Prohibitions on same-sex couples marrying in the state “are unconstitutional and unenforceable,” Judge Alan Malott ruled Monday.

WASHINGTON — A New Mexico judge has ordered the county clerks of Bernalillo and Sante Fe counties to begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples who apply and are otherwise qualified.

Because the clerk in Santa Fe County already began issuing licenses last week, as did the clerk of Dona Ana County, the addition of Bernalillo County into the mix makes a third county in the state where licenses will be issued to same-sex couples.

A person answering the phone at the Bernalillo County Clerk's Office said it will begin issuing licenses at 8 a.m. Tuesday. Albuquerque — the state's largest city — is in Bernalillo County.

Issuing a peremptory writ of mandamus, Judge Alan Malott found Monday that the couples suing for a right to marry in one of the only states in the nation without either marriage equality or an explicit ban on such marriages have a "significant likelihood of success" on the merits of their lawsuit.

In reading his ruling in open court Monday, Malott said he ordered that:

New Mexico law, Malott found, "does not preclude nor prohibit issuance of a marriage license to otherwise qualified couples on the basis of sexual orientation or the gender of its members."

To the extent it is found to do so, "those prohibitions are unconstitutional and unenforceable under" New Mexico's constitution, he ruled.

Bernalillo County Clerk Maggie Oliver and Santa Fe County Clerk Geraldine Salazar "shall comply with and perform" their duty to issue such licences.

Oliver and Salazar are "enjoined and restrained from refusing to issue" such licenses.

Malott is a district court judge in the Second Judicial District of New Mexico and was appointed to the bench by former Gov. Bill Richardson.

The case was filed by the National Center for Lesbian Rights and ACLU on Aug 21 — the same day that a third county clerk, Dona Ana County Clerk Lynn Ellins, announced that he would begin issuing such licenses on Aug. 23.

Salazar, as a part of another case, also began issuing licenses on Aug. 23. Salazar began doing so because of a Thursday ruling from Judge Sarah Singleton, in the First Judicial District of New Mexico. That ruling, however, was a preliminary one, ordering the clerk to begin issuing licenses or to give a response as to why she should not be ordered to do so. Salazar chose to begin issuing licenses.

New Mexico Attorney General Gary King, meanwhile, has told that state's Supreme Court in a third court challenge that any attempt to prohibit same-sex couples from marrying is unconstitutional.

It was not immediately clear who, if anyone, would appeal either last week's or Monday's court rulings. The question is relevant because neither ruling creates a final, definitive ruling about state law — a ruling that only could come from the state's Supreme Court.

Update at 10:20 p.m.: Regarding questions about the validity of any marriages entered into under Judge Malott's order, Christopher Stoll, a senior staff attorney at NCLR, told BuzzFeed:

"These licenses are issued pursuant to a court order and are based on solid legal reasoning. To our knowledge, no appellate court has ever invalidated a marriage license issued pursuant to a court order, and we do not think the New Mexico appellate courts will do so either. This is a new day, in which both courts and public officials of all kinds are recognizing that the law requires that same-sex couples have equal access to marriage. That is particularly evident in New Mexico, where there is no statutory or constitutional ban on marriage for same-sex couples, and where the principle of equal protection of same-sex couples is already so deeply rooted in state law."

Stoll also told BuzzFeed that it was unclear whether any party would appeal in the case.

Read the order:

View Entire List ›

“You’re talking about a race of people, I don’t think you can make that comparison between a race of people and the gay rights movement, if that’s what you want to call it,” said former Congressman Allen West.

Former U.S. Congressman Allen West.

Mary F. Calvert / Reuters

WASHINGTON— GOP attendees at the Republican National Committee's Monday event to mark the 50th anniversary of the March on Washington said it was unfair to compare the struggles of the civil rights era to the current issues surrounding LGBT equality or immigration reform.

That was in contrast to Saturday's March on Washington event on the Mall, organized by Rev. Al Sharpton and the National Action Network, where multiple speakers talked about how the movement now includes women, immigrants and the LGBT community.

Instead, they said, the GOP's focus when commemorating the anniversary of the march should be on helping poor and inner city black communities.

"I really think that the civil rights movement in it's effort to expand has excluded some of the people that it originally designed to help and that's low income people of all races," said Bob Woodson, president of the Center for Neighborhood Enterprise. "I didn't hear poor people mentioned at all very much [on Saturday]. It was the environmentalists, women, gays, and immigrants. Everybody except poor people. The next frontier for me in the civil rights movement, is what are we doing for the least of gods children?"

In his remarks to the luncheon at the Capitol Hill Club in Washington, Woodson said that for many poor black Americans "the dream is a nightmare."

"Everybody has come in front of them on the bus: gays, immigrants, women, environmentalists. We never hear about the conditions confronting poor blacks and poor people in general," he said.

Former Congressman Allen West attended the RNC luncheon and said he had watched many of the speeches from Saturday's rally. He called the march on the mall "a politically driven event" that "didn't address the searing problems you see in the black community."

"It's apples and vegetables. You're talking about a race of people, I don't think you can make that comparison between a race of people and the gay rights movement, if that's what you want to call it. I think about what my parents had to endure in South Georgia in the 40's and 50's…you know we made some strides when you look at the fact that I was able to run a congressional district that was 92 percent white and when I was born my parents could not have gone there. Now there are still some things we have to do. When you read that speech you really understand what we have to do better in the black community," he said.

