the citizens' day-to-day life," Kennedy said of DOMA, which defines marriage as being between one man and one woman.

The shift was clear as Paul Clement, who is defending DOMA on behalf of the House Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group, spent much of his time answering questions about Congress' motives, and authority, in passing the law.

Kennedy focused on the latter part, asking repeated questions about constitutional protections for states' rights described as federalism, telling Clement, "You are at, at real risk of running in conflict with what has always been thought to be the essence of the state police power, which is to regulate marriage, divorce, custody."

Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan peppered Clement with questions that suggested they agreed with Edith Windsor, who brought the challenge to DOMA on grounds that it discriminated against her based on her sexual orientation.

"[Y]ou are treating the married couples differently," Sotomayor told Clement of states that allow same-sex couples to marry compared with states that do not. "You are saying that New York's married couples are different than Nebraska's."

Breyer asked, "[W]hat's special or on its own that distinguishes and thus makes rational, or whatever basis you're going to have here, treating the gay marriage differently?"

Ginsburg said that, in states that allow same-sex couples to marry, DOMA set up "two kinds of marriage: the full marriage, and then this sort of skim milk marriage."

Although Clement pressed that the aim of DOMA was to have federal uniformity on marriage, Kagan said that historically the "only uniformity" was that the federal government recognized marriages recognized by the states so this "real difference" in the approach "suggests that maybe something — maybe Congress had something different in mind than uniformity."

"When Congress targets a group that is not everybody's favorite group in the world ... we look at those cases with some ... rigor to say, 'Do we really think that Congress was doing this for uniformity reasons, or do we think that Congress' judgment was infected by dislike, by fear, by animus, and so forth?'" Kagan added.

When Clement claimed the law was "helping the states in the sense of having each [one] make the decision for themselves," Kennedy shot back that what the law really said is, "We're helping the States ... if they do what we want them to."

Although a majority of the court appeared poised to strike down the provision, there were two sticking points. The first was on the issue of whether the case presented a question about the rights of Congress — the federalism issue — or one about equal protection under the law.

With only four justices clearly pointing to the equal protection issues, the key question is where Kennedy will end up in the case. Kennedy — joined at times by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito — spent a significant amount of time asking for the lawyers' input on the federalism question.

Image by Olivier Douliery/Abaca Press/MCT

Both the administration, represented by Solicitor General Donald Verrilli Jr. and Windsor, represented by Roberta Kaplan, argued the law is unconstitutional on equal protection grounds. The administration — seeking to defend federal authority — has argued there is no federalism question and Kaplan argued that there are federalism concerns but that is not the focus of Windsor's claims.

The second issue of concern for the justices appeared to be whether to back opponents' argument that laws like DOMA, which classify people according to sexual orientation, should be required to meet a heightened level of scrutiny in determining their constitutionality.

"Heightened scrutiny" is used by courts when reviewing laws that classify people based on race, religion or sex. When deciding whether heightened scrutiny should apply, courts consider several factors, including any history of discrimination, the group's relative political powerlessness, the centrality or immutability of the characteristic in question, and the relationship between the characteristic and the individual's ability to contribute to society.

Although the administration argued heightened scrutiny should apply, most of their arguments before the court Wednesday suggested the federal government's interests in advancing the law are "non-existent" and would fail even under the lowest level of scrutiny.

When Kaplan was up, Roberts questioned her repeatedly about the political powerlessness claim, noting recent gay rights successes.

"You don't doubt that the lobby supporting the enactment of same sex-marriage laws in different States is politically powerful, do you?" Roberts said.

When Kaplan replied that it wasn't so much about political power as it was about a growing "understanding that there is no difference" between people of different sexual orientations, Roberts remained skeptical, arguing, "as far as I can tell, political figures are falling over themselves to endorse your side of the case."

The court might not even reach that issue, however, as both Justices Sotomayor and Breyer referenced the type of scrutiny that Breyer called "rational basis-plus" and Sotomayor described as being used when a government action "sends up a pretty good red flag" that its action was motivated "by dislike, by fear, by animus, and so forth."

