The 21-year-old Rove appeared in a CBS report on the Nixon campaign where he said the Republican Party couldn’t expect to win youth votes when the efforts in outreach are not run by fellow youth.
Source: youtube.com
“[W]e’ve got to end LGBT discrimination in the places where we work,” Obama told the assembled crowd Thursday. Obama has not acted to end LGBT discrimination by federal contractors, a move he said he would support if elected president.
WASHINGTON — President Obama took aim at LGBT employment discrimination at the LGBT Pride Month reception at the White House Thursday, calling for Congress to pass bipartisan legislation making it's way through Congress.
But one thing he did not mention was the executive order he has been asked to sign to end anti-LGBT job bias among federal contractors — despite it being the reason his wife was heckled recently and a huge priority for the LGBT community.
Obama spoke about the need to end workplace discrimination against LGBT people:
And I agree with Susan, a PFLAG mom from Ohio — we've got to end LGBT discrimination in the places where we work. Susan wrote me and said, "If I have a concern it is that there are so many LGBT men and women who contribute to the wealth and growth of our nation … but they still are not protected from harassment in the workplace."
And I share that concern. In 34 states, you can be fired just because of who you are or who you love. That's wrong. We've got to change it. There's a bipartisan bill moving forward in the Senate that would ban discrimination against all LGBT Americans in the workplace, now and forever. We need to get that passed. (Applause.) I want to sign that bill. We need to get it done now. (Applause.)
And I think we can make that happen — because after the last four and a half years, you can't tell me things can't happen.
He did not raise the issue behind the heckling that his wife, First Lady Michelle Obama, faced last week: a proposed executive order that would bar federal contractors from discriminating against employees based on sexual orientation or gender identity. In a 2008 questionnaire, then-candidate Obama said he would support an LGBT nondiscrimination policy for federal contractors.
Instead, he focused Thursday on the "bipartisan bill moving forward in the Senate," the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. Although he later added, "[Y]ou can't tell me things can't happen," he did not explain whether and how he thought the bill could move through the Republican-led House.
Members of Congress and advocacy groups have ramped up the pressure on the president to take immediate action by signing the executive order, but the White House has rebuffed attempts to engage in a debate on the issue, saying Obama's preferred path is the legislative one.
Via: Yuri Gripas / Reuters
The President was introduced by Zea and Luna, third graders from California who, according to information provided by the White House, wrote letters to the President about the need for gun safety, funding for education, and marriage equality for their "two great moms."
Wow.
Source: whitehouse
Via: Jacquelyn Martin / AP
Source: upload.wikimedia.org
The real inside baseball.
E.W. Jackson was appearing on the Christian Broadcasting Network in March 2012.
"The President of the United States has missed another opportunity to unify this nation instead of dividing. When he said to a reporter's question if I 'if I had a son he would look like Trayvon,' instead of saying 'Trayvon is an American. He has lost his life. This is a tragic incident and we don't know the facts, let's withhold judgement. But let's all come together to help all of our young people who are dying of suicide, drug addiction, gang violence. Let's come together for all of them regardless of their color. He used this as opportunity instead to divide us by race."
The message at the Faith and Freedom Coalition conference: Don’t stop talking about abortion and marriage. “The Republican social issues we believe in are more popular than our economic agenda,” said one speaker.
Ralph Reed, president of the national Faith and Freedom Coalition.
Via: Charlie Neibergall, File / AP
WASHINGTON — Conservatives gathered at the Faith and Freedom Coalition's "Road to the Majority" conference on Friday to try and understand just how exactly the GOP can win.
The message: conservative social issues are winners and candidates need to talk about them a whole lot more — and that runs counter to a lot of the soul-searching Republicans have done since the 2012 election.
Yes, speakers railed against President Barack Obama, the economy, unemployment, and Obamacare, all the standard themes of the 2012 campaign.
But conservatives here said they felt abandoned by the Republican ticket in 2012 and argued that Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan spent too little time talking about anti-abortion policies and entirely avoided talking about marriage.
