Quantcast
Channel: BuzzFeed News
Viewing all 15742 articles
Browse latest View live

Watch Rand Paul's Video Supporting A Rally Against Government Spying

0
0

The video encourages a July 4 protest in Washington, D.C., sponsored by the Reddit-originated group “Restore the Fourth,” to denounce the NSA’s spying tactics. “Thanks for rallying to defend the Bill of Rights,” he says in the message.

Rand Paul's video to Restore the Fourth:

Source: youtube.com


Ecuador Defends Domestic Surveillance

0
0

“In Ecuador we do not listen to phone calls for political purposes,” says Serrano after a BuzzFeed report on the purchase of spy gear. Drones are “an alarming detail,” says a critic.

Ecuador's Interior Minister Jose Serrano, National Secretary of Communications Fernando Alvarado and National Secretary of Political Affairs Betty Tola attend a news conference in Quito on June 27.

Via: Guillermo Granja / Reuters

WASHINGTON — A top Ecuadorian official defended his country's right to engage in domestic surveillance but denied that it spies on its political opponents at a press conference in the capital Quito Thursday morning, according to a report in the government-owned newspaper El Telegrafo.

"We have already expressed our need to equip ourselves with security hardware, as covered by Art. 20 of the United Nations convention, the Ecuadorian penal code, and the human rights declaration," Interior Minister Jose Serrano Salgado told reporters, saying the technology has been used to solve "100 percent of kidnapping cases."

"In Ecuador we do not listen to phone calls for political purposes, only to fight criminals," he said.

Serrano was responding to BuzzFeed's report Tuesday on documents showing that Ecuador's intelligence agency was seeking to purchase surveillance equipment abroad. Serrano described the documents as "a rough montage without a signature of responsibility" and did not comment on whether the transaction they discussed had been completed.

"We invite the national or international press to demonstrate one single case of groundless wiretapping," Serrano said. "You have 24 hours to do so, or you will be determined to be liars. In Ecuador, we are able to guarantee that no one has been wiretapped for political purposes."

BuzzFeed's report on Tuesday included secret documents that appear to show SENAIN, the intelligence agency, setting up a deal to buy surveillance equipment from Israeli firms through an American company that acted as a broker. The country is where Edward Snowden is seeking asylum after being charged with espionage by the United States for revealing its own domestic spying programs.

Cléver Jiménez, a member of Ecuador's legislature who was sued in 2011 for libeling President Rafael Correa and was recently sentenced to 18 months in prison for the same offense, released a statement on Thursday criticizing the government for its involvement with Snowden and WikiLeaks in light of its own surveillance practices, calling them an "attack on civilian security and the human rights of Ecuadoreans."

Jiménez called the situation with Snowden and Julian Assange, who has been living at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London for over a year, a "smokescreen to distract the world and the country from the serious corruption of the government."

Jiménez criticized Correa's government for the documents published by BuzzFeed, finding the letter related to a possible drone deal to be most alarming.

"An alarming detail is that this last purchase is for the creation of drones, unmanned aerial vehicles, which are used for surveillance programs," Jiménez said.

San Francisco City Hall Lights Up With Pride Following Supreme Court Decision

0
0

A historic moment.

A time-lapse video of the city hall:

Source: youtube.com

A screenshot from the video:

A screenshot from the video:

Via: Noah Berger / Reuters

Via: Noah Berger / Reuters


View Entire List ›

7 Powerful Photos Of The Obamas Visting "The House Of Slaves"

0
0

The president stared out of the “Door of No Return” on Goree Island off the Senegalese coast, which was the last stop for millions of slaves sent to the New World.

Obama called the tour a "very powerful moment," according to a White House pool report. He said the visit helped him "fully appreciate the magnitude of the slave trade" and "get a sense in an intimate way" of the hardships slaves faced.

Obama called the tour a "very powerful moment," according to a White House pool report. He said the visit helped him "fully appreciate the magnitude of the slave trade" and "get a sense in an intimate way" of the hardships slaves faced.

Via: Evan Vucci / AP

"Obviously, for an African-American, an African-American president, to be able to visit this site, I think, gives me even greater motivation in terms of human rights around the world," the president said.

"Obviously, for an African-American, an African-American president, to be able to visit this site, I think, gives me even greater motivation in terms of human rights around the world," the president said.

Via: SAUL LOEB / Getty Images

Obama said the trip was a reminder that "we have to remain vigilant when it comes to the defense of human rights." He added "this is a testament to when we're not vigilant in defense of human rights what can happen."

Obama said the trip was a reminder that "we have to remain vigilant when it comes to the defense of human rights." He added "this is a testament to when we're not vigilant in defense of human rights what can happen."

