The environmental left says Obama changed the paradigm on Keystone Tuesday and now he has no room to oppose it. Conservatives say otherwise.

Via: Larry Downing / Reuters

WASHINGTON — The climate activists who have pressured President Obama over the Keystone XL pipeline project for years told BuzzFeed they won a surprise victory Tuesday when the president laid out new rules for approving the project based on its potential to create greenhouse emissions.

No one expected Obama to mention Keystone in his big climate speech at Georgetown University — and activists didn't expect to be declaring V-K Day so soon.

"[It's] clearly interesting that he 'had' to mention the KXL, when they signaled that they really did not want to," Kert Davies, research director at Greenpeace. "And none of the briefing docs or planned rumors alluded to this."

Climate activists did not expect to see Obama address Keystone in the speech. One group actually planned a Keystone-themed protest outside the speech's location. Similar actions have dogged Obama for years, with progressives protesting loudly outside Obama's events and promising civil disobedience if the pipeline is approved.

Some of the pressure may continue, but the early reaction among Keystone opponents to Obama's speech Tuesday is that they won, and the people who want to see the pipeline built lost.

"The President definitely changed the terms of the debate on Keystone—making clear that we need to evaluate its impact on the climate," said Navin Nayak, a vice president at the League of Conservation Voters. "So while there's still a decision to be made, it's definitely a game changer."

Leadership at CREDO, the progressive group with a list of tens of thousands of people who have promised to get arrested if Keystone is approved, called Obama's remarks a "breakthrough." Executive Director Becky Bond said that her group will continue to pressure Obama on Keystone through public action, but suggested that a significant amount of the work was now done thanks to protesters like hers.

"No one expected President Obama to address the Keystone XL pipeline in his first major climate speech. But because of massive grassroots pressure, including a Pledge of Resistance signed by over 62,000 Americans pledging to risk arrest in peaceful civil disobedience, the president announced that he could not approve Keystone XL if it increases the carbon emissions that fuel climate change," she said. "And the consensus from EPA and scientists could not be more clear -- it does."

Up until Tuesday, the White House and Obama have pushed off questions about Keystone to the State Department, where the pipeline project is still under review. Activists wanted Obama to take a stand against the project, and to make it clear he wasn't going to approve it on environmental grounds. In the speech, Obama said the environment must be a factor in the final decision.

"Allowing the Keystone pipeline to be built requires a finding that doing so would be in our nation's interest. And our national interest will be served, only if this project does not significantly exacerbate the problem of carbon pollution," he said. "The net effects of the pipeline's impact on our climate will be absolutely critical to determining whether this project is allowed to go forward. It's relevant."

Davies said Obama gave the Keystone protesters much of what they wanted.

"[The speech] clearly sets a new bar," he said. "He made the pipeline decision a 'climate impact' decision. That's what the movement has been asking and saying."

Supporters of pipeline didn't see Tuesday as a defeat. They say Obama made it more likely he'll approve the pipeline in the Georgetown speech. Though they agree with opponents of Keystone that Obama set new parameters for deciding whether Keystone is approved, they read the new parameters as tilting things in their favor. Supporters cite a March environmental impact report from the State Department showing the pipeline will not create more carbon emissions than other means of transport the Canadian oil Keystone is meant to carry.

The U.S. Chamber Of Commerce, an ardent supporter of the pipeline, said that if Obama didn't approve Keystone now, he would be "changing the rules of the game," and ignoring the State Department impact report. EPA and other observers have said that Keystone will create a net gain in carbon.

Republicans think history is on their side and insist that Obama signaled Tuesday that the pipeline will be built.

"The standard the president set today should lead to speedy approval of the Keystone pipeline," Brendan Buck, spokesperson for Speaker Boehner said in a statement. "Based on the lengthy review by the State Department, construction of the pipeline would not have a significant environmental impact. It's time to sign off on Keystone and put Americans to work."

“Punishing six southern states because of past failures does not help us in the present and certainly does not help find our path to the future,” says Tim Scott.

Washington, D.C., March 22, 2013, U.S. Senate.

WASHINGTON — Sen. Tim Scott, the only black Republican in the Senate, backed the Supreme Court's decision to strike down key parts of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, arguing formulas from "the 1970s" cannot provide fairness and accountability.

In a statement released late Tuesday afternoon, Scott said he hopes the decision will mean all states are treated equally under civil rights laws, rather than "punishing" Southern states with poor histories on voting equality.

"We are a nation that demands fairness and accountability. Is there a formula from the 1970s that helps us find that today? I don't believe so," Scott said in the statement.

"We should strive to ensure that all Americans have access to opportunity and equal protection under the law. But punishing six southern states because of past failures does not help us in the present and certainly does not help find our path to the future. All states should be treated equally, and today's decision provides for that opportunity," he added.

Scott's home state of South Carolina is one of a number of states that, until Tuesday, were required to get federal pre-clearance from the Department of Justice to make changes to their voting rules, including imposing new voter identification rules that have become popular with Republican-controlled state legislatures.

Scott's statements come as other black lawmakers on Capitol Hill, all of them Democrats, roundly denounced the law.

Congressional Black Caucus Chairman Marcia Fudge denounced the court's ruling, calling Tuesday one of the "worst days for civil rights" in the nation's history. Rep. John Conyers argued that "this case takes us back to the Civil Rights Act of 1865, which didn't give African-Americans the right to vote" and that the decision would essentially "obliterate" the larger Voting Rights Act.

"The Supreme Court stuck a dagger in the heart of the Voting Rights Act … they are saying history cannot repeat itself. But I say come and walk in my shoes," said Rep. John Lewis, a leader of the civil rights movement who was beaten during protests in Selma, Alabama.

Noting that following the Civil War freed slaves were given the right to vote, "They were elected to Congress and served in this body. After a few short years later those rights were nullified and one of the worst, most brutal periods of discrimination and human and civil rights violations followed," Lewis said.

"It took exactly 100 years, from 1865 to 1965, to get those rights back," the civil rights icon added. "A nation turned a blind eye towards legalized segregation and racial discrimination for 100 years."