North Carolina GOP committeewoman Ada Fisher said comparing immigration reform to civil rights was "disingenuous" and the causes of the LGBT community shouldn't be central to conversation about equal rights.

"I think it's unfortunate that people have diluted the purpose of the march on Washington," said Fisher. "I think it's an unfair comparison. Whenever anybody wants something in this country they compare it the civil rights movement. The fight is giving equal rights and equal opportunity to Americans. The immigration movement is disingenuous, we don't talk about the impact of illegal immigration coming and displacing minority groups for jobs, nor do we talk about an unfair immigration policy where those people from Haiti are sent home and those people who walk across the border are allowed to stay."

In a moment of overlap between some of Saturday's message and Monday's RNC event, Republican Congressman James Sensenbrenner said he was committed to coming with a bipartisan fix to the voting rights act before the 2014 elections.

GOP Chairman Reince Priebus said the day's event was "not about partisan politics" and he acknowledged that when President Barack Obama speaks on the anniversary Wednesday from the same spot when Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. spoke fifty years ago "all Americans understand that significance."

"It's not just a call to remembrance, it's a call to action. As Americans it's what can we do for justice, for opportunity, for the marcher's cause of jobs and freedom, we have to keep working," he said.

The White House prepares for a response to the Assad regime.

View Video ›

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said Tuesday the question of use of weapons of mass destruction by the Syrian regime was no longer being discussed. Carney said White House "deliberations" had moved to what the appropriate response would be.

"The deliberations that are taking place now and the options that are being considered by the president and his national security team are not around the question of whether chemical weapons were used in Syria on a significant scale causing mass death and injury to innocent civilians, to woman and children," Carney said. "It is not around the question of whether the Syrian regime is responsible, it is around the question of what is the appropriate response to this clear violation of international norms."

Carney also said more information about the attack would be provided in the coming days.

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney told reporters that Obama is not considering actions to forcefully overthrow Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

View Video ›

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said Tuesday President Obama is not considering a forceful overthrow of current Syrian leadership among its options to respond to the recent chemical attacks the government believes Syrian President Bashar al-Assad waged against his own people.

"The options that we are considering are not about regime change," Carney said. "They are about responding to the clear violation of an international standard that prohibits the use of chemical weapons."

Carney added that they support efforts within Syria to overthrow Assad and that Assad cannot remain in power as the country moves forward.

"We are also very much engaged in an effort to support the opposition in its struggle with the Assad regime as the Assad regime continues to try to massacre its own people in an effort to maintain power," Carney said. "It is our firm conviction that Syria's future cannot include Assad in power."

Title 38 of the U.S. Code bars equal treatment for same-sex spouses — although lawsuits and legislation are pending that would change that. “We can’t tolerate this type of discrimination,” Sen. Jeanne Shaheen says, and Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric Shinseki backs her bill to change the law.

Jim Cole / AP

Shaheen introduced and has testified in favor of the Charlie Morgan Act — named in honor of Chief Warrant Officer Charlier Morgan, who died earlier this year after fighting "don't ask, don't tell" and the Defense of Marriage Act while facing cancer. The bill was advanced by the Veterans' Affairs Committee in July.

In June, of course, the Supreme Court struck down the federal definition of marriage in DOMA, which prohibited the federal government from recognizing marriages between same-sex couples.

Nonetheless, two provisions elsewhere in the law — found in Title 38 of the U.S. Code — separately define veterans benefits as only being available to opposite-sex spouses. As such, those laws were not specifically covered in the June 26 Supreme Court ruling about DOMA.

After the Supreme Court decision, Shaheen followed up with the Veterans Affairs Department on June 26, seeking information about whether the decision would end the need for her bill:

Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric Shinseki responded on August 14 that the Title 38 provisions still banned the department from granting equal benefits:

View Entire List ›

Now, the dictator of Syria is an international pariah. How fast the world changes.

Assad, whose Arab Socialist Ba'ath Party had ruled Syria for almost 50 years, retaliated in a brutal manner, killing hundreds of thousands and displacing millions.

View Entire List ›

Vice President tells American Legion Convention “there is no doubt” the Syrian regime used chemical weapons.

Matt Rourke / AP

WASHINGTON — Vice President Biden became the latest Obama administration official to claim "there is no doubt" that the Syrian regime launched a large-scale chemical weapons attack on civilians earlier this month.

At a speech to the American Legion Convention in Houston, Biden condemned the attack and said something has to be done.

"The president believes and I believe that those who use chemical weapons against defenseless men, women and children should and must be held accountable," Biden said.

He gave no hints about what "accountable" means in terms of U.S. actions, but his comments came amidst increasing rhetoric aimed at Syrian leaders from White House officials.

Biden cast the use of chemical weapons in Syria as a national security problem for the United States.

"National security is strengthened when we hold accountable those who violate international norms that are the foundation of global security, and ultimately, American security," he said. "And there is no doubt that an essential international norm has been violated. Chemical weapons have been used."

Dennis Rodman, former NBA star and buddy of Kim Jong-un, appears to have given up.