Via: SAUL LOEB / Getty Images

Via: SAUL LOEB / Getty Images


View Entire List ›

Senegalese President Defends Jailing Of LBGT Citizens, Hits Obama Over The Death Penalty

0
0

In Africa, Obama and Macky Sall argue LGBT rights the day after the DOMA ruling.

Via: Gary Cameron / Reuters

WASHINGTON — A day after the Supreme Court took up his call to expand gay rights in America, President Obama used a joint press conference with the president Senegal to push both his country and the nations of Africa to do more to free the LGBT community from legal discrimination.

In response, Macky Sall, the Senegalese President reaffirmed his country's criminal code outlawing homosexuality — and also noted his nation has outlawed capital punishment.

It was a rare and fascinating discussion about LGBT rights on the international stage.

Obama again celebrated the Supreme Court's decision on DOMA and said it was time to one step further and eliminate the remaining DOMA language allowing states without legal same-sex marriage laws to refuse to accept the legal marriages of same-sex couples from other states.

"It's my personal belief -- but I'm speaking now as a President as opposed to as a lawyer -- that if you've been married in Massachusetts and you move someplace else, you're still married, and that under federal law you should be able to obtain the benefits of any lawfully married couple," Obama said. "But I'm speaking as a President, not a lawyer."

He then turned his attention to his host nation. Senegal is the first stop on Obama's trip across Africa, and like several countries there, it outlaws homosexuality. A reporter asked Obama to comment on Senegal's law.

"I want the African people just to hear what I believe, and that is that every country, every group of people, every religion have different customs, different traditions. And when it comes to people's personal views and their religious faith, etc, I think we have to respect the diversity of views that are there," Obama said. "But when it comes to how the state treats people, how the law treats people, I believe that everybody has to be treated equally. I don't believe in discrimination of any sort."

"I speak as somebody who obviously comes from a country in which there were times when people were not treated equally under the law, and we had to fight long and hard through a civil rights struggle to make sure that happens," Obama added.

In response, Sall defended his nations laws and insisted they don't mean the Senegalese or other people who criminalize homosexuality are anti-gay.

"These issues are all societal issues basically, and we cannot have a standard model which is applicable to all nations, all countries -- you said it, we all have different cultures. We have different religions. We have different traditions," Sall said. "And even in countries where this has been decriminalized and homosexual marriage is allowed, people don't share the same views."

Sall said his country, which is mainly Muslim, isn't at the point where it can change its laws to be more tolerant of homosexuals. But he insisted that didn't mean Senegal is bigoted against the LGBT community.

"Senegal, as far as it is concerned, is a very tolerant country which does not discriminate in terms of inalienable rights of the human being," Sall said. " But we are still not ready to decriminalize homosexuality. I've already said it in the past...while we have respect for the rights of homosexuals -- but for the time being, we are still not ready to change the law."

To prove his point about the time it takes for a nation to evolve, Sall spoke of capital punishment, something his country doesn't have but Obama's does.

"The society has to absolve these issues. It has to take time to digest them, bringing pressure to bear upon them, on such issues. It is just like the capital punishment," he said. "In our country, we have abolished it for many years. In other countries, it is still the order of the day, because the situation in the country requires it. And we do respect the choice of each country."

How Patrick Leahy Made Sure The Senate Is Going To Pass Immigration Reform

0
0

Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy has compromised more than most to get immigration reform through the Senate. “I think he understands what the market can bear,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham.

U.S. Sen. Patrick Leahy

Via: Win McNamee / Getty Images

WASHINGTON — Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy might as well be the Gang of Eight's ninth member.

As the Judiciary Committee's chairman and the Senate's longest serving member, Leahy — more than most Democrats — has had to carefully negotiate his deep-rooted progressive principles with his desire to get the comprehensive immigration reform bill out of the Senate.

And as the Senate is on track to pass the Gang's carefully compromised bill Thursday afternoon, members on both sides of the aisle give a huge chunk of the credit to Leahy for helping usher it through.

It hasn't been easy for Leahy, who from the get-go hasn't been shy about voicing his criticism since the Gang of Eight first started meeting to craft the legislation. When he felt the Gang was taking too long to introduce legislation, he told them to hurry up. At the end of the committee's markup, Leahy tried to introduce an amendment to the bill that would have extended immigration rights to same-sex binational couples only to withdraw it when the majority of the committee said the amendment would ultimately kill the bill. And he begrudgingly agreed to support a "border surge" deal crafted by two Republicans if it meant getting immigration reform passed.