“I won’t,” he promises. The first ad buy in New Jersey’s special Senate election.

Via: youtube.com

Mayor Cory Booker has purchased airtime for a campaign ad, slated to hit cable news stations in New Jersey starting Wednesday, marking the first television media buy in the special election to succeed the late Sen. Frank Lautenberg.

The ad casts the Newark mayor as a Washington outsider with problem-solving experience. "I've proven that by bringing people together even with big problems, we can make big progress and improve people's lives," Booker says in the ad. "Washington ducks our problems. I won't."

The direct-to-camera ad, titled "Run," highlights Booker's record on business development, job creation, and efforts to reduce crime.

Rep. Rush Holt, also running for Lautenberg's seat, released a web advertisement last week, but neither he nor the other special election candidates, excluding Booker, have purchased television airtime yet.

The New Jersey special election primary is scheduled for Aug. 13, with the general election on Oct. 16.

A key provision of the law was struck down today. How the historic bill was passed in 1965.

President Johnson had this phone call with Martin Luther King Jr. discussing strategy for passing the law.

View Video ›

Via:

President Johnson gave this address to Congress urging the to pass the Voting Rights Act.

Source: youtube.com

"There is no constitutional issue here. The command of the Constitution is plain. There is no moral issue. It is wrong, deadly wrong, to deny any of your fellow Americans the right to vote in this country."

Via: lbjlibrary.net

Martin Luther King, Jr. received this telegram requesting his testimony before the House Judiciary Committee on the Voting Rights Act the day after President Johnson sent it to Congress.

Via: arcweb.archives.gov

View Entire List ›

The provision of the historic civil rights law struck down Tuesday has been used to keep voting changes considered to have discriminatory effect from happening.

Supporters of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People hold signs outside the U.S. Supreme Court building Tuesday. The court ruled that Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act, which is aimed at protecting minority voters, is unconstitutional.

Getty / Win McNamee

The Department of Justice called the measure discriminatory, saying it would disqualify people from voting, "simply because they failed to pick up or return a voter update form, when there was no valid requirement that they do so."

Via: supremecourt.gov

When the Department of Justice blocked the proposal, the city then tried to move a polling place for the predominantly black neighborhood to outside of the city limits.

Via: supremecourt.gov

The measure, "was initially enacted in 1892 to disenfranchise Black voters," and for that reason, was struck down by a federal court in 1987.

Via: supremecourt.gov

View Entire List ›

The country where anti-surveillance hero Edward Snowden wants to take refuge spent half a million dollars on an Israeli-made “GSM interceptor” in a deal brokered by a U.S. middleman. Seeking the capacity to “intercept text messages, falsify and modify the text messages” among other tricks.

A supporter of Edward Snowden holds a sign outside the Embassy of Ecuador in London June 24.

Via: Luke Macgregor / Reuters

WASHINGTON — The intelligence agency of Ecuador appears to have sought in recent months to obtain new equipment for a large-scale surveillance, according to confidential government documents obtained by BuzzFeed.

The capabilities sought by Ecuador resemble the National Security Agency practices revealed by Edward Snowden, who is reportedly seeking asylum in the left-leaning Latin American republic.

The Ecuadorian documents — stamped "Secret" — obtained by BuzzFeed appear to show the government purchasing a "GSM Interceptor" system, among other domestic spying tools, and they suggest a commitment to domestic surveillance that rivals the practices by the United States' National Security Agency that are at the center of a fierce national debate. They include both covert surveillance capacities and the targeting of President Rafael Correa's enemies on social media. According to the files, SENAIN keeps close tabs on the Facebook and Twitter accounts of journalists, opposition politicians and other individuals, some with few followers.

Ecuador, which has been harboring WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange for over a year at its embassy, has been internationally criticized for a recent communications law that is widely seen as a gag order for the media and includes prohibitions on "media lynching."

Ecuador also has a record of being ahead of the game in domestic surveillance. Last year, it became the first country in the world to implement a nation-wide facial and voice recognition system.

The documents and correspondence obtained by BuzzFeed appear to show that SENAIN, Ecuador's intelligence agency, paid $526,500 January 2013 for equipment through 500 Smart Solutions LLC, a company registered in Delaware that is listed as having an office in New York. The payment, according to the documents, was for services rendered from August to December 2012. Smart Solutions acted as an intermediary through which SENAIN could buy materials from two Israeli security contractors: Elkat LTD Security Engineering and UVision Air LTD, which manufactures drones. SENAIN bought surveillance equipment from the companies through Smart Solutions.

Elkat is described by the publication IsraelDefense as "a leading Israeli distributor of advanced electronic equipment for the security field" whose products include "highly advanced electronic surveillance systems." It is based in Tel Aviv.

The documents were provided to BuzzFeed from inside SENAIN through activists who wished to call attention to the government's spying practices in the context of its new international role. The sources who provided the documents on the condition of anonymity, citing the dangers of attempting to publicize them domestically.

They also suggest that the Ecuadorians sought to buy drones. Smart Solution proposed two surveillance systems to SENAIN, one called the "Semi Active GSM Interceptor System" and the other called a "Passive Surveillance System. "

In a letter to Pablo Romero last year in June, a Smart Solutions representative named Gabriel Guecelevich touted the capabilities of the GSM system, promising the abillity to "copy SIM cards, identify phone calls, route phone calls to different places, intercept text messages, falsify and modify the text messages, keep messages in their system, disconnect calls, block phone calls, system should be able to intercept a minimum of 4 phone calls simultaneously."

(The correspondence, posted in full below, is in Spanish.)

Guecelevich also specified that the GSM system, which has previously been mentioned in WikiLeaks files as a spy tool, can be used from a car that is 250 meters away and that it is portable. Guecelevich explained which tests Smart Solutions can run to prove that the system works. The first system, he wrote, is intercepting technology; the second is a passive system that can intercept GSM communication which Guecelevich promised can process 32 channels simultaneously, record conversations, among other capabilities.

