Tough day on Twitter for conservative Texas Sen. Dan Patrick, who quickly deleted the tweet since he opposes marriage rights for same-sex couples.
Tucker Carlson became one of the few Fox News hosts to come out in favor of Arizona’s religious freedom legislation that would allow businesses and individuals refuse services to LGBT people.
TUCKER CARLSON: "Well, it's pretty simple. I mean, if you want to have a gay wedding, fine, go ahead. If I don't want to bake you a cake for your gay wedding, that's okay, too. Or should be. That's called tolerance. But when you try and force me to bake a cake for your gay wedding and threaten me with prison if I don't, that's called fascism."
LINK: Watch the full clip
The secretary of state said he hopes Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer will “make the right decision” and veto it the bill that opponents say will lead to anti-LGBT discrimination. The White House has yet to take a specific stance on the matter.
Pool New / Reuters / Reuters
Secretary of State John Kerry got out ahead of the White House Tuesday, saying that he thinks Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer should "make the right decision" and veto religious freedom legislation that opponents say would lead to discrimination against LGBT people.
The nation's top diplomat made the remarks during an interview with MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell, saying, "I cannot imagine how that law would withstand the scrutiny of the Supreme Court of the United States, so I would hope that [Brewer] would make the right decision."
The White House, however, has declined to take a specific position on the matter, with White House spokesman Josh Earnest saying Wednesday the White House doesn't weigh in on all of the proposed legislation in states, according to a pool report.
Earnest echoed a similar statement by press secretary Jay Carney on Tuesday.
"As a practice, we don't generally weigh in on every piece of legislation under consideration in the states," Carney said. "But I think the president's position on equality for LGBT Americans and opportunity for all is very well known and he believes that all of us, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity, should be treated fairly and equally with dignity and respect. And that view would govern our disposition toward a state law under consideration."
The bill's proponents say it would protect religious freedom in the state for individuals and businesses, but opponents say the law would open the door to widespread discrimination — particularly against the LGBT community.
The point of Arizona's law came as Mitchell questioned Kerry on the United States' ability to put pressure nations like Uganda, where lawmakers have enacted policies that would jail gays and lesbians for at least 14 years, if states here openly discriminate against LGBT people.
Speaking on progress for LGBT rights in the United states, Kerry said, "I think we've been through our own struggle, everybody knows that. This has not been an easy path in the United States." He went on to say the United States will "stand up" for peoples' rights anywhere in the world.
Brewer, after returning from Washington, D.C., Tuesday, said on Twitter she would "do the right thing."
Brewer has until Saturday to act on the legislation, which was passed in the state legislature last week. Amid the intensifying criticism of the bill, several politicians and business leaders have also called on her to reject the measure.
Watch the MSNBC interview here.
Updated — 3 p.m. ET
A public relations spokesman for the organization says the number is an estimate.
Via Facebook: teapartypatriots
The Tea Party Patriots will descend on Washington Thursday to celebrate the organization's fifth anniversary.
"Congressmen, activists, and tea party leadership from across the nation will gather to reflect on why the movement formed, the significant victories it has achieved, and the road ahead in a contentious 2014 as it comes under assault from both sides of the aisle," reads a press release for the event, which will feature Mark Levin, Louie Gohmert, and Michele Bachmann among others.
Most notably, the press release cites "3,400 locally organized chapters and more than 15 million supporters nationwide," which shows a drop in the number of participating groups as compared with previous events. Press releases from 2012 and 2011 cite 3,500 groups.
A Shirley & Banister Public Affairs spokesman who handles public relations for the Tea Party Patriots described the number of participating groups as an "estimate." He said the number was fluid and goes up and down, depending on if groups are "removed for inactivity."
“Highly doubt” even one Republican will sign on, a GOP leadership aide said in an email. Democrats need 19 Republicans to sign onto the discharge petition.
Yuri Gripas / Reuters / Reuters
WASHINGTON — House Democrats are pulling out a rarely used, and often unsuccessful, procedural maneuver to try to force a vote that probably won't pass.
Rep. Tim Bishop filed a discharge petition Wednesday morning, which if successful would force a vote to raise the minimum wage countrywide, regardless of the wishes of House leadership. Bishop said he saw several Democrats lining up to sign it, but didn't see any Republicans — and according to one GOP leadership aide, is unlikely to see any in the future.