Somewhere in between rational basis and intermediate scrutiny, the court could strike down DOMA under equal protection grounds using this "rational basis-plus" standard — which the court appears to have used in two other gay-rights cases — and avoid the question of whether heightened scrutiny applies to all laws that classify based on sexual orientation. Because the court is extremely cautious about applying heightened scrutiny to additional categories, the justices could prefer this route.

In using this method of resolving the case, the four justices focusing on equal protection could point to the federalism concerns raised by Kennedy as one of the red flags that lead to the use of "rational basis-plus" in the case — a route taken earlier by one of the appellate courts to have struck down the DOMA provision. This could help convince Kennedy to side with their reasoning, particularly because he authored those two earlier gay-rights opinions that appeared to use rational basis-plus.

Perhaps one of the most interesting distinctions between the two days of arguments over marriage-related laws this week was the court's look into the procedural questions about whether it could even be hearing the cases. While several justices appeared to think the court should not be hearing the Proposition 8 case, no justices appeared convinced the court lacked the ability to be hearing the DOMA challenge — despite having set aside an additional 50 minutes Wednesday to discuss the jurisdictional issues in the case.

Rulings in both cases are expected by late June.

View Entire List ›

One of Time 's two new cover photos declaring “gay marriage already won” looks like a wedding kiss. The other looks more like a makeout session.

The House speaker sends a memo to his conference during a two-week recess. “The weeks and months ahead will be tremendously important ones for our conference and for our country.”

Image by J. Scott Applewhite / AP

WASHINGTON — In a memo to House Republicans on Thursday, Speaker John Boehner gave members of his conference a pep talk for the legislative fights ahead and urged them to "share input" on how best to proceed.

"Republicans may be the minority party in Washington – but because we forged a plan together and have stuck to it, our actions as a team over the past couple of months have made a difference for all Americans," Boehner wrote.

"The next steps are critical," he added. "The weeks and months ahead will be tremendously important ones for our conference and for our country."

In his memo, Boehner heralded the conference for maintaining a united front since its retreat in Williamsburg, Va., where Republican leaders reached an agreement with the conference: They would pursue a budget that would balance in ten years, insist that there be no new revenue, and push for spending cuts to be implemented at or exceeding the level of the automatic cuts that went into effect this month.

But those goals and, by extension, the conference's unity might be jeopardized by the looming fight over the debt limit, which will need to be increased this summer. Boehner has said he will insist on spending cuts equal to the amount of the debt limit increase without any revenue; meanwhile, the president and Democrats plan to demand some revenue.

Criticism from inside the ranks. “Any kind of racially specific campaign activity was often treated with skepticism by white staffers,” says one former RNC staffer.

Priebus speaks to reporters after holding private talks with Latino and other community leaders at Tamayo restaurant in East Los Angeles.

Image by Reed Saxon / AP

As the Republican Party gears up to launch a concerted, well-funded outreach effort aimed at attracting elusive minority voters, it's not just battling dismal poll numbers and tough demographic trends — it's working to overcome its own overwhelming whiteness.

There is not a single racial minority among the 20 most senior officials who run the Republican National Committee, National Republican Congressional Committee, and National Republican Senatorial Committee — the three wings of the GOP apparatus charged with promoting candidates and winning elections. And a range of former Republican staffers told BuzzFeed that this lack of diversity has paralyzed the party's ability to connect with minority communities.

"If you're trying to court African-American voters, it's much better to have an African-American in the room talking about how these outreach policies are going to be implemented," said former RNC chair Michael Steele, the first African-American to hold that position. "They have an appreciation and understanding of what the issues are, how the language is being interpreted, and what takeaway they will get from your visit."

As they exist now, Steele said, "these institutions are old, they're stale, and they're crumbling. We can either shore them up with faces that look a lot like mine, like Marco Rubio's, like Susana Martinez's, or they can crumble and go to dust."