"It is an understatement to say that this is not the amendment I would have drafted. It is a disappointment to me and to many. The modification to my amendment reads like a Christmas wish list for Halliburton," Leahy said in a statement, announcing he would support the amendment anyway because "legislating is about making tough choices."

His frustration with the process was on full display this week as the Senate inched closer to a final vote. Leahy, who is managing the bill on the floor, was practically yelling during a debate with Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) on Tuesday over Portman's desire to have a separate up-or-down vote on his "E-verify" amendment.

"The distinguished Majority leader has more patience than the senator from Vermont," Leahy said, referring to himself in the third person. "I have not spoken on this point and I apologize for taking the time. But it's frustrating to me to hear these numbers when so much work has been done by both Republicans and Democrats on this bill to get to the point we are."

"I had amendments I would love to have, saying 'here's the Leahy amendment passed on the floor.' I said no, I'm more interested in putting it in the package and let it go through," he added.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, one of the Republican members of the Gang of eight said Leahy's long service in the Senate (he's been there since 1975) contributed to his ability to know when he'd need to compromise.

"I know he's got some ideas and wishes he would like to advance, but I'm very pleased with the way he's handled the issue as chairman of the committee, and committed to getting the bill out of the senate," Graham said. "I think he understands what the market can bear."

The bill is finally on its way to passage, and along the way, more than a dozen Republican senators are poised to support it. Sen. Orrin Hatch, for example, noted that the lengthy amendment process in Leahy's committee — where several of his amendments were approved — helped him decide to ultimately support the bill.

"Leahy's a good legislator. He knows you can't have everything go your own way. I think I can, that's why I work so hard. He thinks he can, but there are times where you realize you just cant," said Hatch. "You have to accommodate ideas, and Leahy's shown an ability to do that in this instance."

Even members who are staunchly opposed to the comprehensive bill had nice things to say about the way Leahy has handled his role in the process.

Sen. Ted Cruz, who has been staunchly vocal in opposing the bill, thanked Leahy at the end of the committee mark up in May for "allowing vigorous debate on amendments." Sen. Chuck Grassley, who will also vote no on the final bill, praised Leahy for allowing "an open and transparent process to reform our broken immigration system."

Jim Manley, a former longtime Democratic Senate aide, said Leahy's willingness to bend on his principles to get immigration reform passed shouldn't be surprising. But it's been difficult to find in this era of bipartisan gridlock.

"What's interesting is that this shouldn't be newsworthy. That's the way legislators like Sen. Leahy approach bills. He understands that politics is the art of compromise," Manley said. "Sometimes you have to give a little bit, and in this day and age you give a lot to get Republicans on board."

The Essential Guide To Congressional Facial Hair

0
0

Face facts.

Glorious facial hair used to be common in the U.S. House and Senate.

Glorious facial hair used to be common in the U.S. House and Senate.

Oregon's Republican U.S. Senator John Mitchell in 1885.

But today, the art of the well-manicured face hair has all but disappeared in the halls of power in D.C.

But today, the art of the well-manicured face hair has all but disappeared in the halls of power in D.C.

COME ON, PEOPLE?! Think of it!

COME ON, PEOPLE?! Think of it!

So here is a complete guide to the brave men who CURRENTLY serve with facial hair.

So here is a complete guide to the brave men who CURRENTLY serve with facial hair.


View Entire List ›

Steve King Apologizes To Marco Rubio

0
0

The immigration reform hardliner says he feels badly so many personal attacks were levied against Rubio during his rally to protest the Senate immigration bill. “It was not my intent for him to be the personal target of criticism,” King said.

Rep. Steve King.

Via: Pete Marovich / Getty Images

WASHINGTON— When Rep. Steve King, an Iowa Republican and immigration hardliner, held a recent rally against the Senate's immigration reform bill, several speakers and activists publicly lambasted Sen. Marco Rubio and the work he had done with the Gang of Eight.

They booed the mention of his name, the Heritage Foundation's Robert Rector remarked that Rubio "had not even read his own bill," and many activists held up anti-Rubio signs.

On Thursday, shortly before the Senate was poised to pass the bill, King had another message for Rubio: I'm sorry.

"I do want to say this publicly and hopefully it emerges from the press to Sen. Rubio: It was not my intent for him to be the personal target of criticism. I wanted to avoid that that day, and I think my remarks opening it that day made that clear," King said. "There were times when I was distracted with other discussions that day and I've since realized through the press there were comments made that day that were not particularly complimentary. I have avoided it, I personally like Marco Rubio. We disagree on this issue but I disagree with the entire gang."