"You can chew gum and walk down the street at the time," Penny Nance, the president of Concerned Women for America, told BuzzFeed. "The strategy for Mitt Romney was to basically be single issue and it didn't work, it didn't work because the other side was reading different talking points. They were defining him on women's issues."
The conference comes as the Republican National Committee is trying to rehabilitate the image of the GOP — which lost women and minority voters by large margins — and has veered away from focusing on social issues. To these conservatives, that's exactly the wrong play, and practically every speaker encouraged the audience to continue to fight for social issues and energize the base.
Democrats meanwhile have been working to continue the narrative that Republicans are engaged in a "War on Women," the latest example of which is a bill sponsored by Rep. Trent Franks coming to the floor next week that bans abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy.
"I really give credit to the House leadership that the Franks bill is coming up on Tuesday," Nance said. "What we know is when members are willing to go out on that issue and be counted they garner support and new support in their district and they'll be praised for it, it's better for them."
Gary Bauer, the president of American Values, said that Republican strategists were wrong to tell candidates to focus on the economy — and even said that many of the GOP's economic policies, while he agreed with them, weren't best messages to win.
"They tell candidates why don't you go out there and base your campaign on the idea that we need to cut every body's social security cause that's really a popular idea, but stay away from that abortion issue!" Bauer said. "Or they go out there and tell the candidates, now hold the line on no tax increases on the very wealthy because everybody in America gets up and worries about taxes going up on billionaires, but don't get into that controversial issue on the definition of marriage."
"They've got it upside down. The Republican social issues we believe in are more popular than our economic agenda," he said to applause.
Rep. Paul Ryan, the party's Vice Presidential candidate, offered his own explanation for why Republicans lost in November, charging that he and Romney lost in large part because they had to "argue against the promise and rhetoric of President Obama" and told the audience to "come and speak your values."
"Our job is this, we've got to go fight for the American ideal," Ryan said. "We've got to re-introduce people to these principles, we've got to reintroduce people to the idea that if you work hard in this country you can get ahead."
"We need to hear from you. The left likes to think that we are the fringe. Guess what: You, us, we are the mainstream," he said.
Marjorie Kantor, attending her first conference from Long Branch New Jersey, said that she felt Romney and Ryan shared her values but were weakened by not speaking about them.
"A lot people sit in the background and do have wonderful values but they seem silent," Kantor said. "We've gone backwards since the 70's, and the liberals have taken over. I think it's time we took a stand."
Attendees of the conference on Thursday heard from leading 2016 presidential contenders, Marco Rubio and Rand Paul. Rubio told the audience to continue speaking out over the issues that matter most to conservatives.
"This call for us to silence ourselves and stop speaking about the values we know work is a big mistake," he said.
Ralph Reed, the founder of the Faith and Freedom coalition, told the Associated Press that national Republican's calls for inclusiveness didn't need to come at the expense of alienating Christian conservatives.
We think you've got to add more young people, more Hispanics, more women, more African-Americans — you've got to grow the movement and grow the party," Reed said. "But you don't do that by taking the most loyal constituents that you've got and throwing them under the bus."
It’s no surprise that most Republicans and Democrats are speaking from the same script on NSA. Because they’re all responsible.
Via: Bobby Yip / Reuters
WASHINGTON — Edward Snowden has done what President Obama and and John Boehner couldn't: get Washington singing the same tune. For once, leaders of the Democratic and Republican Party agree — that the young former CIA staffer revealed nothing of note, and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
The open question: who wrote the lyrics?
Obama's allies and members of Congress say the White House isn't issuing orders, but the remarkable unanimity has given a rare foothold to the Administration at a difficult time.
On Thursday, Speaker John Boehner and Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi offered only slight variations on the same theme. Snowden's acts are criminal, they said, and what he exposed is simply not that big a deal. There are differences between how this is communicated — Boehner flat-out called Snowden "a traitor" while Pelosi simply said "he should beprosecuted" — but the main themes are certainly similar.