The need for people, and not just policies, that appeal specifically to voters of color has been a long-running theme of Republican politics. Steele's own elevation in 2009 was driven in part by hopes, which did not come to fruition, that he could woo black voters. And on the electoral level, county, state, and national Republican parties have been relatively successful at encouraging and backing qualified black and Hispanic candidates, a program pushed by George W. Bush and Karl Rove.

But the party's official Washington face is whiter than ever, and it is the subject of criticism that echoed throughout conversations with minority operatives who have worked for the GOP, some of whom declined to speak on the record for fear of career repercussions.

RNC spokesman Sean Spicer said Republican leaders are well aware of their organizations' lack of diversity, and are taking unprecedented strides to address the issue.

"No convincing needed," Spicer told BuzzFeed. "We just issued a pretty scathing report saying just that. We need more diverse people, especially of different races and ethnicities, to be at the decision-making table. Yeah, we agree. I don't think that's a point of contention."

Since the release this month of a 100-page "autopsy" commissioned by the RNC — which called for an expansion of the party's minority outreach efforts — chairman Reince Priebus has been trumpeting a $10 million plan to establish a permanent grassroots presence in black, Hispanic, and Asian communities across the country.

"We have become a party that parachutes into communities four months before an election," Priebus told CBS, pledging to hire "hundreds" of new field staffers. "In comparison to the other side, the Obama campaign lived in these communities for years. The relationships were deep, they were authentic."

But building relationships of trust with minority communities could prove more complicated than funding a pricey outreach initiative.

One former RNC field staffer, who is Hispanic, described a culture of cynicism among his predominantly white colleagues when it came to minority outreach. He said that in his office, whenever they were notified of a new Republican outreach effort, they would pass around a Beanie Baby — which they had dubbed the "pander bear" — and make fun of the "tokenism."

"Any kind of racially specific campaign activity was often treated with skepticism by white staffers," he said.

He also recalled a Mitt Romney rally last year featuring Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, during which the staffer and his coworkers were tasked with finding Hispanics in the crowd who they could place on stage for the benefit of the TV cameras. It's a common, bipartisan practice in campaign politics — but one that his colleagues resented.

"My white peers were clearly not understanding what a powerful image a Hispanic senator standing in front of a sea of Hispanic Romney supporters would be," he said. "They grumbled about it, treated it like a chore. Not racist or anything like that, just didn't understand why they were doing it."

Derek Khanna, a young wonk who was fired from the House Republican Study Committee last year after writing a controversial policy memo, pointed to the tension between a desire for diversity and a revulsion at the "identity politics" that Democrats have historically used to build sturdy ethnic coalitions — and sometimes to convince voters the GOP is racist.

"I think Republicans are naturally averse to the idea that if you're a minority, you have to vote this certain way," Khanna explained. Still, he said, "It's important... [and] useful to have the rainbow members of the Republican Party" making the case to minority voters, and brainstorming new ideas and policies that will attract a broader cross section of support.

Virtually every Republican, regardless of his or her preferred approach, acknowledges now that their party faces a stark demographic challenge. In the 2012 presidential election, race was a more effective predictor of which lever a voter would pull than either age or gender. While Romney won both white women and white youth, President Obama won Hispanics and African-Americans across age and gender by such large margins that his reelection was easily secured. To be competitive in future national races, Republicans must find a way to cut down the Democrats' advantage among racial minorities.

The first step, many Republicans argue, is for the party establishment to prioritize diversity as it staffs up. (The leadership of the Democratic National Committee is also majority-white, but is more diverse than its Republican counterpart.)

Steele said he invested heavily in this area while he was RNC chair, building a six-person coalitions committee focused on minority outreach.

"But that was disbanded by Reince," Steele said. "So then they sit back and scratch their heads and wonder why they didn't have the kind of response from those communities they wanted. Well, you can't just throw up a website, throw some black faces on there, and think we would be impressed. It's a cynical ploy as viewed by many African-Americans."