Supreme Court Denies Appeal By Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer On Partner Benefits Case

0
0

In denying appeals in 10 gay-rights cases, the high court clears its docket — and deals a loss to the Arizona governor. The Arizona law ending domestic partner benefits has been called discriminatory — and is on hold for now — but Brewer says the case is simply about the state budget.

Via: Jonathan Ernst / Reuters

WASHINGTON — In a bit of a clean-up move after its Wednesday ruling striking down the Defense of Marriage Act's federal definition of marriage, the Supreme Court on Thursday denied a series of appeals in gay-rights cases — including one in which Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer is attempting to keep a law in place that would end state employees' domestic partner benefits.

In denying the appeals in 10 cases addressing gay rights, eight formally ended other challenges to DOMA brought by various parties to the four challenges whose appeals had been pending before the courts. Because the challenges had succeeded below, and because the court agreed that Section 3 of DOMA is unconstitutional, the court simply denied the parties' requests for the Supreme Court to hear the appeal.

In the Arizona case, the legislature ended domestic-partner benefits for state employees, a move that prevented same-sex couples from getting benefits because they are unable to marry in that state. After a lawsuit was filed challenging the move, the trial-court issued a preliminary injunction stopping the new law from going into effect. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed, and Brewer asked the Supreme Court to take the case and allow the law ending the benefits to go into effect. On Thursday, the Supreme Court declined to do so.

"With its decision today, the Supreme Court has not only upheld the preliminary injunction of an economically-prudent, practical state law. It has also undercut the ability of duly-elected State officials to make decisions critical to managing the State budget," Brewer said in a statement. "This case has never been about domestic partners, same-sex or otherwise. It is always been about the authority of elected State officials to make decisions with which we have been entrusted by the voters. I'm disappointed the High Court has eroded that authority with its decision today."

Because the trial court only has thus far issued a preliminary injunction, however, the case itself will continue, with Lambda Legal, representing state employees who would lose their benefits under the law, seeking a permanent injunction stopping the law from going into effect.

"Lesbian and gay employees of the state of Arizona can now rest assured that their vital family health insurance will not be stripped away while they fight the State's discriminatory effort to eliminate that coverage," Lambda Legal attorney Tara Borelli said in a statement. "With the preliminary injunction now left in place, we can proceed to the resolution of the case."

In the final case, Coalition for the Protection of Marriage v. Sevcik, the court denied the request of the proponents of Nevada's marriage amendment that the court hear an appeal of Beverly Sevcik and Mary Baranovich's challenge to the constitutionality of the amendment. Although the couple, represented by Lambda Legal, lost at the trial-court level, the case is on appeal before the 9th Circuit.

The coalition, however, asked the Supreme Court to skip that step and take the case now. The Supreme Court had held the request, along with all the others, and denied it today, meaning the appeal at the 9th Circuit will continue.

Senate Passes Comprehensive Immigration Reform

0
0

The final vote count was 68–32, legislation now moves to the House.

A girl wears a "Don't Deport My Mom" T-shirt as she joins immigrants and activists, led by Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and CASA, as they chant and march to urge Congress to act on immigration reform, on Capitol Hill in Washington, June 26, 2013.

WASHINGTON — The Senate passed comprehensive immigration reform Thursday, shifting the focus to the Republican-controlled House where prospects for reform remain dim.

With the Senate chamber's galleries packed with tourists and pro-reform activists, Vice President Joe Biden presided over the historic vote as lawmakers voting from their desks — a ceremonial procedure reserved for major bills.

Sixty-eight Democrats and Republicans ultimately voted in favor of the legislation. That fell two votes short of the 70-vote threshold the bill's authors had hoped for in order to give reform momentum as it moves into the House.

Sen. Chuck Grassley, an opponent of the bill, called that a "strategic defeat for them," particularly given stiff opposition amongst House Republicans.

Indeed, prior to the vote, Rep. Raul Labrador, an Idaho Republican who has in the past worked with a bipartisan reform group in the House, told reporters bluntly, "The Senate bill is dead on arrival."

The bipartisan Gang of Eight senators had worked for months to move the bill, which overhauls the nation's immigration system, bolsters border and interior security systems, and provides a pathway to citizenship for the 11 million undocumented workers currently living in the United States.

Attention will now move fully to the House, where conservatives have held virtually every major piece of legislation hostage as Republican leaders have struggled to control their conference. Speaker John Boehner announced Thursday that following the July 4 vacation, he would convene a meeting of his conference to discuss immigration. "When we get back we're going to have a conference on July the 10th on the way forward … We're going to have a conversation about a pathway forward," Boehner said. Boehner, who has promised conservatives not to move a bill that does not have a majority of Republicans behind it, also told reporters that he believes the best way to move forward is with a massive show of bipartisanship. "There ought to be a majority of Democrats and a majority of Republicans in favor," he said.