"They are making their case, but no one has called me and said 'Jeez, you know you are wrong about this,'" said one Congressional dissenter, Rep. John Larson. The Connecticut Democrat voted for the Patriot Act the first time, but has since been a critic of the law and has voted against its reauthorization. Larson said the White House is defending itself to TV cameras rather than in behind the scenes conversations.
Obama and the White House haven't said much about the NSA programs since the president's statement on them last Friday, before Snowden's name was revealed.
"He's made his case publicly but there should always be a dynamic tension between the executive and legislative branches," Larson said. "That's why we call it a democracy."
Even as they set about mounting a defense of the White House, leaders in Congress say they're doing it all on their own. In fact, no matter what side of the debate they're on, Washington leaders insist they're not hearing much more about the NSA scandal from the White House than the public is.
While it's rare that a scandal of this nature wouldn't be managed, there indeed may be a lack of coordination due to the nature of the NSA story. While Obama may be in charge of the spying, Republicans and Democrats have signed off on it for years. And that means everyone owns its security successes — and the scandal surrounding the government's decision to monitor the activity of its citizens.
Just two weeks since a series of stories revealed a pair of domestic spying programs, the debate has shifted quickly from the spying itself and onto Edward Snowden, a former National Security Agency contractor and source of the information.
After Snowden revealed himself in an online interview from Hong Kong, he's found himself with few friends in the capital, with just about everyone condemning him and calling for his prosecution. Attacking Snowden has become the centerpiece of a narrative about the NSA story that's starting to become universal among the more establishment types in Washington, signalling a tough road ahead for those who hoped to see real change to national security strategy emerge from Snowden's leaks.
That puts the public discussion on decidedly friendly footing not only for the White House but for Congress as well, since it shifts the narrative away from a debate over what level of government surveillance is acceptable and onto the mechanics of the leaks. Even when they are talking about the programs, lawmakers of both parties are demonstrating a remarkable ability to march in lockstep — especially for a group of people who often have difficulty agreeing on what day of the week it is.
Pelosi is also picking up on White House defense of the programs, echoing Obama's promise that the blanket surveillance under Obama is significantly different than the surveillance under George W. Bush. At her Thursday presser, she said she's drafting a slide presentation to explain the distinction between Bush and Obama's NSA to skittish members of her caucus.
"I'm going to have for members … a side by side of what the actions were under President Bush, what they had proposed in their protect America act —which was not acceptable to us— and what we passed in the FISA act of 2008 and all of the protections that were abided by in going to a FISA court that were insisted upon by the Democrats in that legislation," Pelosi said. "There are many protections for the American people, including strengthening a civil liberties board. I think this is really important because we have to have the balance between liberty and security."
At a press conference after the "traitor" remarks, Boehner dinged the White House for what he said was weak defense of the NSA programs exposed by Snowden. But he also picked up the White House's central defense of the programs, namely that Congress owns them as much as the White House does, and that there's been bipartisan support for them all along.
"For those of us who have been briefed on these programs, we're aware how much safety they've brought us. And we're also aware of many examples where they've helped us eliminate terrorist threats," he said.
Meanwhile, Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee are distributing talking points that bear a striking resemblance to the White House's initial defense of the programs.
And on Capitol Hill, members and staff told BuzzFeed that the NSA line isn't coming from the White House. Pelosi's slide deck is her own, and did not come at the direction of the White House, aides said. Other Democrats say they haven't heard much directly from the White House behind the scenes about the NSA.
And Democratic leadership is not stressing any deep division within their caucus. A steady number of progressive members, who have long opposed any government program that could lead to wholesale spying are angered by the revelations, but members are not getting any messaging notes from the White House.
National security think tanks around the city allied with Democrats say they haven't heard much from the White House about the surveillance programs either. The White House regularly communicates with these groups about its policy goals and intentions, but when it comes to the NSA programs so far they say they're not hearing much from the the White House.