In August, an official from SENAIN wrote to Smart Solutions about wanting to acquire unmanned drones.

"The National Secretary of Intelligence, which has within its powers projects focused on national security, is moving forward with a project to acquire unmanned aerial vehicles," communications and special projects coordinator José Miguel Delgado wrote. "It is for this reason that we need to know whether Smart Solution is capable and legally able to provide these assets or services."

Delgado also wrote to Smart Solutions about conducting GSM tests in the city of Tulcan in August.

Also in August, the Israeli company Elkat gave Smart Solution permission to sell products from Uvision to "potential clients in Ecuador," according to the documents.

One of the documents is a draft of a letter Romero wrote to Smart Solution to let them know of the decision to purchase the equipment and the $526,500 payment for the equipment. Payment was promised upon the delivery of the goods in March.

Invoices Smart Solution sent to SENAIN for equipment and internal SENAIN calculations also tabulate the cost. Two of the documents show plans for a new SENAIN center in Guayaquil, the largest city in Ecuador.

Smart Solution was incorporated in Delaware by Guecelevich on July 25, 2012, and lists only a Delaware address. Guecelevich did not return a request for comment, and the company has no obvious public presence.

The people who provided BuzzFeed with these documents say that they attempted to leak them to WikiLeaks three days ago, but were unsuccessful. A spokesman for WikiLeaks didn't immediately return a request for comment.

Ecuadorian officials did not respond to a inquiry through their embassy in Washington.

Smart Solutions proposal to SENAIN

Letter from SENAIN to Smart Solutions

View Entire List ›

In an exclusive memo provided to BuzzFeed, the DSCC says what their latest victory means going forward.

The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee says Ed Markey's victory in Massachusetts over Gabriel Gomez proves there won't be anymore Scott Browns. In a memo provided exclusively to BuzzFeed DSCC executive director Guy Cecil says that "Democrats must never take a race for granted" and that their win means Republicans can't expand their Senate map into blue or purple states.

"The lesson from Scott Brown's accidental win in 2010 was that Democrats must never take a race for granted. Months before Senator John Kerry resigned to become Secretary of State, the DSCC began preparing for a likely special election in Massachusetts," Cecil writes. "It's unclear whether Republicans in Washington intended to compete in this race and truly let an opportunity slip away, or they were just blowing smoke the whole time. Either way, Democrats came together at the local and national level, and executed a campaign plan to ensure victory."

Cecil says that Democrats at the national level acted quickly to recruit and get behind a candidate, coalescing around Ed Markey in a primary that included two long-time Massachusetts Congressmen. He adds that Republicans "fumbled" the race from the start, beginning their campaign around Gomez with a serious of bad news headlines. Spending from the DSCC made it impossible for Republicans to define Ed Markey to voters on their own terms, he says.

Cecil concludes by saying the loss is a bad omen for Republican efforts to expand their Senate map into purple or even blue states and that they fail to compete states beyond those won by Mitt Romney in the 2012 election.

"Not only are Republicans facing the prospect of divisive primaries in nearly all of the red states, their failure to compete even in states where Romney was competitive, such as Colorado, Virginia, and New Hampshire, has dramatically shrunk the Senate map," Cecil says.

The full memo has been posted below.

Jim DeMint boasts to prospective donors that Rubio is in the Senate, in part, because of his work challenging the GOP establishment. Meanwhile, Heritage is at war with Rubio’s immigration plan.

Heritage Action has spent the past several weeks relentlessly hammering Sen. Marco Rubio for his sponsorship of an immigration reform bill that the conservative political outfit characterizes as "amnesty." But the high-profile battle hasn't stopped the group from using Rubio's conservative all-star status to raise money.

In a letter sent to prospective donors across the country, Heritage Action president Jim DeMint took some credit for Rubio's work in the Senate, suggesting it was proof of DeMint's success in challenging the Republican establishment and championing grassroots conservatism from Capitol Hill.

"As a result of all those efforts, I truly feel our beliefs are being ably represent in the Senate, with what's been referred to as a '1927 New York Yankees lineup' of powerful conservatives, including Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, Mike Lee, Pat Toomey, Ted Cruz, and now my successor Tim Scott," DeMint wrote.

The letter, dated June 17, came amid a series of attacks on Rubio by Heritage, which has waged an aggressive campaign to discredit Rubio's immigration rhetoric, and to convince Republican voters that he's misleading them on the issue.

On June 10, for example, Heritage posted an ad online with a photo of Rubio alongside a quote from an interview he gave to Univision: "First comes the legalization. Then come the measures to secure the border." The ad's headline read: "Amnesty? Guaranteed. Border security? Not so much."

And at a June 19 Tea Party rally in Washington, D.C., Heritage Foundation scholar Robert Rector riled up the crowd by delivering what The Washington Post called "a sustained rebuke of the turncoat (Rubio)."

"Senator Rubio says that [illegal immigrants] are going to have to pay a penalty, 'cause this bill is tough," Rector said, derisively, adding, "The thing I find most offensive of all is Senator Rubio's staff saying that we need to have more low-skill immigrants because American workers can't cut it."

Heritage spokesman Michael Gonzalez said there was no contradiction in Heritage touting Rubio in a fundraising letter while battling him on immigration.

"Look, DeMint likes Rubio, and Rubio, I think, likes DeMint," said Gonzalez. "They happen to agree on this one issue, but they never expected to agree on everything."

He added, "Rubio is still a very conservative senator."

With reporting by Jacob Fischler.

Letter from Jim DeMint

View Entire List ›

Marriage between same-sex couples was seen as an impossibility by courts in the early 1970s. While the country has moved significantly on the issue, the Supreme Court’s expected rulings on Wednesday in two major cases addressing gay couples’ right could change that dramatically — and, possibly, forever.

Sandy Stier, left, and Kris Perry, plaintiffs in the case against California's Proposition 8, outside the Supreme Court.