That, however, is easier said that done. Republicans have essentially abandoned the idea of a single sweeping reform bill and are now pursuing an approach that separates enforcement from the pathway to citizenship. Although popular with conservatives, that is essentially unworkable for Democrats and the White House.

Can Marco Rubio Survive The Anti-Immigration Backlash?

0
0

Immigration position “may influence some people right now, but right now is not 2016,” Sen. Chuck Grassley said.

Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) addresses the Faith & Freedom Coalition Road to Majority Conference Kickoff Luncheon in Washington June 13, 2013.

Gary Cameron / Reuters

WASHINGTON — The casual reader of conservative news sites and blogs could be forgiven for thinking immigration reform has doomed Sen. Marco Rubio's once promising career and status as presumptive frontrunner for the GOP's 2016 presidential nomination.

He's been called a "traitor," a "turncoat," and a "RINO" — a slur specific to conservative circles standing for "Republican In Name Only."

But conservatives in Congress say that while they may hate his comprehensive immigration bill — which passed the Senate Thursday by a resounding 68 to 32 margin — it's way too early to count the first term senator out.

Rubio's full-throated push for the bill "may influence some people right now, but right now is not 2016," Sen. Chuck Grassley said. Grassley, the dean of Iowa's Republican Party and an opponent of the bill, argued that come Caucus time, Iowans probably won't hold the immigration bill against Rubio.

"I think that people are going to be looking at how who can win the White House. I think that's going to be the most important thing" to voters.

A veteran Senate Republican aide agreed, arguing that in fact the attacks he's suffered from conservatives in recent months could help define him less as a simple conservative and more a conservative-minded legislator.

"He's got an extremely conservative voting record," the aide, who has worked on House and Senate campaigns noted, adding "getting beat up by [Sens. Jeff] Sessions and [Ted] Cruz will help him."

The aide pointed out it has helped endear the Floridian to many of his Senate colleagues, who may have been suspicious of the young, ambitious Tea Party darling who elbowed his way into their midst. Indeed, one Republican senator reportedly voted for the bill in part because of Rubio and his potential as the party's 2016 standard barer.

Rep. Dennis Ross, a Florida Republican, said he believes that while Rubio will recover, he acknowledged the attacks from fellow conservatives are frustrating.

"I'm sure it's something he can recover from. My concern is that people like me and people like Sen. Rubio who have consistently been conservative voters on almost all issues, can find ourselves under attack on a one issue basis and when you think about it, you might as well have a Nancy Pelosi protégé replacing him in Florida if all they are going to be concerned about is one issue," Ross said.

"It's unfortunate the criticism, but he understands once he moves the ball over here he'll recover with the right wing, and they will still want him here to preserve lower taxes, less government and more individual freedoms," Ross added.

Other conservatives however warned at the least, being tied to the bill can't help Rubio once the election begins in earnest. "I certainly think in a Republican primary you don't want to be the guy who supported amnesty," Rep. Tim Huelskamp said.

Conservatives are also only now beginning to wake up to the immigration fight. With action shifting to the House — where Rubio's bill is unlikely to even be taken up — conservatives are preparing to make their last stand. If the fight is drawn out for weeks and months, and Rubio is forced to engage with House conservatives, it could solidify the notion that he may not be as ideologically pure as some had thought.

Rubio's supporters may also be banking on conservatives having a short-memory — something the movement has repeatedly demonstrated it does not, in fact, have. Case in point: conservative distrust with Mitt Romney's past dogged him throughout last year's campaign, and Sen. John McCain's work on the issue crippled his support amongst many base voters in 2008.

Indeed, conservatives are already warning that Rubio will likely face immigration ads
in early primary states come 2016.

Even those close to Rubio are clearly worried conservative infighting could hurt him.
"Everyone has ups and downs … I never count anyone out," Rep. Trey Radel said.

"Marco Rubio's voting record is one of the most consistently conservative records in all of the United States Congress. This is the problem, when conservatives start to eat their own. It's like Ronald Reagan said: When you agree with someone 80 percent of the time it does not make them 20 percent enemy, something like that," Radel added.

What Actually Happened At The Supreme Court?

0
0

The Supreme Court issued two big decisions on Wednesday. So, what did the decisions do? What did the decisions not do? What remains up in the air?

Via: Jonathan Ernst / Reuters

In the first case, Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act — the portion of the 1996 law that defined "marriage" and "spouse" as referring only to opposite-sex married couples — was struck down by the court as unconstitutional.