The same goes for the Democrats who fill the cable TV broadcast day. The White House and other groups usually brief TV commentators on its positions, giving them ammo to use on air. One prominent surrogate told BuzzFeed the administration has sent plenty of talking points about immigration — this week's policy focus at the White House — but there haven't been any about the NSA. But that doesn't mean the White House doesn't care what's being said: the surrogate said administration officials have been available to talk about it and have mounted a "vigorous defense" of the president, but said blast emails have not gone out.
A White House aide did not respond on the record to a request for comment from BuzzFeed about private communications with Congressional and outside allies about the NSA story.
Whether or not the NSA script was written in one place or evolved organically among politicians who all agree the programs should continue, the result is good for the White House. Obama has backup when his administration says Congress knew about the scope of the NSA program and that leaking the details of still-vital programs damages national security.
The politics of Snowden's leaks are not completely set, but the similar-sounding line coming out of the White House and top leadership on both the Democratic and Republican side suggests those who hoped to see sweeping changes to the nation's national security stance are fighting an uphill battle. The libertarian-liberal coalition that emerged after Snowden's leaks were first published is still crafting legislation and building support, but so far they're still up against a largely united front including the top leaders across Washington.
“Finally it was time to go and as we stood up to shake hands Arafat laid a big ole wet kiss right on my lips.”
Via: Chris Wattie / Reuters
Former DNC chairman and Democratic Virginia gubernatorial candidate Terry McAuliffe wrote in his 2007 book What A Party that former Palestinian National Authority president Yasser Arafat rubbed his leg awkwardly and kissed him on the lips at a dinner in 2000 hosted by his friend Hani Masri, a Palestinian-American businessman. McAuliffe describes being uncomfortable at the gestures.
The passage reads:
Hani invited Dorothy and me to join six other guests at the Prime Rib to meet Arafat and discuss issues. When Arafat arrived at the restaurant, Hani had him sit right next to me. We talked about what was happening in the Middle East and Arafat had all kinds of questions about U.S. politics and of course about Bill Clinton. The dinner soon became somehow comical for me. Arafat would get very animated when he spoke and every time he was making a point, he would lean over and rub my leg under the table. He'd be saying something to the whole table full of people and then would look right at me, emphasizing a point, and rub up and down my leg. That is not something men normally do to me when I sit down for dinner with them. I just couldn't visualize my friend ariel Sharon rubbing my leg when I talked to him.
Dorothy went the whole meal laughing at how uncomfortable I obviously was. She knew this was unique for me given my Irish Catholic heritage. What would the nuns at St. Anns think? As interested as I was in the conversation, after a while it started getting awkward having my leg rubbed so much and I looked forward to the end of the meal. Finally it was time to go and as we stood up to shake hands Arafat laid a big ole wet kiss right on my lips. I wasn't ready for that one.
“I thought it was deplorable that Senator Kaine decided to deliver an entire speech on the Senate floor last week in Spanish,” said Carlos Curbelo, a speaker at the Faith and Freedom Coalition conference Friday and a Miami-Dade County School Board member.
The longtime conservative activist and anti-feminist was speaking at the Faith and Freedom Coalition’s conference in Washington D.C. Friday.
Most Senators opted for a long weekend instead of sticking around for a briefing on government surveillance that was held two-and-a-half hours after their final vote Thursday.
U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, speaks to reporters after departing a full-Senate briefing by the director of the National Security Agency Thursday.
A briefing on government surveillance was half empty Thursday after 53 Senators decided to skip it and start their weekend early. Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and head of the National Security Agency Keith Alexander spoke at the briefing about classified government programs to monitor phone records and Internet activity, The Hill reported.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), the Senate Intelligence Committee chairwoman, said it was difficult to "get the story out" about the government classified programs. "Even now we have this big briefing — we've got Alexander, we've got the FBI, we've got the Justice Department, we have the FISA Court there, we have Clapper there — and people are leaving," she told The Hill.