Steele, whose relationship with his successor has grown increasingly antagonistic in recent months, went on to blame the party's struggles to win black and Hispanic voters in 2012 partially on Priebus. He specifically criticized him for failing to promote minorities to senior positions.

"I'm not saying you need a person of color in that job," he said. "But you have to feel it in your core. Reince stood by my side for two years. He at least gave lip service to what we were trying to do. I found out later he didn't necessarily believe in it. That's fine. But you have to really believe it."

"Reince is not the guy to get this done," he said.

Spicer countered that the coalitions committee was not the only casualty when Priebus took Steele's job, and that deep cuts were necessary at the time to get the RNC out of debt.

"The fact of the matter is, in January of [2011], the financial state of the RNC was so bad, we did not have the resources to meet basic payroll," Spicer said.

Besides, Spicer said, the value of the coalitions committee — while staffed by talented people — was ultimately more symbolic than practical.

"Is it good for the building to be diverse? Yes. Absolutely. But do I think if we suddenly offered a bunch more minorities jobs in RNC headquarters that it would cause a huge sea change? No," Spicer said. "What makes this approach different is that we're not solving the problem in the building... What we're talking about now is not only putting minority people in the RNC, but putting paid minority staffers throughout the country."

He added, "This is not a headquarters-solvable problem."

With reporting from CJ Lotz.

“Shame on us if we’ve forgotten. I haven’t forgotten those kids. Shame on us if we’ve forgotten,” Obama says.

U.S. President Barack Obama talks in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, March 27, 2013.

Image by Larry Downing / Reuters

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama Thursday urged supporters to use the next 10 days to pressure lawmakers to back sweeping new gun control legislation, repeatedly invoking the Newtown massacre in his most aggressive call to action in recent weeks.

"We need everybody to remember how we felt 100 days ago and to make sure what we said wasn't just a bunch of platitudes," Obama said during an event that featured the mothers of children who have died due to gun violence.

Obama called on backers to attend town hall meetings and other events during the remainder of Congress' Easter Recess and press lawmakers, particularly those who have not backed a universal background check system, on why.
"If they're not part of that 90% [who support universal checks] … then you should ask them why not? Why are you part of the 10%?"

Obama also took aim at the NRA and other opponents of legislation making its way through the Senate. "It's not done until it's done. And there are some powerful voices on the other side … They're doing everything they can to make all of our progress collapse under the weight of fear."

But much of his speech aimed to tug at the public's heartstrings, repeatedly invoking the memory of Newtown in a clear effort to rebuild the emotional momentum gun control advocates have lost in the months since the attack.

"The entire country was shocked, and the entire country pledged we do something about it and this time it would be different," Obama said, adding, "Shame on us if we've forgotten. I haven't forgotten those kids. Shame on us if we've forgotten."

The country should not "wait until … the next beautiful child is gunned down in a playground in Chicago or Philadelphia," the president added.

Faces of pure happiness.

Image by U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 3rd Class Michael Feddersen

Via: facebook.com

Image by U.S. Air Force photo

Image by U.S. Navy Photo

View Entire List ›

The Hungarian government's image campaign beginning to work. “Friends of Hungary” will be registered as a U.S. organization.

Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban

Image by Bilal Hussein / AP

WASHINGTON — A new project by the Hungarian government to burnish its image in Washington appears to be paying off, as the head of a new organization created as a non-profit to advance Hungary's interests in the U.S. won a statement from a New Jersey Republican congressman defending Hungary from charges of anti-Semitism.

In the statement, Rep. Chris Smith cited "the long list of significant actions the Orbán government has taken to combat anti-Semitism in Hungarian society" and dismissed criticism from Jewish leaders and others as "unfair, involving double standards,
misrepresentatíons, and inaccurate information."