This means that the federal government is no longer banned from recognizing same-sex couples' marriages. This means that the more than 1,000 benefits and responsibilities of marriage contained throughout federal law should be open to gay and lesbian married couples. President Obama said that he has ordered Attorney General Eric Holder to work with cabinet officials "to review all relevant federal statutes to ensure this decision, including its implications for Federal benefits and obligations, is implemented swiftly and smoothly."

In one notable example, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said Wednesday, "[W]e will implement today's decision so that all married couples will be treated equally and fairly in the administration of our immigration laws." This would include meaning that gay married couples in which one partner is a U.S. citizen and the other is not could obtain a green card for the non-citizen.

A variety of LGBT organizations — including Lambda Legal, Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, and the American Civil Liberties Union — issued a series of documents detailing their view of, as they put it, "After DOMA: What It Means For You."

In the other case, the court dismissed the appeal in the challenge to California's Proposition 8 marriage amendment, leaving in place the initial 2010 trial-court decision striking down the state amendment as unconstitutional.

This means that the two same-sex couples who sued California officials will be allowed to marry.

Additionally, the two couples, as part of their lawsuit, also asked the judge to issue a court order barring state officials — and the county clerks under their control — from enforcing Proposition 8 against anyone — in other words, ending Proposition 8. The trial-court judge included that order in his decision, and Chief Justice John Roberts noted in Wednesday's Supreme Court decision dismissing the appeal that the judge had done so.

Although some have suggested such a move was more broad than the trial-court judge was authorized to order, California Gov. Jerry Brown already announced that once the Supreme Court's decision is finalized and the trial-court judgment goes into effect, "the state's counties ... must begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples." Unless that directive is halted by a future court order, marriage equality will return to California soon.

Via: Lucy Nicholson / Reuters

The court did not address whether states can ban same-sex couples from marrying. Including California, 13 states allow for marriage equality. Twenty-nine of the remaining states have constitutional amendments banning gay couples from marrying.

In Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Tennessee, only marriages between one man and one woman are recognized. In Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Nebraska, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and Wisconsin, same-sex couples are banned both from marriage and civil unions, with some states' provisions being even more restrictive.

By not addressing whether the "fundamental right to marry" that the court has discussed in the past applies to same-sex couples, those bans remain constitutional, at least for the time being.

Likewise, in the remaining states without either marriage equality or a constitutional ban on same-sex couples marrying, those couples are not now allowed to marry.

The court also did not address whether laws that target gay, lesbian and bisexual people — or transgender people — for discrimination should be subjected to heightened scrutiny by courts. This would impact not only marriage laws, but any other laws — now or in the future — that discriminate against LGBT people.

Finally, the court did not address Section 2 of DOMA, which tells states that they need not recognize same-sex marriages recognized by or entered into in other states.


View Entire List ›

What Obamacare NFL Ads Might Look Like

0
0

Health Touchdown!

After news this week that the Obama administration would be targeting NFL fans, BuzzFeed decided to create some mock-up ads to help kickstart the campaign.

After news this week that the Obama administration would be targeting NFL fans, BuzzFeed decided to create some mock-up ads to help kickstart the campaign.

Via: Jared Wickerham / Getty Images

Via: AARON JOSEFCZYK / Reuters

Via: Nick Wass / AP

Via: AJ Mast / AP


View Entire List ›

Presidents Make Adorable Babies

Under Pressure, Scribd Yanks Ecuadorian Spy Documents

0
0

File-sharing service pulls documents relating to Ecuador’s domestic spying program “because Scribd received a legally valid claim of copyright infringement pursuant to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 (DMCA).”

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

Via: Luke Macgregor / Reuters

WASHINGTON — Uploading service Scribd Thursday pulled down a trove of Ecuadorian intelligence documents published by BuzzFeed in response to a copyright complaint from a Spanish firm with apparent connections to the Latin American government.

BuzzFeed received a notification from Scribd that the documents, which appear to show a deal between the Ecuadorian intelligence agency and an American broker for the purchase of spy equipment made by Israeli companies, had been removed. According to the notification, the documents were removed "because Scribd received a legally valid claim of copyright infringement pursuant to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 (DMCA)."

The complaint was filed by Jonathan Palma of Spanish anti-piracy firm called Ares Rights, wrote to Scribd on behalf of Gabriel Guecelevich, Pablo Romero, Jose Miguel Delgado, Kobi Reuven, Amit Morag, Gabriel Marcos, and Carlos Diaz. Those names include two officials in SENAIN, Ecuador's spy agency, as well as the American intermediary and two of the Israeli manufacturers.