The Senate held its final vote of the week Thursday around noon. The briefing was held at 2:30 p.m. According to The Hill, many lawmakers decided to leave early for a long weekend following the vote. No details have been provided about which Senators were present at the meeting.
Speaking at the Faith & Freedom Coalition’s Road to Majority Conference in Washington, D.C., Sunday, Palin criticized the Obama administration supplying Syrian rebels with weapons.
Former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin (R-AK) addresses the Faith & Freedom Coalition Road to Majority Conference in Washington June 15, 2013.
Jonathan Ernst / Reuters
Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin suggested the U.S. government should stay out of Syria at the Faith & Freedom Coalition's Road to Majority Conference Saturday, saying, "let Allah sort it out." This week, the Obama administration announced it would providing military support to rebels there.
"Militarily, where is our commander in chief? We're talking now more new interventions. I say until we know what we're doing, until we have a commander and chief who knows what he's doing, well, let these radical Islamic countries who aren't even respecting basic human rights, where both sides are slaughtering each other as they scream over an arbitrary red line, 'Allah Akbar,' I say until we have someone who knows what they're doing, I say let Allah sort it out," Palin said.
Here's video of Palin's remarks.
youtube.com
Democratic New York Rep. Jerrold Nadler claims he was told in a closed-door briefing that the NSA could listen to a specific phone call, and get a call’s “contents” without a warrant, based solely on an analyst’s decision. FBI Director Robert Mueller said that wasn’t true. Nadler said he asked the same question at the closed-door briefing where he received the different answer. Update Rep. Nadler in a statement to BuzzFeed says: “I am pleased that the administration has reiterated that, as I have always believed, the NSA cannot listen to the content of Americans’ phone calls without a specific warrant.”
Happy Father’s Day!
Via: arcweb.archives.gov
via The National Archives
Via: arcweb.archives.gov
via The National Archives
Via: arcweb.archives.gov
via The National Archives
Via: arcweb.archives.gov
Many outcomes are possible in the challenges to California’s Proposition 8 and the Defense of Marriage Act that are due to be decided by the justices in the coming weeks. A complex path got the cases — and the country — to a moment of waiting.
Via: Jose Luis Magana / AP
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court is expected to decide two cases in the coming two weeks that could have an extraordinary effect on LGBT rights, on the lives of same-sex couples across the 50 states, and on the country itself.
The possible outcomes, though, are as complex as the path that got the cases — Hollingsworth v. Perry and United States v. Windsor — to the Supreme Court.
When Chad Griffin began working to bring a federal lawsuit challenging California's Proposition 8 marriage amendment in 2008, he found himself working against the LGBT political and legal establishment.
None of the LGBT legal organizations thought the Supreme Court — or even the broader country — was ready for the type of lawsuit Griffin wanted to bring: a frontal challenge arguing that bans on same-sex couples' right to marry violate the United States Constitution's guarantees of equal protection and due process.
The legal groups, from New England's Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders and the California-based National Center for Lesbian Rights to Lambda Legal and the ACLU's LGBT Rights Project — were readying a different path, a focus on challenging the federal definition of marriage in the Defense of Marriage Act that banned the federal government from recognizing marriages between same-sex couples that already were legal in states like Massachusetts, Connecticut, and, in April 2009, Iowa.
After California voters ended same-sex couples' marriage rights by approving the Proposition 8 amendment in November 2008 after a state Supreme Court ruling earlier in the year had started the marriages, Griffin courted the odd-couple legal team of Ted Olson and David Boies, got financial backing from Hollywood heavyweights like Rob Reiner and Bruce Cohen, and pressed ahead with his lawsuit.
On May 22, 2009, Griffin's newly established organization — the American Foundation for Equal Rights — and their two sets of plaintiffs, Kris Perry and Sandy Stier and Paul Katami and Jeff Zarrillo, filed their lawsuit. Word of the lawsuit's filing was kept quiet until after the California Supreme Court's ruling a few days later, on May 26, that the passage of Proposition 8 as an amendment was permitted under California's constitution.