An undated still image from video footage released on May 2, 2013 by Yonhap News Agency in Seoul shows a portrait of U.S. citizen Kenneth Bae.

Yonhap / Reuters

WASHINGTON — A U.S. envoy will travel to North Korea this week to try and win the release of imprisoned American Kenneth Bae, the State Department said on Tuesday.

The U.S. will dispatch Ambassador Robert King, Special Envoy for North Korean Human Rights Issues, on August 30, the State Department said. King will ask North Korea to pardon Bae and issue a "special amnesty" to set him free, it said.

Most recently, former President Jimmy Carter was rumored to be planning to go to North Korea to rescue Bae, though the Carter Center shot down the trip in the press. Former NBA star Dennis Rodman promised to return to North Korea and rescue Bae in August after meeting Kim Jong-un earlier this year, but the trip never materialized and representatives for Rodman never explained why it fell through.

Bae, a Christian missionary and tour guide, was arrested in November 2012 and was sentenced to 15 years of hard labor this year after being found guilty of "hostile acts" against the North Korean government. Bae was most recently seen in a video released earlier this summer in which he appears to be in ill health in prison; the State Department has expressed "grave concern" about his condition.

Bae's sister, who acts as something of a spokesperson for the family, did not immediately return a request for comment.

“The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation,” Obama in 2008.

President Obama and Vice President Biden once held radically different views on the use of military force without congressional authorization. During the 2008 presidential campaign, both made undeniably clear the president could not authorize a military strike without congressional except for a case of an "imminent threat." Then-Senator Biden found the offense impeachable.

"I want to make it clear to you," Biden said speaking at a campaign event in Davenport, Iowa in December 2007. "I've drafted, with the help of 17 years I was the chairman of the Judiciary Committee or the ranking member. Ladies and gentlemen, I drafted and outline of what I think the constitutional limits have on the president in over the war clause. I went to five leading scholars, constitutional scholars, and they drafted a treatise for me, and it's being distributed to every senator. And I want to make it clear and I made it clear to the president, if he takes this nation to war in Iran, without congressional approval — I will make it my business to impeach him."

Biden reiterated the claim in his "on the issues" page on his former campaign website saying the nation could only be taken to military action with the approval of congress expect to stop an "imminent attack" on the United States.

It is precisely because the consequences of war – intended or otherwise – can be so profound and complicated that our Founding Fathers vested in Congress, not the President, the power to initiate war, except to repel an imminent attack on the United States or its citizens. They reasoned that requiring the President to come to Congress first would slow things down… allow for more careful decision making before sending Americans to fight and die… and ensure broader public support.

The Founding Fathers were, as in most things, profoundly right. That's why I want to be very clear: if the President takes us to war with Iran without Congressional approval, I will call for his impeachment.

I do not say this lightly or to be provocative. I am dead serious. I have chaired the Senate Judiciary Committee. I still teach constitutional law. I've consulted with some of our leading constitutional scholars. The Constitution is clear. And so am I.

I'm saying this now to put the administration on notice and hopefully to deter the President from taking unilateral action in the last year of his administration. If war is warranted with a nation of 70 million people, it warrants coming to Congress and the American people first.

Then-Senator Obama likewise agreed with the assessment from Biden saying the President of the United States could only authorize an attack in the instance of "imminent threat" to the nation, responding to a question to a 2008 Boston Globe questionnaire on executive authority.

The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.

As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action.

As for the specific question about bombing suspected nuclear sites, I recently introduced S.J. Res. 23, which states in part that "any offensive military action taken by the United States against Iran must be explicitly authorized by Congress." The recent NIE tells us that Iran in 2003 halted its effort to design a nuclear weapon. While this does not mean that Iran is no longer a threat to the United States or its allies, it does give us time to conduct aggressive and principled personal diplomacy aimed at preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons.

The White House is currently weighing a response to Syria's use of chemical weapons.

Video of Biden's Iowa remarks have been embedded below:

youtube.com

Neocons and libertarians face off. “There are groups of Republicans that are comfortable with the executive branch unilaterally using our armed forces anywhere in the world. I’m not comfortable with that,” said Radel.

Via Associated Press

WASHINGTON — The rapidly-approaching conflict in Syria has begun to draw a deep rift between two sides of a Republican party that have long been drifting apart over foreign policy, pitting the hawkish holdovers of Bush-era neoconservatism against an ascendant libertarian wing that opposes humanitarian intervention.

As the Obama administration beats the war drum — calling the Assad regime's use of chemical weapons against its own citizens a "moral obscenity," and insisting intervention is the only acceptable response — Republicans are scattered all over the philosophical spectrum, without a clear set of talking points, let alone a unified worldview.

"There are groups of Republicans that are comfortable with the executive branch unilaterally using our armed forces anywhere in the world. I'm not comfortable with that, America is not comfortable with that," said Florida Rep. Trey Radel, a Tea Party Republican who said he was open to an attack on Syria but only if congress votes to approve it. "I guarantee you some of us younger conservatives would be just as apprehensive as we are today if this was George W. Bush. This goes beyond partisanship... We cannot be the police of the world and, because we have big bombs and big guns, solve the deep and profoundly complex problems of [Syria]."