Palma asked Scribd to

Please suspend Accounts for massive copyright Violations***

d) The name, address, telephone number and email address of the Complainant:

Referred in section "a" (Electronic Signature)

e) I have a good faith belief that the disputed use of the material or activity is not authorized by the copyright or intellectual property owner and that the information provided in the notice is accurate.

f) I swear, under penalty of perjury, that the Complainant is the copyright or intellectual property owner or is authorized to act on behalf of the copyright or intellectual property owner and that the information provided in the notice is accurate.

In an email to BuzzFeed, Palma refused to confirm that he held legitimate rights to the material and refused to identify his client.

Unaware that any of the thousands of files that regulates our company was directly related to you, with an article or news content.

I see that apparently, some sources hosted on other servers, totally unrelated to Buzzfeed have been eliminated. Obviously our action has triggered a drop of the content that you embed, so I feel your content has been affected by a violation of another person. It was not our intention.

I can't explain the motives, strategies or identity of our clients. The reasons are part of our confidentiality agreement, our knowhow strategies, and with respect to customers, the Organic Law on Data Protection (LOPD) Spanish, prohibits the dissemination of data from our customers.

I just saw your second email. If the service you mentioned has sent the request to you, you are the uploader, which is very interesting and valuable information. Too I see now more sources in your post, hosted in Documentcloud and dropbox.

Ares Rights, does not have to discuss with the uploader, only to the server or service provider. If you need information, Ask him for the server or service provider.

Sorry I can't help more, now also, I confirm that you are the author of the publication of illegal files, With Copyright Violations.

Asked directly if he had been employed by the Ecuadorian government, Palma refused to answer.

"Sorry Rosie, i dont need make any statement," he said. "I wish you luck."

This is not the first time Ares Rights has involved itself in matters of concern to the Ecuadorian government.

In December, Ares Rights brought a copyright complaint to YouTube and Vimeo and had a documentary that was critical of Ecuadorian President Rafael Correa taken down.

On Friday, Correa alluded directly to BuzzFeed's story on Twitter, saying that the allegations of surveillance had been a "farce" cooked up as punishment for Ecuador's rebelliousness. At a press conference on Thursday morning, the Minister of the Interior threatened the press: "We invite the national or international press to demonstrate one single case of groundless wiretapping. You have 24 hours to do so, or you will be determined to be liars."

BuzzFeed has re-uploaded the documents to DocumentCloud and into a Dropbox folder and has formally contested the complaint with Scribd. As of this writing, Palma had already sent another copyright claim to DocumentCloud.

Update - 1:55 p.m.: DropBox, like Scribd, also received a copyright complaint and removed the documents that BuzzFeed had uploaded.


33 Beautiful Vintage Portraits Of America's Immigrant Past From Ellis Island

0
0

The Senate approved comprehensive immigration reform Thursday by a 68–32 vote count and the legislation now moves to the House. The bill would legalize millions of current undocumented immigrants. Here are some photos of immigrants from the early 1900s courtesy of the the New York Public Libary’s digital collections.

Via: William Williams papers/Augustus Sherman photographs/New York Public Library

Via: William Williams papers/Augustus Sherman photographs/New York Public Library

Via: William Williams papers /Augustus Sherman photographs/New York Public Library

Via: William Williams papers/Augustus Sherman photographs/New York Public Library


View Entire List ›

Striking Images Of Obama's African Protesters

0
0

This happens to every president.

About 800 people showed up in Pretoria, South Africa, to protest an official visit from President Obama.

About 800 people showed up in Pretoria, South Africa, to protest an official visit from President Obama.

Via: Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images

The protests were organized by the South African Trade Unions.

The protests were organized by the South African Trade Unions.

Via: Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images

Many of the signs were critical of U.S. foreign policy.

Many of the signs were critical of U.S. foreign policy.

Via: Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images

Some called the president a "slave master."

Some called the president a "slave master."

Via: Siphiwe Sibeko / Reuters


View Entire List ›

Boy Scouts Bar Scouts From Wearing Uniform In Gay Pride Parades Or Flag Ceremonies

0
0

Wearing a uniform in a pride parade or even a flag ceremony at a pride event is a “violation of the Scout Oath and Scout Law,” official says. Advocates called the application of the “longstanding” policy uneven, citing candidates’ events and other parades.

Eagle Scout Zach Wahls of Iowa City, Iowa, founded Scouts for Equality.

Via: David Manning / Reuters

WASHINGTON — A month after voting to allow gay youth to participate in the Boy Scouts, the group's leadership warned scouts this week that participating in gay pride parades in uniform — even if just to participate in a flag ceremony — is against "longstanding policy."

In the June 24 memorandum obtained by BuzzFeed, Gary Butler, the assistant chief Scout executive for operations, told all Scout executives and area and regional directors that "members of the BSA are not permitted to be endorsing a position or advancing a social issue while they are in uniform."