A staffer from the Helsinki Commission, which Smith co-chairs, sent the statement to Tamas Fellegi, a former minister in in Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban's government who is establishing Friends of Hungary, a 501(c)3 non-profit group aligned with the government. Fellegi testified about anti-Semitism in Europe in front of the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, Global Human Rights, and International Organizations of which Smith is also a co-chair. Smith's principal advisor on the Helsinki Commission, Mark Milsoch, promptly forwarded the statement to Fellegi in an email from March 21 obtained by BuzzFeed.

In the statement, submitted for the record for a Helsinki Commission meeting which Smith couldn't attend, Smith writes that he's sure Hungary will effectively deal with the persistent social problem of a right-wing extremist party that has made shocking statements about Jews, Roma, and gay people.

One of the witnesses was Tamás Fellegi, a former minister in the Orbán government, who is himself Jewish. His testimony was impressive, as was the long list of significant actions the Orbán government has taken to combat anti-Semitism in Hungarian society.

Mr. Fellegi admitted frankly that anti-Semitism is a serious social problem in Hungary.
Fortunately, the Orhan government is on a clear upward trajectory here, and gives every sign that it will continue to be part of the solution rather than the problem. I'm confident it will particularly take on the persistent attempts to rehabilitate Holocaust perpetrators and vicious anti-Semites, both from the 1930s and 1940s and today. I will certainly continue to urge it to do so.

Smith goes on to write that he perceives the criticism of Orban's government for not dealing effectively with the problem as unfair. He argues that the Obama administration is particularly unqualified to levy criticism at Orban because of Obamacare.

We all know that many NGOs and a few governments, including our own, have been vocal
in criticizing the Hungarian government on various grounds touching on democracy and human rights - and that the Hungarian government and its supporters have rejected these criticisms vigorously.

Having reviewed material on both sides, I must say that I believe the Orban government is
right when it says that many of the criticisms are unfair, involving double standards,
misrepresentatíons, and inaccurate information. The Hungarian government has carefully documented this, for example in its "Open Letter to Freedom House."

For another example, the administration, in criticizing the Orbán government's adoption of
a new constitution, claims in its written testimony that in "fundamental" matters, "the process must lead to a consensus built from a cross-section of society, rather than reflect only the opinions of the ruling coalition. . . the lack of serious consultation with different sectors of society, did not honor the democratic spirit. . ." Anyone familiar with the passage of the Obamacare legislation might well question whether this is a message our government is ideally situated to deliver. Certainly it should have avoided the rude insinuation about democracy.

The statement is dated March 19, a few weeks after Fellegi testified in a February 27th meeting on "Anti-Semitism: A Threat to All Faiths" convened by another foreign affairs committee Smith co-chairs. Smith's opening statement at that meeting presaged what he wrote in the March statement: "One thing the witnesses will address is whether elected officials are fulfilling their responsibility to speak out publicly against any expressions of anti-Semitic hate," Smith said. "In this respect, I want to recognize the leadership Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán has shown in the fight against anti-Semitism. Prime Minister Orbán has taken his government into the vanguard of those fighting anti-Semitism in Europe." And it mirrored what Fellegi himself said at the first meeting, in which he argued that virulent ant-Semitic sentiment was limited to just one political party and that Jewish life was experiencing a renaissance in Hungary.

Yet Orban has been roundly criticized for not doing nearly enough to stop the aggressively anti-Semitic and anti-gay rhetoric of the far-right nationalist party Jobbik, whose members have called for a national registry of Jews in Hungary and described them as a "national security risk."

"Disturbingly, Prime Minister Viktor Orban took almost a week to add his voice to the reprobation with a vow to protect his country's 100,000 Jews, though he didn't denounce Jobbik by name," wrote Bloomberg's Max Berley in December. "Unfortunately, the delay wasn't much of a surprise: In solidifying his hold on power, Orban has shown a disquieting tolerance for Jobbik, the third-biggest party in Parliament, and for its bald appeals to the politics of resentment."