Via: Jonathan Ernst / Reuters

WASHINGTON — On Wednesday, the Supreme Court will issue its final opinions of the term. One case remaining challenges the portion of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act that prohibits the federal government from recognizing same-sex couples' marriages. Another challenges the California marriage amendment, known as Proposition 8, passed by the voters of that state in 2008.

In the five years since the passage of Proposition 8 there has been unprecedented changes in public opinion and in the law regarding marriage equality.

That recent history, however, understates how remarkable this moment is. Pulling the lens back further shows how unimaginable even the concept of the cases being considered by the justices — whatever the decisions ultimately might be — would have been to judges, and the nation, in the not-so-distant past.

Forty years ago, in the years of activism that followed the riots at New York City's Stonewall Inn, two women asked Kentucky officials for a marriage license. The Kentucky Court of Appeals unanimously held that the couple could not have one. The reason was not simply that same-sex couples didn't have a right to marry, though.

"It appears to us that [the women] are prevented from marrying, not by the statutes of Kentucky or the refusal of the County Court Clerk of Jefferson County to issue them a license, but rather by their own incapability of entering into a marriage as that term is defined," the court held.

If that wasn't blunt enough, the court concluded by telling the two women, "In substance, the relationship proposed by the [women] does not authorize the issuance of a marriage license because what they propose is not a marriage."

The Supreme Court justices at the time did not appear to think much differently, concluding the year before that a case brought by two men in Minnesota who wished to marry did not present any "substantial federal question." In other words, there was so obviously no constitutional question that the justices didn't even need to hear the case.

In the four decades since then, activists and advocates have dedicated themselves to changing that. Although there are too many to count, let alone name, some have left an indelible mark on the movement. Evan Wolfson, who wrote often and spoke loudly about the issue before others were comfortable doing so; Mary Bonauto, the out-of-the-spotlight lawyer who easily is the person most responsible for the fact the all of New England already has marriage equality; and Chad Griffin, who decided to engage help outside the LGBT movement to press for full federal marriage equality when others thought the move was folly, are three key voices for change.

There also has been a key trio of Republicans — all with pasts that included varying levels of support for President George W. Bush, the only president to have supported a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex couples from marrying — who have moved the country forward on this issue. Within the Republican Party and conservative movement, it is clear that Andrew Sullivan, Ted Olson and Ken Mehlman — all liberals' enemies at one point or another — helped set the stage for dissent and ultimately a genuine split on the issue within the leadership ranks of the party and the movement.

Then, there are the stories — countless stories of love and of loss — that have moved families, friends, neighbors and the country. From the plaintiffs in the cases before the Supreme Court to the thousands of couples who have lived out lives in their communities, America has met couples like Kris Perry and Sandy Stier — one of the couples asking for Proposition 8 to be struck down — and learned they want to marry.

Even at the Supreme Court, the change is evident.

In 1986, when the justices upheld the constitutionality of Georgia's sodomy law, Justice Byron White wrote for the court, "No connection between family, marriage, or procreation, on the one hand, and homosexual activity, on the other, has been demonstrated ...."

Ten years ago, on June 26, 2003, the justices reversed that decision, striking down all the remaining sodomy laws in the country with its decision in Lawrence v. Texas, and holding that the 1986 case "was not correct when it was decided, and it is not correct today."

Of course, Justice Antonin Scalia disagreed with the decision, and, in his view, warned the country, "Today's opinion dismantles the structure of constitutional law that has permitted a distinction to be made between heterosexual and homosexual unions, insofar as formal recognition in marriage is concerned."

In a sense, it did — although the change already had begun in some state courts.

Within months of the Lawrence decision, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, in part relying on that decision, became the first court in the nation to require that a state allow same-sex couples to marry. The decade since brought, first, a wave of state amendments banning same-sex couples from marrying, then, a period of inconsistent results, and, most recently, a period of significant success for marriage equality supporters in the states.

When the justices considered the Proposition 8 and DOMA challenges in late March, even Scalia took a slightly different tone at points. In defending against "a nationwide rule ... that every State must allow marriage by same-sex couples" in a country in which some states "believe it is harmful," Scalia was quick to note, "[A]nd I take no position on whether it's harmful or not."

With 12 states and Washington, D.C., currently having passed marriage equality as of now, the ground had shifted — in ways that matter and should be marked since 2008, since 2003, since 1996, since 1986, since 1973 and since 1969, when the Stonewall Riots began 44 years ago this week.

When the justices issue their final rulings of the Supreme Court term on Wednesday, the decisions about the constitutionality of Section 3 of DOMA and California's Proposition 8 could dramatically change the way the government treats same-sex couples. And, if they do so, it is likely that the change will be forever.

The only reason that this is happening, though, is that the cases reflect the reality that 40 years later, for a majority of Americans, what Stier and Perry — as well as scores of other same-sex couples — have proposed is a marriage.

View Entire List ›

“The nuclear family, with a dad and a mom and two or three kids, is not the majority anymore,” one polygamist cheers.

The Supreme Court's rulings in favor of same-sex marriage Wednesday were greeted with excitement by polygamists across the country, who viewed the gay rights victory as a crucial step toward the country's inevitable acceptance of plural marriage.

Anne Wilde, a vocal advocate for polygamist rights who practiced the lifestyle herself until her husband died in 2003, praised the court's decision as a sign that society's stringent attachment to traditional "family values" is evolving.

"I was very glad... The nuclear family, with a dad and a mom and two or three kids, is not the majority anymore," said Wilde. "Now it's grandparents taking care of kids, single parents, gay parents. I think people are more and more understanding that as consenting adults, we should be able to raise a family however we choose."

"We're very happy with it," said Joe Darger, a Utah-based polygamist who has three wives. "I think [the court] has taken a step in correcting some inequality, and that's certainly something that's going to trickle down and impact us."

Noting that the court found the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional because the law denied marriage rights to a specific class of people, Darger said, "Our very existence has been classified as criminal... and I think the government needs to now recognize that we have a right to live free as much as anyone else."