Radel belongs to a growing tribe of libertarian-leaning Republicans that represent one pole of the intra-party debate; highly skeptical of military intervention unless U.S. national security is directly at risk. Led by Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul and jumpstarted in part by his anti-drone filibuster in March, the push toward a more dovish, isolationist foreign policy has made serious strides within the GOP this year, attracting high-profile figures like Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, who told Fox News Monday that the U.S. "doesn't exist to be a policeman for the world."

On the other end of the spectrum, old-guard neoconservative hawks like Arizona Sen. John McCain, South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, and New York Rep. Peter King are strongly supporting an intervention — and in some cases, urging the president to go much further than his administration has so far indicated it's willing to.

"I think the strategic plan should be to cause punishment to cause enough damage and then to give us a major role in terms of negotiations between the parties there. That would give us influence on the rebel side and we could minimize the impact of the al Qaeda supporters," King, the former chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, told BuzzFeed.

"I don't think the president has handled it that well over the last few years, but at the same time we are where we are and as Americans we should support him. We should not be talking about or insisting on congressional approval," King added. "If he wants to get approval from congress, he can, but he does not have to."

McCain and Graham issued a joint statement on Sunday, similarly calling for action.

"Now is the time for decisive actions. The United States must rally our friends and allies to take limited military actions in Syria that can change the balance of power on the ground and create conditions for a negotiated end to the conflict and an end to Assad's rule," they wrote.

The political debate over how and when to use military force has been a constant inside the GOP since George W. Bush's approval ratings were pulled below 30 percent by a war-weary populace tired of watching the body counts in Iraq and Afghanistan rise. But the likely Syria intervention comes at pivotal moment for a weakened party in which competing factions are actively fighting to show lead the way forward — and in which the power balance is still very much in flux.

What's more, the timing of the military action has made it so that many congressional Republicans are still up for grabs in the ideological battle over Syria. With Congress on recess, a portion of GOP members have used their distance from the DC press corps and party leadership to avoid taking a clear position on Syria altogether, opting instead to hang back and assess the party landscape before pledging allegiance to one side or the other.

Many of those members have echoed House Speaker John Boehner's hedging statement Monday, in which he declined to say where he stood on the subject of the intervention, but urged the president to consult congress before bombs start falling. Others have explicitly called for a vote on any military intervention Obama might pursue. Virginia Republican Scott Rigell spearheaded a letter Tuesday, so far signed by 33 Republicans and 6 Democrats, that asked the president to call congress back into session to vote on an authorization before the U.S. takes action.

Meanwhile, prominent conservative opinion-makers are demonstrating a similar lack of cohesion on the Syria issue.

Sean Hannity spent the opening hour of his radio show Tuesday twisting himself into various rhetorical gymnastics in order to simultaneously criticize Obama for being too weak, and for pursuing a military strike. He tentatively sided with the libertarians, but said there were still "more questions" to ask.

"I hate to say it, but it might just be time for the United States to get the hell out of the way and let two groups of bad people just kill each other, and provide as much humanitarian assistance as possible," Hannity said of the conflict in Syria.

Glenn Beck has devoted the week to questioning whether the U.S. really has the evidence it claims to have that Assad used chemical weapons, and warned that a military strike on Syria could prompt "World War III" (helpfully mapped out on a giant chalk-board map of the globe.)

And Rush Limbaugh, the most powerful conservative pundit in the country, openly confessed that he hadn't made up his mind on the issue. After tearing in to the president for failing to act when Syria first crossed "the red line," and deriding Democrats' foreign policy "hypocrisy," he arrived at the question of whether the U.S. should strike Syria.

"I mean, folks, that is a toughie," he said.

A. Philip Randolph led the planning for a March on Washington that was slated to take place on July 1, 1941. When President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed an executive order banning military contractors from discriminating on the basis of “race, creed, color, or national origin,” Randolph called off the march — but the power of a black march on Washington was now a reality.

A. Philip Randolph

Courstey of Histories of the National Mall / Via dev.omeka.org

WASHINGTON — When President Obama takes to the National Mall on Wednesday, he will likely invoke the moment made into history by Martin Luther King Jr. on August 28, 1963.

King, however, had taken cues from the example set by Bayard Rustin, who himself had taken cues from the leadership set by A. Philip Randolph among others. Rustin, who reached his 18th birthday two months after King turned one, had met Randolph a decade later — when Rustin was 29 and Randolph was 52. They represented three generations of leadership in the civil rights movement — with a common thread that finds its home in the powerful symbol of black Americans marching on Washington.

King's "I have a dream" speech, in fact, has its roots in a trip Randolph took to Savannah, Georgia, in December 1940 — when King was 11 and growing up in nearby Atlanta — and Randolph told a crowd in the Deep South city that his union, the Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters, would be "gathering 10,000 Negroes to march on Washington to demand jobs in the defense industry."

The move had caught people by surprise and shocked his southern audience, but Randolph had decided — following a September 1940 meeting with President Franklin D. Roosevelt that did not lead to any of the action the black leaders had sought from the president — that "calling on the President and holding those conferences are not going to get us anywhere."