In June of last year, Holocaust survivor and Nobel laureate Elie Wiesel returned an award he'd received from the Hungarian government in 2004 as an act of protest against the speaker of Hungary's parliament attending a memorial ceremony for an infamous Nazi sympathizer named Jozsef Nyiro.

Just this month, Hungary was forced by FIFA to play a soccer World Cup qualifier in an empty stadium because of the problems with crowds of extremist anti-Semitic fans.

A spokesman for Smith didnt immediately return a request for comment on how he came to take the Hungarian side of the dispute.

Fellegi confirmed that he will be in charge of setting up Friends of Hungary, for which the government has budgeted $15 million and which will be established as a non-profit in the United States. While that's an increasingly popular way around strict American rules on the registration of foreign agents, Friends of Hungary's direct funding by the Hungarian government means it will be required to file under the Foreign Agent Registration Act like other foreign principals.

"I can confirm that I'm on the Board of Trustees and my responsibility is to set up the foundation," Fellegi said in an email. "I cannot tell more before the board meeting(s) which will make the strategic decisions about the build-up, programs, etc."

“They essentially practice Joseph Goebel's Nazi philosophy of propaganda,” the Family Research Council vice president writes. That and other advice for Minnesota pastors looking for sermon material.

WASHINGTON — The Family Research Council said evidence that "homosexuals" are born that way is little more than Nazi propaganda, a part of the group's effort to defeat a marriage equality measure in Minnesota.

As part of those efforts to fight a marriage equality bill now making its way through the Minnesota legislature, FRC this week produced guidance for pastors in the state likening the science of sexual orientation to the propaganda efforts of Nazi Joseph Goebel, among other claims.

Kenyn Cureton is FRC's vice president for church ministries, but he also is the author of a new document — a "Stand for Marriage Sermon Starter" — that was posted on the Minnesota Pastors for Marriage website this week.

A part of the group's preparations for a "Stand for Marriage Sunday" on April 7, Cureton details a five-point plan to help pastors draft sermons for the day.

Here are some of the highlights.

"Adam And Eve, And Not ... Adam And Steve"

Note: The potential applicability of these benefits to same-sex couples and their children is not discussed in the document.

View Entire List ›

Commends the successful countries, and stays vague on the less cheerful issues.

Obama with President Macky Sall of Senegal, President Joyce Banda of Malawi, Obama, President Ernest Bai Koroma of Sierra Leone and Prime Minister Jose Maria Pereira Neves of Cape Verde.

Image by Yuri Gripas / Reuters

WASHINGTON — President Obama promised greater cooperation on economic and development issues with African leaders at the White House today, but only touched on the conflicts currently roiling the continent — signaling that the administration's policy towards Africa will stay relatively unchanged in his second term.

Although Obama has taken a greater interest, at least rhetorically, in Africa than some previous presidents, the administration has not been as engaged in the continent as it has in the Middle East and Asia, a dynamic that isn't likely to change.

The leaders of Malawi, Sierra Leone, Senegal and Cape Verde all met Obama at the White House this afternoon after they visited the Pentagon. A similar visit happened in 2011 when the presidents of Benin, Niger, Côte d'Ivoire, and Guinea came to Washington. All are states being highlighted by the administration as African success stories in an era of historically rapid growth in some areas of Africa, and terrible bloodshed and disorder in others.

"The reason that I'm meeting with these four is they exemplify the progress that we're seeing in Africa," Obama said, according to remarks released by the White House. "What our discussion has focused on is, number one, how do we continue to build on strong democracies; how do we continue to build on transparency and accountability."

"We also talked about the economic situation. And all of us recognize that, although Africa has actually been growing faster than almost every other region of the world, it started from a low baseline and it still has a lot of work to do," Obama said. "And so we discussed how the United States can continue to partner effectively with each of these countries."

Obama briefly mentioned some of the unrest that's making most headlines about Africa these days.

"Obviously, economic development, prosperity doesn't happen if you have constant conflict," he said. "And nobody knows that more than these individuals."