More than two months earlier, on March 3, 2009, GLAAD, with lawyer Mary Bonauto heading the case, had gotten the ball rolling on the established legal groups' preferred path, filing a challenge to Section 3 of DOMA on behalf of several couples or previously married people in federal court in Massachusetts. Later, a similar lawsuit was filed by Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley, arguing that Massachusetts itself had a claim that DOMA violated its rights as a state. Following that, Lambda and the ACLU filed lawsuits on behalf of federal court employee Karen Golinski and widow Edith Windsor, respectively.
What happened next was perhaps the most surprising development: Everyone won. Every individual and every couple in these cases, challenging Section 3 of DOMA or California's Proposition 8, won. Beginning with Judge Joseph Tauro's decision on July 8, 2010 — ruling that DOMA violated several constitutional protections, from the couples' arguments about equal protection and due process to the Massachusetts' arguments about state sovereignty and the Spending Clause — judges began consistently saying that DOMA's federal definition of marriage was unconstitutional. Then, on Aug. 4, 2010, Judge Vaughn Walker issued his ruling that Proposition 8 also was unconstitutional.
During the course of these lawsuits' progression, the Obama administration's Department of Justice switched sides in the DOMA lawsuits, with Attorney General Eric Holder announcing on Feb. 23, 2011, that he and President Obama had themselves decided that courts should use heightened scrutiny to examine laws based on sexual orientation and that, under that heightened scrutiny, DOMA's Section 3 is unconstitutional. House Republican leaders, in turn, took up the defense of DOMA.
On appeal, and with the government now on the plaintiffs' side in the DOMA cases, the laws fared no better. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in California struck down Proposition 8, although on more narrow grounds than those decided by Walker. The 1st Circuit in Boston and 2nd Circuit in New York followed, both agreeing that DOMA's Section 3 was unconstitutional. The 2nd Circuit went further, also deciding, in agreement with the administration, that laws targeting gay and lesbian people for differential treatment should be subjected to heightened scrutiny.
Then, on Dec. 7, 2012, the Supreme Court announced that it would be hearing appeals in one of the DOMA cases, the one brought by Windsor, and in the Proposition 8 case. In both cases, the justices alerted the lawyers to concerns they had about whether the defendants in either case had the right to bring an appeal and, in the DOMA case, whether the government's decision to stop defending the law meant the court no longer had the ability to consider the case. The issues, of standing and jurisdiction, were to be included in the parties' briefing to the court.
In late March, the justices heard arguments in the two cases, with the justices appearing, overall, to be split on the issues. Although the justices appeared eager to avoid a broad ruling on whether it is unconstitutional nationwide for any state to ban same-sex couples from marrying, the justices seemed just as skeptical of the federal government's decision, with DOMA, to deny recognition of same-sex couples' marriages once a state made the decision to allow the couples to marry.
Now the couples and the widow await the justice's decision, which are due to come in the next two weeks. The implications for the court's decisions, of course, will affect many more than those people before the court, though, and the outcomes could shape the LGBT rights movement — and the national political discussion about LGBT rights — for decades to come.
And Chad Griffin, the once-outsider living in California, is awaiting the decisions from Washington, D.C., in his role as president of the Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest LGBT rights group.
Edith Windsor is challenging Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act.
Via: Jonathan Ernst / Reuters
Aside from the standing and jurisdiction questions, a primary issue — which the justices appeared unlikely at oral argument to be ready to reach at this point — is the one urged by the administration, whether sexual orientation, like race or sex or national origin, should be subjected to heightened scrutiny. If the justices decided to apply heightened scrutiny, most likely the intermediate scrutiny given to sex-based classifications, DOMA, Proposition 8, and all state's marriage bans would likely — though not absolutely — be held unconstitutional.