The story of Randolph's decision that the call for the march would be necessary was detailed at length in Jervis Anderson's biography of Randolph. The decision also came less than two years after Marian Anderson, refused permission to sing to an integrated crowd in the Daughters of the American Revolution's Constitution Hall, performed an outdoors concert to 75,000 on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial on April 9, 1939.

On January 15, 1941, Randolph issued a statement to newspapers in which he "suggest[ed]" the march, stating, "Power and pressure are at the foundation of the march of social justice and reform. ... Power is the active principle only of the organized masses, the masses united for a definite purpose."

That purpose, Randolph explained, would be to secure equal rights for black Americans "in National Defense employment and the armed forces of the country."

By March, Randolph had reached out to Walter White of the NAACP and Lester Granger of the National Urban League as well. To White, he wrote, "I hope it may be convenient for you to join with me and a few other persons in the issuance of a call to the Negro people for such a march."

myloc.gov

As preparations continued, the march's planned attendance grew to 100,000. Randolph extended formal invitations to White House officials, including First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt, to address the marchers. Although the first lady had generally been supportive of racial equality efforts — more aggressively than her husband — she nonetheless responded by telling Randolph, "I feel very strongly that your group is making a very grave mistake at the present time to allow this march to take place. I am afraid it will set back the progress which is being made."

When Randolph did not budge, she made the argument in person — with New York City Mayor Fiorello La Guardia, another strong ally for civil rights, at her side — at New York City Hall on June 13, less than 20 days from the planned march. Walter White, from the NAACP, was in attendance as well.

In Randolph's account of the New York meeting, he wrote, "I told her I was sorry, but the march would not be called off unless the President issued an executive order banning discrimination in the defense industry."

As detailed by Roosevelt historian Kenneth S. Davis in his multi-volume history of FDR's presidency, White and Randolph refused to back down and "La Guardia recommended, and Eleanor concurred in the recommendation, that Roosevelt arrange an Oval Office conference in which the President" and other high-ranking officials would meet with the black leaders.

View Entire List ›

With less money and fewer members, antiwar groups struggle to effectively protest the imminent war in Syria.

Code Pink co-founder Jodie Evans at an Iraq War veterans march in 2008 in Denver.

Michael Francis McElroy/Zuma Press / MCT

WASHINGTON — On the eve of American military intervention in Syria, the once-robust antiwar movement has stayed curiously silent.

Activists who turned out thousands of protesters during the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq say they've been unable to effectively organize or raise money since the end of the Bush years, and that newer causes like drones have seized the space on the left once occupied by opposition to conventional warfare. And some acknowledge that the energy has leaked out of the movement because a Democrat is now in office. Though some groups have organized online petitions and some real-life protests, the antiwar crowd that was on fire before the war in Iraq has made hardly a dent in the conversation surrounding Syria.

"Well, the most incredibly depressing thing was that most of the groups that existed before don't exist anymore," said Medea Benjamin, the founder of Code Pink. "That's the number one problem, is that the antiwar movement is a shadow of its former self under the Bush years."

Benjamin pointed to groups like United for Peace and Justice, a Communist Party-connected group, as examples: "They're down to a couple of volunteers," she said.

Code Pink itself, despite being one of the most visible protest groups in the U.S. today, has felt the pinch.

"Even Code Pink, which had 300 local groups, just has a tiny portion still functioning," Benjamin said. "So when something like this happens, we don't have the infrastructure to rally people."

Some activists argue that it's mostly an issue of money and membership, and not an indication that the left supports Syria intervention.

"Among the long-standing peace and disarmament groups that we work with, everybody is angry and pissed about what seems to be an imminent attack," said Kevin Martin, the executive director of Peace Action. "Public opinion is not supporting it either. But you're not going to see hundreds of thousands of people in the street."

"I don't think me or Medea or anyone else should be defensive about that," Martin said. "We don't push a button and get hundreds of thousands of people in the streets."

Martin blamed the anemic response among peace groups to Syria on the economy, noting that all nonprofits are struggling — not just protest groups.

Plus, Martin said, the energy on the left has been focused on drones and civil liberties, which "doesn't rise to the level of an obviously unjust war where hundreds of thousands of people are being killed because of a belligerent president."

Though Benjamin and Martin both say the fact that Obama is a Democrat is not to blame, other antiwar stalwarts suspect the energy fizzled out when a Republican antagonist was no longer in office.

"The Democrats are missing in action because of course the president is a Democrat," said David Swanson, a longtime antiwar activist and author of War Is a Lie and When the World Outlawed War, who works with Roots Action, a progressive nonprofit. "That's the biggest factor, I think. What's tamping down the activism is partisanship."

"This started in 2007 when it was time to focus on electing a Democratic president and the Democrats forgot about the wars," Swanson said. "We've been struggling ever since to get back to where we were in 2006."

Swanson also blamed the apathy on the left on a belief that intervening in Syria is a humanitarian mission, whereas with Iraq the sales pitch was defense-related.

"The war in Syria is incredibly unpopular according to the polls, but there are some who support it because they believe it's philanthropy," he said.

Swanson sees hope for the antiwar cause in the fact that most Americans oppose intervening in Syria, according to polling.

"It's a major accomplishment to have a majority telling pollsters no from the start, not a year into it," he said.