"Now many of the threats are transnational," Obama said. "You've seen terrorism infiltrate into the region. We've seen drug cartels that are using West Africa in particular as a transit point. All of this undermines some of the progress that's been made, and so the United States will continue to cooperate with each of these countries to try to find smart solutions so that they can build additional capacity and make sure that these cancers don't grow in their region. And the United States intends to be a strong partner for that."

The Central African Republic is currently embroiled in a military coup d'état that has thrown the country's capital into chaos. Meanwhile, French troops are staying in northern Mali through the end of 2013 after driving out Islamist forces, and the United Nations has authorized an "intervention brigade" to enter war-torn Congo.

John Campbell, former ambassador to Nigeria, said he didn't expect to see deeper involvement in Africa's conflict issues from the administration.

"I don't see a dramatic change coming up," Campbell said. "There's certainly been more involvement; for example there are a small number of US troops involved in the effort to capture [Joseph] Kony and shut down the Lord's Resistance Army."

"I think the policy's right," Campbell said. "I think the focus has to be on governance. Governance and the rule of law is essentially the prerequisite in stabilizing these countries."

"The opportunity to meet with President Obama should also be used to articulate the broader challenges that Africa faces and the need for deeper U.S. engagement with the region," Brookings Institute expert Mwangi S. Kimenyi wrote last week. Kimenyi called for the president to broaden his approach to Africa: "The president's engagement with Africa should also be more inclusive and as much as possible engage directly with the broader African leadership probably through the African Union organs."

The African leaders' visit to the Pentagon put the continent on defense officials' minds as well as the White House, Foreign Policy wrote on Thursday. The leadership of AFRICOM has just changed hands, and "the rest of the Defense Department" is "just realizing how interesting" Africa is. But the talk in the military is of keeping the footprint in Africa light, in a reflection of the White House's line.

Obama finished the meeting with kind words for Nelson Mandela, who is ill.

"When you think of a single individual that embodies the kind of leadership qualities that I think we all aspire to, the first name that comes up is Nelson Mandela, and so we wish him all the very best," Obama said.

Rep. Kevin Cramer denies say he felt unsafe, but apologized for his “tone” at meeting with Native Americans

Source: facebook.com

WASHINGTON — Rep. Kevin Cramer apologized Thursday after an advocate for Native American victims of domestic violence wrote Cramer said he felt unsafe on Indian reservations thanks to the Violence Against Women Act.

The advocate, Melissa Merrick, said Cramer told her, "as a non-Native man, I do not feel secure stepping onto the reservation now." By "now," Cramer meant after the passage of the Violence Against Women Act.

Merrick directs Spirit Lake Victim Assistance, which offers aid to members of the Spirit Lake tribe who have been victims of sexual assault or domestic violence. The Spirit Lake tribe's reservation is located in east central North Dakota.

On Thursday, Merrick posted her version of a recent meeting between Cramer, Democratic Sen. Heidi Heitkamp and the North Dakota Council on Abused women Services to the blog Last Real Indians.

Many Republicans on Capitol Hill opposed the legislation on Capitol Hill because they said provisions in the law would make non-Native men accused of assaulting women on reservation subject to the tribal legal system. Though Cramer voted for VAWA,he expressed concerns over the tribal provisions.

Merrick wrote that the discussion with Cramer grew heated. She did not immediately respond to a request for comment Thursday afternoon. Cramer's DC office was closed for the day when BuzzFeed called.

Cramer disputed Merrick's recollection of the meeting in an interview with the Grand Forks Herald, but apologized for how he came off in the discussion.

"We had a very frank discussion about my belief in equal protection under the law and due process," he said. "I don't want it overturned. I wanted to improve it so it doesn't get overturned.

"I engaged in a discussion, or maybe I should say debate, that was probably more like a debate we'd have in Congress than with a group of people dedicated to helping women and children.

"I want to apologize to her for that," he said.