Gay rights advocates have long sought to distance themselves from polygamists in order to undermine social conservatives' slippery-slope argument, as articulated on Twitter Wednesday by talk radio host Bryan Fischer: "The DOMA ruling has now made the normalization of polygamy, pedophilia, incest and bestiality inevitable. Matter of time."

But polygamists in the United States, where bigamy is a crime, have taken cues from the marriage equality movement, and the few public champions of the lifestyle have deliberately positioned themselves as libertarian-minded gay rights advocates as well. Following gay rights activists' lead, polygamist families — like the Browns, with their TLC reality show Sister Wives, and the Dargers, who came out with a book last year — have come forward to convince the American public that their lifestyle can be wholesome and normal.

The key difference in their missions, Wilde said, is that "gays want legal marriage and polygamists don't" — they just want their lifestyle to be decriminalized.

"If you legalize plural marriage, that means the government is going to control certain aspects of it," Wilde reasoned. "They might say, you have to make so much money, you can't have any more than four like it says in the Koran."

Still, she said the court's decision would only help polygamists' cause.

"I'm not a fortune-teller, but it seems like if more people are accepting of gay marriage, it would follow that polygamist marriage wouldn't be criticized quite so much."

But some polygamists were trying to temper their enthusiasm Wednesday.

"I do see this as a positive step toward recognizing the civil rights of the plural culture to make their lifestyle choices without being branded as criminals," said Marlyne Hammon, a practicing polygamist. "We are still in the trenches facing the reality of stubborn, unjust laws, so we are cautious about breaking out the champagne just yet."

“I had pretty much the same reaction as almost everyone in the room: We were all crying,” the marriage plaintiff tells BuzzFeed. Windsor and her lawyer, Roberta Kaplan, share their thoughts about a historic victory.

Via: Mike Segar / Reuters

Hours after a 5–4 decision at the Supreme Court striking down the Defense of Marriage Act's ban on recognizing same-sex couples' marriages and once done with a New York news conference about the decision, Edith Windsor — known as Edie — spoke with BuzzFeed about how she was feeling about the ruling and the experience.

Her lawyer, Roberta Kaplan, joined the call to talk about what she was thinking about Wednesday's ruling in their case and the court's decision dismissing the appeal of the challenge to California's Proposition 8. Kaplan, a partner at the New York firm Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison, took on Windsor's case pro bono back in 2010 and saw the case through Wednesday's victory at the Supreme Court.

Windsor, meanwhile, is readying herself for her role as a grand marshal of the 44th annual New York City LGBT Pride March on Sunday.

Edith Windsor of New York after the Supreme Court heard arguments in her challenge to the Defense of Marriage Act in March.

Via: Carolyn Kaster / AP

So, how are you doing?

Edith Windsor: I'm particularly good today.

What are you thinking right now?

EW: Wow. It just feels glorious. I'm terribly excited and terribly pleased. I was very frightened at first that, it suddenly occurred to me that it might be as-applied, and I thought as-applied would mean only that I would get my money. … That moment I realized [it wasn't] that, I relaxed. It was just glorious — that the whole thing went through, and beautifully. And, mostly, I had this incredibly good lawyer, which helps a lot.

When you heard the news, what was your immediate reaction?

EW: I had pretty much the same reaction as almost everyone in the room: We were all crying.

Roberta Kaplan: I think it would be fair to say there was a lot of screaming and tears.

View Entire List ›

Texas state Sen. Wendy Davis’ filibuster of a restrictive abortion law blew up on social media, but cable news networks ignored the buzz and stuck with rebroadcasts of earlier shows. Orlando TV news anchor Mark Joyella on why the cable networks dropped the ball.

Via: Eric Gay / AP

We obsess in news about what viewers want. Will they respond to subtle wood notes in an otherwise sleek glass news set? Which would news viewers think is more suitably urgent, a blue or red graphics package?

Producers and managers dissect the precise language in a news tease like a piece of critical, calculated poetry: Which words, in which order, said with exactly what kind of inflection, will get an audience to stay watching into the next quarter hour?

And then there was last night. A Texas state senator, Wendy Davis, sparked a fire that should have been easily visible from the upper reaches of the media stratosphere gathered at 30 Rock, the Time Warner Center, and 1211 Sixth Avenue.

It wasn't just that a story was happening — an important story, about politics, and process, and filled with surprisingly rich characters. It was more than that. It was a glaring example of something news executives need to think about instead of spending another two hours wondering if the morning-show host needs a better haircut: The audience was already following the story they wanted to watch. All you had to do was get in on it.

No need for promos, outdoor advertising, or Facebook keywords. They were just sitting there, bitching on Twitter that the only way to follow the story was online — thanks to a legislative feed put up by a nonprofit, the Texas Tribune, and streamed to YouTube.

At one point near midnight last night, 182,000 people were watching the maneuvering of state legislators. State politics. A filibuster. As news executives would describe it, ratings poison.

But it wasn't. It was gold. And with CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News in re-airs, the audience assembled all by itself around their devices — watching a 4-inch video box and tweeting madly about what they were seeing.

This graph shows just how fast the story blew up on Twitter: hitting a peak of 5,776 tweets per minute. According to Twitter, the #standwithwendy hashtag had 400,000 global mentions Tuesday. (Cable news execs: That's "trending," right?)

Clearly, a hot hashtag and rolling columns on TweetDeck don't quite translate into something that America is passionately interested in. America at large was probably watching America's Got Talent. But for cable news — 180,000 viewers, that's a win.

On Monday night, 180,000 viewers (let's assume for the hell of it that everyone on the stream was within the key demo of 25–54, which surely they were not…but just for fun) at 11 p.m. ET would have beaten Chris Hayes on MSNBC (98,000), Anderson Cooper on CNN (113,000), and Showbiz on HLN (149,000). O'Reilly would still have won, with 287,000 in the demo.

But still. This was an audience that cable news folks should have wanted to serve.

You can't plan, program, or promote for this. You just have to be smart enough — and flexible enough — to jump when it happens. Those people who watched the YouTube feed? You think they would've rather watched it on their flat-screen — perhaps even with some helpful analysis and a few live reports from the Texas state Capitol? That number could've been far larger.