There are glimmers of life: Code Pink is protesting the imminent attack in Syria during today's March on Washington, and Roots Action and other groups have marshaled online activists into signing petitions.

"Those of us still working on this have been mobilizing," Benjamin said. "The online protests are proliferating. There's petitions to Obama, there's calls for Congress to get involved — so many groups from Code Pink to Win Without War to Just Foreign Policy — all have put out calls saying no war in Syria."

But mostly, the movement has been left for dead even by those who were once leading figures in it.

"What antiwar movement?" former Congressman Dennis Kucinich asked when called for comment on Wednesday.

"What antiwar groups?" said Justin Raimondo, longtime editor of Antiwar.com.

In Raimondo's view, the movement hasn't exactly disappeared as much as been reborn among young libertarians who have taken up the mantle from the previous generation of baby-boomer leftist peace activists.

"The antiwar actions of the Bush years were basically energized by the extreme left, the Old Left Marxists," Raimondo said. "But they are getting on in years, and they aren't recruiting many young people (yet), so the various antiwar coalitions have far less components."

A historic day.

Via nytimes.com

Via newseum.org

View Entire List ›

Enter Cory Booker and his opponent for the U.S. Senate, Steve Lonegan.

Carolyn Kaster / AP

WASHINGTON — Cory Booker has no problem talking about people who think he's gay.

It's not a new issue, as rumors have circulated about Newark's mayor for years. For those who have followed him, either on the campaign trail for U.S. Senate or on Twitter, Booker took a familiar route in a recent Washington Post interview, responding not with an answer about his sexual orientation but with an answer about people's curiosity about it.

His comments were that he doesn't care what people think.

"And people who think I'm gay, some part of me thinks it's wonderful. Because I want to challenge people on their homophobia. I love seeing on Twitter when someone says I'm gay, and I say, 'So what does it matter if I am? So be it. I hope you are not voting for me because you are making the presumption that I'm straight.'"

Steve Lonegan, Booker's Republican challenger, was asked about the interview and Booker's use of the term "life partner" when describing his single status.

"It's kind of weird. As a guy, I personally like being a guy," he said.

vine.co

Lonegan went on, talking suggestively about Booker's previous comments about getting manicures and pedicures, but then saying he didn't know if Booker is gay.

Booker, on HuffPost Live on Wednesday, responded to the comments:

View Entire List ›

GOP leaders said their schedules were already booked when the invites came in, but they had marked the anniversary earlier in the summer.

Majority Leader Eric Cantor

Win McNamee / Getty Images

WASHINGTON — Republican congressional leaders were absent from Wednesday's 50th anniversary event commemorating the March on Washington.

The offices of Majority Leader Eric Cantor and House Speaker John Boehner both said they were invited to the event, but were unable to attend due to previous scheduling commitments.

Boehner participated in a July congressional ceremony in the Capitol to mark the anniversary, and Cantor participated in a pilgrimage earlier in the year to Selma, Alabama, with civil rights icon Rep. John Lewis. Cantor's office says they only received an invitation 12 days ago, and his calendar was already full.

"The leader hopes it's an outstanding event fitting of the incredible legacy of Dr. King and is honored to have had the ability to honor that legacy earlier this year in Selma, Alabama, with Congressman John Lewis," said Cantor spokesman Rory Cooper.

Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, according to a spokesman, "was not invited to speak at today's event. But he was proud to join the bipartisan leadership and speak at the congressional ceremony commemorating the anniversary."

McConnell noted in his speech in July that he watched the first march 50 years ago from the Capitol steps.

"It was electric, and for anyone who was privileged enough to be there, or in Congressman Lewis' case, to participate, you just knew: Your country would never be the same, and neither would you," McConnell said in July.

South Carolina Sen. Tim Scott, the only African-American Republican in currently Congress, was not invited to speak or attend according to his office.

Presidents George W. Bush and his father, George H.W. Bush, were also unable to attend the event, both citing health problems according to USA Today.

"Laura and I thank the King family and all who work to carry on the legacy of a great man and the promise of a great nation," the younger Bush said in a statement. "May we continue to march toward the day when the dignity and humanity of every person is respected."

On the 50th anniversary of the March on Washington, the president says a fairer economy “remains our great unfinished business.”

Jason Reed / Reuters

WASHINGTON — Fifty years after Martin Luther King Jr. delivered his "I Have a Dream" speech on the National Mall, President Obama traveled to the same spot to tell Americans much of King's dream remains unfulfilled.

Obama took a moment to recognize the sight of an African-American president standing at the spot where five decades earlier hundreds of thousands gathered to demand equality under the law. But most of his speech focused on economic equality, a passion of the president's since before he took office and one he is currently working hard to help make part of his legacy.

"The test was not and never has been whether the doors of opportunity are cracked a bit wider for a few," Obama said. "It's whether our economic system provides a fair shot for the many, for the black custodian and the white steel worker, the immigrant dishwasher and the Native American veteran."

This has been a favorite subject of Obama's over the past few years, and even more so over the past month, which he has devoted to speeches focusing on expanding and strengthening the middle class. But on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of King's speech, the president was perhaps his most impassioned on the topic, pointing to the lasting racial divide in unemployment and income. At the same time, he placed blame on the political system in part for keeping a key part of King's agenda from coming to reality.