If the justices keep a lower form of scrutiny, either rational basis or what is called "rational basis with teeth," the cases would be decided on a more fact-intensive inquiry, which could lead to more limited rulings.
What could those rulings be?
On DOMA, the court could:
Strike down Section 3 of DOMA: Marriage laws would stay the same across the country, but the federal government would no longer be barred from recognizing marriages between same-sex couples for purposes of federal laws or rules.
Striking down Section 3 of DOMA, however, will not end the questions for the federal government. The many different federal laws and regulations relating to marriage have different standards for how the determination is made whether a given couple is married, with some programs basing the decision solely on whether the marriage is recognized by the state in which the couple lives and others being based on whether the marriage was valid where it was entered into. There will also be questions, already raised in the immigration context, about whether the federal government should treat civil unions or domestic partnerships like marriages for application of these federal marriage-based laws or regulations.
Additionally, there are laws other than DOMA that distinguish between same-sex and opposite-sex married couples — including laws impacting veterans that already face pending lawsuits from OutServe-SLDN and the Southern Poverty Law Center.
Dismiss the DOMA case on standing grounds or because of lack of jurisdiction: Windsor's trial-court victory likely would stand, but the decision would not apply across the federal government or country.
Depending on the reasoning of a decision on these grounds, one of the other cases challenging DOMA might be able to be heard by the court in the fall — but that would be unlikely. This scenario presents an unusual possibility that could take until an appellate court rules against a plaintiff challenging DOMA until the court could hear an appeal.
Uphold Section 3 of DOMA as constitutional: This would mean advocates' only current hope for federal recognition of same-sex couples' marriages would be through congressional repeal of DOMA, an uphill battle in the current Congress.
Miss Alabama Mary Margaret McCord, who finished second in the Miss USA pageant, said she would “rather someone track my phone messages and feel safe wherever I go than feel like they’re encroaching on my privacy.”
The NSA leaker says the government can read people’s emails, and that’s wrong no matter which country they live in.
Via: Bobby Yip / Reuters
WASHINGTON — Edward Snowden, the man who turned an unlikely career in intelligence gathering into one of the largest leaks of classified data ever, says the federal government shouldn't be snooping on anyone without direct concern he or she is involved in a terrorist plot — and that includes citizens of foreign countries.
In an online chat with staff of The Guardian and the British paper's readers Monday, Snowden said it was wrong for the U.S. intelligence community to spy on anyone who is not seen as a direct threat.
"The 'US Persons' protection in general is a distraction from the power and danger of this system," Snowden wrote. "Suspicionless surveillance does not become OK simply because it's only victimizing 95% of the world instead of 100%. Our founders did not write that 'We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all US Persons are created equal.'"
The answer came in response to skepticism about one of Snowden's most incendiary claims: that NSA officials can read the email of anyone in the United States whenever they want and that the only thing stopping them are what he calls flimsy policy restraints.
"I stand by it. US Persons do enjoy limited policy protections (and again, it's important to understand that policy protection is no protection — policy is a one-way ratchet that only loosens) and one very weak technical protection — a near-the-front-end filter at our ingestion points," he wrote. "The filter is constantly out of date, is set at what is euphemistically referred to as the 'widest allowable aperture,' and can be stripped out at any time. Even with the filter, US comms get ingested, and even more so as soon as they leave the border. Your protected communications shouldn't stop being protected communications just because of the IP they're tagged with."
At several points during the live chat, Snowden appeared to take issue with basic functions of America's intelligence services as well as reiterating his contention that those same services have run amok and turned surveillance meant for foreigners onto U.S citizens. Snowden said some of that foreign surveillance is also wrong.
"I pointed out where the NSA has hacked civilian infrastructure such as universities, hospitals, and private businesses because it is dangerous. These nakedly, aggressively criminal acts are wrong no matter the target," he wrote in answer to a question from Glenn Greenwald, the Guardian writer who first published Snowden's information. "Congress hasn't declared war on the countries — the majority of them are our allies — but without asking for public permission, NSA is running network operations against them that affect millions of innocent people. And for what? So we can have secret access to a computer in a country we're not even fighting? So we can potentially reveal a potential terrorist with the potential to kill fewer Americans than our own Police? No, the public needs to know the kinds of things a government does in its name, or the 'consent of the governed' is meaningless."