But everybody ignored it and stayed with rebroadcasts. And so the audience went elsewhere. They went online, and while they bitched about cable news skipping the moment, it was a moment.

And next time, when people are crystal clear about what they want, and you don't give it to them, they might not even notice you're not there.

Mark Joyella is an anchor/reporter at Orlando's ABC television station, WFTV. He also maintains a blog,standupkid.tumblr.com.

Many in the congressional GOP were ready to drop the subject, while two House Republicans celebrated the decisions. Rep. Tim Huelskamp called a vote on a federal marriage amendment “the most logical response.”

Rep. Tim Huelskamp, R-Kan.

Via: Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call / Getty Images

WASHINGTON— As the news of the Supreme Court's rulings on marriage equality broke Wednesday morning, House Republicans were just ending their weekly conference meeting. Rep. Justin Amash, a libertarian Republican from Michigan who believes government should not be involved in anyone's marriage, stood up to urge fellow members to not sound hateful when discussing the rulings.

"Marriage is a private institution that government should not define. To me and millions of Americans, marriage is also a religious sacrament that needs no government approval," Amash wrote on Facebook. "As a conservative, I will continue to push for less government interference in our personal and economic affairs."

Amash's view — seen in his remarks in conference, a characterization of which was confirmed by his spokesman, and his statement on Facebook — was one of many differing opinions that emerged from Congressional Republicans on Wednesday. One thing is clear: Gone is the GOP that was ideologically unified against gay marriage — a view that had long been a driving force in the party.

There were those who want to keep fighting for marriage to be defined as between one man and one woman, a very small minority who cheered on the decision, and those who would just really rather not talk about it.

Only three Republican Senators and two House Republicans have said they support marriage equality, but the group of conservative members ready to push for a congressional response — like a federal marriage amendment — was small in comparison to the group of Republicans who were just as ready to move on.

"What we'd really rather focus on are the jobs issues, the energy issues," West Virginia Rep. Shelley Moore Capito said. "You'll have some folks that want to talk about it, but we need to focus on what's important to the American people and I think that's where the focus will stay."

South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham said he has always felt marriage was between a man and a woman, and he found the ruling confusing but ultimately he respected the court's decision.

"I don't know you can harmonize each state going their own way vs. federal benefits, I don't know the answer to that question," he said. "In my view elected officials should be defining marriage, not judges, but the court has ruled and I respect the court."

Richard Hanna, R-NY, and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-Fla., were the two lone House Republicans to celebrate the court's ruling.

"Today's rulings are a historic victory towards marriage equality," Ros-Lehtinen said in a statement. "The Supreme Court made the right decision by striking down DOMA."

The response from a cadre of social conservatives was to hold a dispirited press conference to denounce the decision. Kansas Rep. Tim Huelskamp argued earlier in the day that House leadership should hold a vote on a federal marriage amendment, and would file one himself later the week. "That has not been voted on since 2006. I think with this confusing schizophrenic decision, that's the most logical response," he said.

The divisions within the party — between focused social conservatives and the rest of the rank and file — have caused major headaches for leadership. And as public opinion has turned sharply in favor of marriage equality, it's unlikely Republican leaders will want to bring up the issue again.

House Speaker John Boehner issued a statement saying he was "disappointed" in the decision but there was no talk of congressional action. Rather he said the debate would "continue in the public square."

"For all practical purposes, the combined rulings just about spell the sunset for the issue of marriage in national Republican politics," said John Ullyot, a Republican strategist and former longtime Senate aide who signed onto an amicus brief in the Proposition 8 case. "Bottom line: in less than a decade, opposition to gay marriage has transformed from a marginal political winner for Republicans (see Ohio 2004) to a liability with swing voters in a decreasing number of competitive states."

Asked if the ruling would take the issue of gay marriage off the table in elections, Ohio Sen. Rob Portman, who recently came out in favor of marriage equality, said he was "honestly not thinking about the political consequences" of the ruling on his party.

"I support repeal of section three of DOMA. I'd prefer to have done it through the legislative process. And I think it should be left up to the states. But I think the result, which is putting it back to the states is the right way to go."

We’ve come a long way.

Polling data retrieved from archives at Pollingreport.com. Each dot represents the individual result of a national poll that asked if participants supported or opposed same-sex marriage (or asked the question in similar language). Note that the trendline is only intended to represent a general guide of overall sentiment and not an exact figure or average at any point.

The former congressman resigned over a sexting scandal that revolved around Twitter. Now his followers are mostly men.

A lot of men follow former New York Congressman Anthony Weiner on Twitter. That's true according to a new detailed breakdown of his followers provided to BuzzFeed by the Twitter analytics site Peek Analytics. The company says that 69% of the mayoral hopeful's Twitter followers are men.

The report also states that Weiner's Twitter followers have a medium level of income that is close to the national average, a larger than expected number of people in the fashion industry follow him, and more than 76% of his Twitter followers are also on a Facebook.

The full report, giving a detailed analysis, has been posted below.

View Entire List ›

Before he was the Guardian ‘s eyes on the National Security Agency, Greenwald was a Manhattan litigator with an itchy trigger finger. “He doesn’t care if the entire world hates him.”

Via: Vincent Yu / AP

Before Glenn Greenwald was the journalist who broke and defended the most important story of 2013, he was many other things: an underage South Florida politician, a lawyer at a high-powered corporate firm, Kips Bay's most combative tenant, and even the legal arm of his business partner's gay porn distribution company.

Greenwald is a man of superficial contradictions: Brazil's best-known American blogger, and a high-profile beneficiary of Wednesday's Supreme Court ruling that will allow binational couples to live legally in the United States. He's one of the internet's prickliest characters, though by all accounts a man of great personal charm and warmth.