"Then there were those elected officials who found it useful to practice the old politics of division, doing their best to convince middle class Americans of a great untruth, that government was somehow itself to blame for their growing economic insecurity," Obama said. "That distant bureaucrats were taking their hard-earned dollars to benefit the welfare cheat or the illegal immigrant."

Obama also said a remaining political divide from 50 years ago has kept the problem from being solved.

"Racial politics could cut both ways," he said, "as the transformative message of unity and brotherhood was drown out by the language of recrimination."

Obama said the country is now at a crossroads similar to the one it found itself at 50 years ago.

"The good news is just as was true in 1963. We now have a choice," he said.

"We can continue down our current path in which the gears of this great democracy grind to a halt and our children accept a life of lower expectations, where politics is a zero-sum game, where few do very well while struggling families of every race fight over a shrinking economic pie. That's one path," he said. "Or we can have the courage to change. The March on Washington teaches us that we are not trapped by the mistakes of history. We are masters of our fate."

Though the speech was mostly focused on Americans coming together to expand economic opportunity, Obama also called out Republican-led efforts to increase voting restrictions, which Obama said cut into the victories won by African-Americans in the 1960s. Obama said the fight for voting rights proves that the civil rights movement rolls on.

"To secure the gains this country has made requires constant vigilance, not complacency," Obama said. "Whether it's by challenging those who erect new barriers to the vote or ensuring that the scales of justice work equally for all and the criminal justice system is not simply a pipeline from underfunded schools to overcrowded jails. It requires vigilance."

The president tells PBS NewsHour he’s made “no decision,” but lays out his case for what a military strike against the Syrian regime would do. An assault could prevent them from being “directed at us,” he asserted.

WASHINGTON — President Obama is still weighing his options on Syria, but he told PBS NewsHour Wednesday that he's confident a limited set of military strikes would prevent future use of chemical weapons in the country and could possibly be an important step toward preventing Syrian chemical weapons from falling into the hands of terrorists who might use them against America.

"When you start talking about chemical weapons in a country that has the largest stockpile of chemical weapons in the world, where over time, their control over chemical weapons may erode, where they're allied to known terrorist organizations that, in the past, have targeted the United States, then there is a prospect, a possibility, in which chemical weapons that can have devastating effects could be directed at us," Obama said. "And we want to make sure that that does not happen."

Obama told PBS he's made "no decision" on Syria, but promised that if military action is taken it won't be "a repetition of, you know, Iraq, which I know a lot of people are worried about."

Instead, the president said limited strikes would essentially convince Syrian leaders not to use chemical weapons anymore.

"We send a shot across the bow saying, stop doing this, that can have a positive impact on our national security over the long term, and may have a positive impact on our national security over the long term and may have a positive impact in the sense that chemical weapons are not used again on innocent civilians," Obama said.

Obama said American strikes likely won't stop the civilian deaths in Syria, or the civil war raging in the country. But he said they might stop any further use of chemical weapons in the conflict.

"If in fact we make a choice to have repercussions for the use of chemical weapons, the the Assad regime which is involved in a civil war and is trying to protect itself will have received a pretty strong signal that in fact it better not do it again," Obama said. "That doesn't solve all the problems inside of Syria and it doesn't obviously end the deaths of innocent civilians inside of Syria, and we hope that ultimately a political transition can take place inside of Syria and we're prepared to work with anybody, the Russians and others, to try to bring the parties together to solve the conflict."

The president said U.S. strikes could be the smack on the hand that keeps chemical weapons off the battlefield, and that could protect allies.

"We've got allies bordering Syria. Turkey is a NATO ally, Jordan a close friend that we work with a lot. Israel is very close by. We've got bases throughout the region. We cannot see a breach of the nonproliferation norm that allows, potentially, chemical weapons to fall into the hands of all kinds of folks," he said. "So what I've said is that we have not yet made a decision, but the international norm against the use of chemical weapons needs to be kept in place."

Read the transcript of the interview here.

Satire or campaigning? The Onion has been one of the most consistent voices on Syria for months.

WASHINGTON — Though The Onion is a satirical newspaper, its Syria coverage in the past few months has been anything but: a series of articles have slammed President Barack Obama for his inaction on Syria, making The Onion a remarkably consistent voice for intervention on the left.

The Onion's content has begun to attract notice for its ideological consistency and frequency, while also puzzling those who view the publication as a lighthearted satire outlet (which it usually is). Most famously, it inspired the Syrian Electronic Army to hack it, putting it in the company of the New York Times and Twitter.

A few examples from recent months include "'Help Has To Be On The Way Now,' Thinks Syrian Man Currently Being Gassed"; "Obama Deeply Concerned After Syrians Gassed To Death On White House Lawn"; "'Syrians' Lives Are Worthless,' Obama Tells Daughters Before Kissing Them Goodnight"; "Obama Weighing His Syria Option"; "Nation Currently More Sympathetic To Demise Of Planet Krypton Than Plight Of Syria"; and "Hi, In The Past 2 Years, You Have Allowed Me To Kill 70,000 People," by "Bashar al-Assad."