"From time to time, Scouts and leaders have been asked or encouraged to participate in flag ceremonies, parades, and other community events aimed at advocating for personal, social or political agendas," Butler said, warning that doing so in uniform is a "violation of the Scout Oath and Scout Law [and] a violation of BSA's rules and regulations."

"Participation in a Gay Pride parade or other similarly sponsored event would fall under this policy."

Zach Wahls, the founder of Scouts for Equality, noted a distinction between marching in a pride parade and participating in a flag ceremony, but as to the latter, he was incredulous of the Boy Scouts' position.

"Scouts do color guards for political events all the time," Wahls said. "You regularly see Boy Scouts in uniform doing flag ceremonies for candidates."

The Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, which has been heavily involved in supporting advocates of inclusive Scouting, called the move "worrisome" Friday — pointing to Boy Scouts' regular participation in ethnic heritage parades, such at St. Patrick's Day parades, as an uneven application of the "longstanding" policy.

"It is worrisome that after the Boy Scouts' membership voted to allow gay Scouts just last month, one of the organization's first actions is an attempt to dissociate the BSA with celebrations for the gay community. The Boy Scouts should not force the countless number of allies who support gay Americans and are proud BSA Members to be silent about their Scouting identity," GLAAD vice president of communications Rich Ferraro told BuzzFeed.

"The move last month was a good step, but changing internal culture is going to be a much longer process," Wahls added.

A Scouting spokesman did not respond to BuzzFeed's request for comment.

Boy Scouts' "Gay Pride" Memo:

Boy Scouts' "Gay Pride" Memo:

Rick Santorum Is Very Excited To Become Involved In Popular Culture

0
0

He’s the CEO of a movie studio now!

"I always feel like the popular culture is a big influencer on politics."

View Video ›

Via:

Here's his full interview with Newsmax Magazine which runs 16 minutes.

Source: youtube.com

Federal Judge Applies DOMA Ruling To Halt Michigan Ban On Partner Benefits

0
0

“[T]he Court takes guidance from the Supreme Court’s decision invalidating DOMA,” U.S. District Court Judge David M. Lawson wrote. The move puts a temporary halt on Michigan’s ban on partner benefits for public employees.

Demonstrators gather outside the U.S. Supreme Court on the day that the Court struck down the Defense of Marriage Act, Wednesday, June 26, 2013, in Washington, D.C.

Via: Tish Wells/MCT

Two days after the Supreme Court struck down the Defense of Marriage Act's federal ban on recognizing same-sex couples' marriages, a federal judge in Michigan used the high court's reasoning to put a state law on hold that bans public employers from giving fringe benefits to cohabitating, unmarried partners of public employees.

The broad ruling is a sign of the potential impact of Justice Anthony Kennedy's opinion in the Supreme Court's ruling in United States v. Windsor — and is the way marriage equality advocates hope the ruling will change the national legal landscape for same-sex couples.

U.S. District Court Judge David M. Lawson, nominated to the court by President Bill Clinton in 1999, is hearing a case challenging the constitutionality of Michigan Public Act 297, which "prohibits public employers from providing medical and other fringe benefits to any person cohabitating with a public employee unless that person is legally married to the employee, or is a legal dependent, or eligible to inherit under the State's intestacy laws."

In issuing the preliminary injunction, which is intended to put the law on hold until a final decision can be reached in the case, Lawson concluded that the plaintiffs challenging the law "are likely to succeed" in their claim that the law violates constitutional guarantees of equal protection of the law.

Specifically, Lawson wrote that "the Court takes guidance from the Supreme Court's decision invalidating DOMA, which determined legislative purpose by looking to the 'history of . . . enactment' and the statute's 'own text.'"

Lawson noted that, regarding DOMA, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the Supreme Court, "The history of DOMA's enactment and its own text demonstrate that interference with the equal dignity of same-sex marriages, a dignity conferred by the States in the exercise of their sovereign power, was more than an incidental effect of the federal statute. It was its essence."

Applying that to the Michigan challenge, Lawson wrote, "Looking to the history and text of Public Act 297, it is hard to argue with a straight face that the primary purpose — indeed, perhaps the sole purpose — of the statute is other than to deny health benefits to the same-sex partners of public employees. But that 'can never be a legitimate governmental purpose.'"

Lawson then concluded, "The plaintiffs have stated a viable and likely successful equal protection claim. They have provided strong evidence that the discriminatory classification established by Public Act 297 is not rationally related to a legitimate governmental purpose."

The case was brought by the American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of Michigan.

Viewing all 15742 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images