But at this moment, Glenn Greenwald is, first of all, a major supporting player in the new century's definitive spy thriller, a kind of unfinished John Le Carre novel. A 29-year-old government contractor finds proof of invasive NSA spying programs. He abandons a comfortable life in Hawaii to expose them, fleeing to Hong Kong and teaming up with intrepid reporters he believes he can trust, including the Guardian's Greenwald.

If Greenwald's role in one of this decade's signature international dramas is any guide, perhaps the most striking thing about the 46-year-old is his consistency. Greenwald is a rare man of inflexible principle in an online conversation dominated by flexible partisans. He's a civil libertarian for whom LGBT equality, a Nazi's right to free speech, and freedom from government surveillance are bound by a common thread; and he's a brutal and tireless combatant with everyone from President Obama's Twitter legions to George W. Bush.

For Greenwald, the Guardian's Edward Snowden-sourced series is career-defining. It also represents a rare and pure vindication for a figure long viewed even by many on the left as a difficult eccentric. There may be an emerging consensus on out-of-control government power and secrecy. Greenwald was always there. And people who have known Greenwald for years say his defining characteristic may be that he has never changed.

"If Glenn feels he's right about something, he doesn't care if the entire world hates him," said David Elbaum, who worked for Greenwald's law firm a decade ago.

Before he helped Snowden publish the Obama administration's surveillance skeletons — before he wrote on his blog about President Bush's surveillance skeletons — Greenwald was a determined young lawyer. His career began in 1994 at Wachtell Lipton Rosen & Katz, known as perhaps the most lucrative and hardest-charging in New York's brutal corporate legal world. He was still enrolled then at NYU's School of Law, where he became known for leading a successful campaign to ban Colorado firms from recruiting on campus after voters in the state approved an amendment overturning anti-discrimination laws. He had a dozen job offers, but Greenwald — who came out around 1986, while he was a philosophy major at George Washington University — decided to accept a junior associate position at the high-powered Wachtell Lipton because it offered civil union benefits.

"It wasn't the monetary value," Greenwald said. "It was just the symbolism for me." And so Greenwald spent the next 18 months representing investment bankers and Goldman Sachs.

Glenn Greenwald in Hong Kong on June 11.

Via: Vincent Yu, File / AP

When she first met him, Elaine Golin, then a summer associate at Wachtell Lipton, thought Greenwald was "scary — but then I quickly realized that the scariness probably had to do with his short haircut and his intense stare." Like others, she was drawn to his sense of humor, his desire to "always be a little bit outrageous," and his fighting spirit. They would debate. Greenwald, it seemed, was born to debate, play the underdog, and win.

Gradually, though, the symbolism that drew him to the giant corporate firm ran dry.

"If I had to do that one more day, I was going to jump out the window," Greenwald said. "I knew that I didn't want to be representing rich people. I wanted to be suing them."

It was in Greenwald's professional frustration that he found Townhall, then a conservative politics forum on CompuServe sponsored by National Review and the Heritage Foundation, via his roommate's boyfriend's Republican mother.

"At the office, he'd have his door shut and be smoking at his computer, and I'd say, 'Glenn, what are you doing in there?'" Golin recalled. "He'd say, 'I'm arguing with someone in Florida!' Back then, it was like, 'What? How do you argue with someone in Florida?'"

It was fun for Greenwald, who didn't (and doesn't) consider himself a Republican, Democrat, or Libertarian, though the latter is a label often ascribed to him. But it also taught him something about political debate. It was the first time he'd fight with people on the internet — and then, eventually, at an event organized for forum members in Indiana, feel the awkward peace of meeting a virtual enemy IRL.

"We'd go in there to torment the conservatives," he recalled. "But the more I started doing it, the more I got drawn into the conversations. I stayed there for two years and made friends with all these people ... I argued with them, debated with them. I was totally openly gay, and they were very accepting. It was an eye-opening experience, and it taught me not to make assumptions about who people are."

Greenwald has been a careful observer of politics since his childhood in Lauderdale Lakes, Florida, where he watched his grandfather serve as a city councilman. In high school, he joined the debate team, and during his senior year, at 17, he decided to run for city council.

"In high school I was always a little … I forged my own path," he said.

But Greenwald learned — after two unsuccessful campaigns before the age of 25 — he wasn't cut out for politics.

"My grandfather would try to represent poor homeowners against the powers that be in the city. He taught me that whatever skills you have should be devoted toward undermining the people who are the strongest and most powerful," Greenwald said. "In politics, you need a desire and ability to please large numbers of people. That's definitely not in my interests and not what I do well."

And so he went to law school, funded by student loans and former summer jobs as a Red Lobster busboy and hotel desk receptionist. And at age 28, he left Wachtell Lipton to start his own firm.

It was reckless, he admitted; he had no idea what he was doing. There were times when he thought about going back. One of his first solo cases — "shitty cases," as he calls them — was representing a Wachtell Lipton partner's secretary who was fighting with a neighbor who had accused the secretary of having an affair with her husband. Greenwald represented the secretary and sued the neighbor for defamation, and the case settled.

"She ended up paying money that she didn't really have," he said. "I feel guilty about that to this day. I so excessively litigated it. I was just, like, drowning this poor woman with all kinds of legal papers."

The cases got less "shitty" and more fulfilling. Greenwald helped win a $1.8 million settlement for Wendy Norville, a nurse at Staten Island University Hospital who, at age 54, injured her back while trying to keep a patient from falling off his bed. Norville, a Caribbean immigrant who put herself through nursing school, was fired from the hospital after nearly two decades for "incompetency."

Greenwald also spent roughly five years defending the First Amendment rights of neo-Nazis, including Matthew Hale, the "Pontifex Maximus" of the Illinois church formerly known as the World Church of the Creator, one of whose disciples went on a murderous spree in 1999.

"I almost always did it pro bono," Greenwald said. "I was interested in defending political principles that I believed in. I didn't even care about making money anymore."

View Entire List ›

A blustery statement promises to kill the “thieving Americans” trying to get supplies into North Korea.

People attend a mass rally marking the "day of struggle against U.S. imperialism" at Kim Il-sung Square in Pyongyang June 25.