Satire exists in part to lampoon and challenge popular opinion. But the sum total of The Onion's Syria content adds up to something resembling a serious issue campaign, though recent moves towards a bombing campaign in Syria on the part of the U.S. government appear to have shaken the publication's resolve. The Onion has published two stories critical of the plans this week. In one, "Experts Point To Long, Glorious History Of Successful U.S. Bombing Campaigns," mocks U.S. officials for suggesting that bombing Syria will produce the desired effect. In the latest Syria piece, "So, What's It Going To Be?", "Bashar al-Assad" explains to the U.S. that it has no good options. The piece, as some have pointed out on Twitter, makes little effort to be funny.

"If you don't do anything about it, thousands of Syrians are going to die," "Assad" writes. "If you do something about it, thousands of Syrians are going to die. Morally speaking, you're on the hook for those deaths no matter how you look at it."

"Any bombing campaign capable of being truly devastating to my regime would also end up killing a ton of innocent civilians, as such things always do, which I imagine is the kind of outcome you people would feel very guilty about," he continues.

The Onion's editor-in-chief, Will Tracy, said in an email to BuzzFeed that the paper has not staked out a position on what the U.S. should do in Syria.

"I wouldn't say we've staked out an editorial line so much as we've chosen to acknowledge two equally valid points of view at once," Tracy said. "Specifically, we want to support the rebels because of our own strong financial ties to the jihadist movement, but we also want to support Bashar al-Assad because he's been a close and dear friend of the paper for nearly two decades."

A cold welcome to Altius in Toledo. Documents show a difficult path for new, cheaper, colleges through a bureaucratic maze.

Flickr: keith_marshall_avery

View Entire List ›

Vice President Joe Biden, the administration’s point man on gun control, will unveil the new measures on Thursday.

Kevin Lamarque / Reuters

The White House announced Thursday two gun control executive actions: One to close a loophole that exists related to background checks and another to bar the reimportation of U.S. military weapons.

The executive orders, first announced by the Associated Press, come four months after a measure to expand background checks for gun buyers and other legislative efforts died in the Senate amid staunch opposition from the National Rifle Association and most Republican senators.

One new policy will end a government practice that lets military weapons, sold or donated by the U.S. to allies, be reimported into the U.S. by private entities, according to a fact-sheet released by the White House.

The other action requires individuals associated with trusts or corporations that acquire dangerous weapons to undergo background checks. Currently, the White House said, felons and others who would not be able to pass a background check can skirt the law by registering a gun to a corporation or trust and avoid a background check.

After the shootings last year in Newtown, Conn., President Obama took a number of executive actions to expand research into gun violence and other areas favored by the gun control community. He took the actions without congressional approval, leading to outrage by some conservatives.

"The President and Vice President remain committed to using all the tools in their power to make progress toward reducing gun violence," the White House said Thursday.

New Executive Actions to Reduce Gun Violence:

Today, the Obama administration announced two new common-sense executive actions to keep the most dangerous firearms out of the wrong hands and ban almost all re-imports of military surplus firearms to private entities. These executive actions build on the 23 executive actions that the Vice President recommended as part of the comprehensive gun violence reduction plan and the President unveiled on January 16, 2013.

Even as Congress fails to act on common-sense proposals, like expanding criminal background checks and making gun trafficking a federal crime, the President and Vice President remain committed to using all the tools in their power to make progress toward reducing gun violence.

Building on the 23 Executive Actions the President and Vice President Unveiled Last January
· Last December, the President asked the Vice President to develop a series of recommendations to reduce gun violence. On January 16, 2013, they released these proposals, including 23 executive actions. With the first Senate confirmation of an ATF Director on July 31, 2013, the Administration has completed or made significant progress on 22 of the 23 executive actions. The new executive actions unveiled today build on this successful effort.

Closing a Loophole to Keep Some of the Most Dangerous Guns Out of the Wrong Hands
· Current law places special restrictions on many of the most dangerous weapons, such as machine guns and short-barreled shotguns. These weapons must be registered, and in order to lawfully possess them, a prospective buyer must undergo a fingerprint-based background check.

· However, felons, domestic abusers, and others prohibited from having guns can easily evade the required background check and gain access to machine guns or other particularly dangerous weapons by registering the weapon to a trust or corporation. At present, when the weapon is registered to a trust or corporation, no background check is run. ATF reports that last year alone, it received more than 39,000 requests for transfers of these restricted firearms to trusts or corporations.

· Today, ATF is issuing a new proposed regulation to close this loophole. The proposed rule requires individuals associated with trusts or corporations that acquire these types of weapons to undergo background checks, just as these individuals would if the weapons were registered to them individually. By closing this loophole, the regulation will ensure that machine guns and other particularly dangerous weapons do not end up in the wrong hands.

Keeping Surplus Military Weapons Off Our Streets
· When the United States provides military firearms to its allies, either as direct commercial sales or through the foreign military sales or military assistance programs, those firearms may not be imported back into the United States without U.S. government approval. Since 2005, the U.S. Government has authorized requests to reimport more than 250,000 of these firearms.

· Today, the Administration is announcing a new policy of denying requests to bring military-grade firearms back into the United States to private entities, with only a few exceptions such as for museums. This new policy will help keep military-grade firearms off our streets.

View Entire List ›