Though he mocked concerns from some about his trip to China, Snowden said flatly that he has not been in touch with the regime there.
"No. I have had no contact with the Chinese government," he wrote. "Just like with the Guardian and the Washington Post, I only work with journalists."
Successful Kazakh PR work?
Kazakh President Nursultan Nazarbayev.
Via: Shamil Zhumatov / Reuters
WASHINGTON — The Sierra Club didn't publish a strangely pro-Kazakh regime blog post at the behest of Kazakhstan, a spokeswoman said on Monday.
"There is no financial relationship between Sierra Club and Kazakhstan," said press secretary Maggie Kao.
Asked how the post came about, Kao said, "I believe one of our interns saw this article on renewable energy in Kazakhstan and wrote a blog post" and linked to an article on a website called Sustainable Business that describes Kazakhstan in similarly florid terms to the Sierra Club's post, which was written by an intern and titled "Kazakhstan: From Coal to Clean Energy?" The Sierra Club post, which was republished at the Daily Kos, presents a glowing picture of Kazakhstan's energy industry, which is about to undergo a "seismic shift" thanks to the efforts of President Nursultan Nazarbayev. The Kazakh leader has been in power since the collapse of the Soviet Union, and his government has been accused of numerous human rights abuses.
"Given that Kazakhstan has a plethora of opportunities to develop fossil fuel resources, their message that green solutions offer better environmental, social, and economic outcomes is that much more powerful," the story concludes.
The editor of Sustainable Business didn't immediately respond to a query about the original post that inspired the Sierra Club intern.
Kazakhstan has been known to pay think tanks for research that goes into positive reports, and maintains a lobbying presence in Washington, having spent $560,000 on the services of the BGR Group in 2012, according to filings. In 2007, Kazakhstan hired APCO Worldwide, the same global lobbying firm that helped with the Malaysian government's campaign to put undisclosed propaganda in American media outlets.
The source of the Guardian’s NSA leaks emerged Monday to take a few questions from journalists and readers. He loves his country, hates Dick Cheney, and has seen those pictures of his girlfriend.
Via: The Guardian, File / AP
When asked to define "direct access" — or the term used to describe (or deny) the NSA's reach into the servers of nine major tech companies — Snowden gave a vague answer with some confusing technical acronyms. But he also said that "more detail on how direct NSA's accesses are is coming."
Via: guardian.co.uk
First, the US Government, just as they did with other whistleblowers, immediately and predictably destroyed any possibility of a fair trial at home, openly declaring me guilty of treason and that the disclosure of secret, criminal, and even unconstitutional acts is an unforgivable crime ...
All I can say right now is the US Government is not going to be able to cover this up by jailing or murdering me. Truth is coming, and it cannot be stopped.
The government hasn't technically "openly [declared]" Snowden guilty of treason, though some U.S. senators have. Yet toward the end of the Q&A, Snowden reaffirmed his feeling of patriotism: "This country is worth dying for."
Via: guardian.co.uk
Ask yourself: If I were a Chinese spy, why wouldn't I have flown directly into Beijing? I could be living in a palace petting a phoenix by now ...
I have had no contact with the Chinese government. Just like with the Guardian and the Washington Post, I only work with journalists.
Via: guardian.co.uk
I want.
Source: poundoflogic.tumblr.com
Yes, he is wearing a dress. At the time, boys from affluent families wore dresses until they were around 7 years old as a sign of stature in society. Franklin was 3 years old here.
Source: yourememberthat.com
Source: docs.fdrlibrary.marist.edu
And apparently loved to dress young FDR in a kilt too.
Source: docs.fdrlibrary.marist.edu