Via: Kcna / Reuters

WASHINGTON — The North Korean government is threatening to kill a group of activists from the Human Rights Foundation when they attempt to launch balloons full of supplies from South Korea into North Korea on Saturday, according to a government release.

"The Kim's have promised to kill us on Saturday," Thor Halvorssen, director of the Human Rights Foudnation, said in an email Thursday.

The North Korean government's release is titled, "We will destroy Imjingak, in its entirety," according to a translation by James Pearson and Sinui Kim of the N.K. News website, and it refers to Halvorssen's group as "thieving Americans" who are in league with the "puppet government" (South Korea).

The foundation is planning to team up with Freedom Fighters of North Korea, a refugee organization based in South Korea, to launch balloons filled with anti-Kim regime leaflets, electronics, and chocolates from the border into North Korea. The regime's statement blasts HRF for the leaflets in particular, saying that they will "include lies, scheming and provocations that distort and blaspheme our Republic's bright reality."

"The Ministry of People's Security has already declared a that we will take 'practical measures' to physically eliminate the kind of human scum that commits such high treason –– treason that is encouraged by the puppet government [SouthKorea] and thieving Americans," the government announcement says.

The timing is perfect for us: the targets of our punishment will, by themselves [their own doing], walk straight into our merciless [gun]sights, where we will keep them–wherever they may hide–and slit their throats.

Our army will never miss the chance to annihilate and firmly punish such arch traitors who are not worth the air their breathe.

No matter how large or cruel the result of our attack, the responsibility will lie on the puppet regime for producing such dirty propaganda leaflets. When the time comes, it will be too late to regret the rashness [of your actions].

We're going to warning [sic] you brothers of the Human Rights Foundation, you should realize that if you so much as haunt Imjingak––the platform of our people's judgement––with your presence and act as human shields for refugees who have already been sentenced to death [by North Korea], you will become a Hwangcheongaek [kind of like saying 'we'll buy you a one­way ticket to hell', we'll 'send you to heaven', or 'make you kick the bucket', 'you will die', etc]. So, you had better go back home as soon as possible.

On the 29th, we will prove to you that our threat/warning is not a hollow one, by creating a terrible scene on that fated day.

Despite the rhetoric, Halvorssen's group plans to go ahead with the balloon launch.

Their editors’ jobs just got harder

PRISM is the magazine of repute for the intellectual National Security crowd.

PRISM is published by the National Defense University.

Source: ndu.edu

The college states that the magazine is meant "to inform members of U.S. Federal Agencies, allies, and other partners on complex and integrated national security operations."

There are many copies of them laying around the college.

View Entire List ›

Representatives from the leagues say the Obama administration has reached out to them.

Getty / Kevin C. Cox

The federal government is in the early stages of exploring possible partnerships with professional sports leagues as a way to promote insurance options under Obamacare.

"The NFL, the NBA, and others were contacted by the administration," a spokesman from the NFL told BuzzFeed in an email. "We have made no commitments nor discussed any details with administration officials. We are in the process of trying to clarify what it is the administration would propose. There is nothing further to report."

An MLB spokesman said the White House also contacted them to schedule a meeting, but the meeting was postponed.

Like universal health care itself, government partnerships with professional sports to promote universal health-care insurance options was pioneered in Massachusetts. The state partnered with the Boston Red Sox in 2007 as a way to reach young, healthy males, a demographic that made up the highest percentage of uninsured Massachusetts residents and was crucial to keep premium costs down. "It depends, frankly and ultimately, on the participation of everyone," Gov. Deval Patrick said at a news conference in 2007.

The state launched a $3 million campaign tied in with the Boston Red Sox that included commercials shot in Fenway Park, informational inserts placed in home game programs and print and radio ads.

View Entire List ›

In Africa, the president dismisses the man behind the NSA leaks.

Via: Gleb Garanich / Reuters

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama understands why the media and the world might be fascinated by former intelligence contractor Edward Snowden, but he says Snowden's not worth the attention.

At a press conference in Senegal on Thursday, Obama dismissed Snowden as a "29-year-old blogger" who's not worth all the time being spent on him.

Though the United States has made it clear it wants Snowden back, Obama said he hasn't directly engaged the leaders of China or Russia — the two nations that have harbored Snowden so far on his international run from U.S. authorities — basically because doing so isn't worth the trouble.

"I have not called President Xi [Jinping] personally or President [Vladimir] Putin personally. And the reason is because, number one, I shouldn't have to. This is something that routinely is dealt with between law enforcement officials in various countries. And this is not exceptional from a legal perspective," Obama said. "Number two, we've got a whole lot of business that we do with China and Russia. And I'm not going to have one case of a suspect who we're trying to extradite suddenly being elevated to the point where I've got to start doing wheeling and dealing and trading on a whole host of other issues simply to get a guy extradited, so that he can face the justice system here in the United States."

Snowden's personal story, and his escape from the United States, has threatened to overshadow the information he leaked to the Guardian and Washington Post. Obama said Snowden may have more to leak but suggested he's already made his biggest impact.

"The damage that's been done essentially goes to the fact of some of these programs," Obama said. "And we don't yet know what other documents he may try to dribble out there."

The president said the Snowden story is becoming sensational, and insisted he's not as focused on Snowden as the media is.

"I get why it's a fascinating story from a press perspective. And I'm sure there will be a made-for-TV movie somewhere down the line," Obama joked. "But in terms of U.S. interests, the damage was done with respect to the initial leaks."

The president said not to expect that TV movie to become an action flick.

"I'm not going to be scrambling jets to get a 29-year-old hacker," Obama quipped when asked if he would consider using "U.S. military assets to in any way intercept Mr. Snowden."

Asked about Obama's "Snow-who" attitude, former White House National Security Council Spokesperson Tommy Vietor said the president was trying to throw cold water at some of the more incendiary rumors circling the Snowden story.

"He's probably just responding to all the hyperbolic reports suggesting we would force down the plane if it came over us soil," he said. "It all got a bit hysterical."