"Highly doubt it," the aide told BuzzFeed in an email when asked if even one Republican would sign on.
Historically, discharge petitions have a dismal record of success, and this one isn't shaping up much differently.
"Given the CBO report, which projects the loss of 500,000 jobs, it may be tough to get Democrats to sign on," the aide said.
Republicans have used a recent report from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office to denounce a minimum wage hike as a job killer. The CBO's report said such a hike could eliminate about 500,000 jobs by 2016.
Democrats have worked to discredit that statistic, adding that it would also help lift millions of Americans out of poverty.
The petition will need 218 signatures — all of the Democrats in the House plus 19 Republicans — to pass.
If it succeeds, the discharge petition would force a vote on raising the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour for the entire country. The House proposal to raise the minimum wage already has 190 co-sponsors.
Raising the minimum wage has been a top priority for Democrats on the Hill and in the White House. Several weeks ago President Barack Obama signed an executive order raising the minimum wage for federal contract workers but has also called on Congress to raise it nationally.
Democrats first announced their plan to use the petition several weeks ago at their retreat in Cambridge, Md.
Bishop, who is facing a tough midterm election, said the petition isn't about politics but about the merits of the issue.
"I think we have to focus on doing things that are right," Bishop said. "And I think there's a pretty strong body of opinion that this is the right thing to do."
Bishop and Democratic leadership said at a press conference they were confident the entire caucus would sign on, but whether there are enough — or any — Republicans to sign the measure and force a vote is unclear.
"If it gets to the floor, the majority of the House will vote for it," Minority Whip Steny Hoyer told BuzzFeed Wednesday after the press conference.
When asked if there were Republicans that might sign up, Hoyer said, "I don't know the answer to that question."
Legal advocacy groups and big-name lawyers all want to be the ones who bring their case to the Supreme Court in order to argue for nationwide marriage equality.
Spencer Geiger (center) stands with Roger Roman (right), both of Virginia Beach, Va., with those in support of marriage equality as a hearing in Norfolk Federal Court on the constitutionality of the Virginia law takes place Tuesday, Feb. 4.
Adrin Snider/Newport News Daily Press / MCT
WASHINGTON — The fight to win marriage equality across the nation has in recent months become nearly as much a fight about which lawyers and organizations will get to be the ones making the arguments before the Supreme Court — and taking credit for a win.
Now, that fight is breaking out into the open.
On Wednesday, Lambda Legal and the ACLU, along with Jenner & Block partner Paul Smith, asked the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals to allow them to intervene in the ongoing appeal of the challenge to Virginia's ban on same-sex couples' marriages.
The case, which resulted in a win earlier this month for same-sex couples backed by the American Foundation for Equal Rights, and in which the couples are represented by Ted Olson and David Boies, is on appeal. Now, Lambda Legal, the ACLU and Smith want to join the appeal on behalf of the couples and class they represent in a second marriage challenge that is moving more slowly through a different federal trial court in Virginia.
As Lambda Legal and ACLU lawyers and Smith note in Wednesday's request to the 4th Circuit, "counsel for the [AFER-represented plaintiffs] indicated they do not consent" to their intervention.
Their request to intervene in the Bostic v. Schaefer case is just the latest in a series of tangles between the organizations and advocates who are fighting for marriage equality. BuzzFeed first described the behind-the-scenes fight in Virginia back in October 2013.
It's not only in Virginia, either. At the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, Roberta Kaplan from law firm Paul Weiss — who had successfully represented Edith Windsor in her challenge to the Defense of Marriage Act — sought unsuccessfully to intervene in the ongoing appeal there. The National Center for Lesbian Rights, however, was successful in joining the existing legal team from Utah in representing the couples on appeal.
The change from advocates over the past five years is dramatic.
As recently as early 2009, organizations like Lambda Legal, the ACLU and the National Center for Lesbian Rights balked when Chad Griffin asked them about going to federal court to make broad constitutional claims to fight California's Proposition 8.
Instead, Griffin enlisted the help of Olson and Boies and started the American Foundation for Equal Rights so they could file their own lawsuit. Olson and Boies had none of the qualms the established LGBT legal groups did about the argument, and they made their case for marriage equality in a media barnstorm across the nation.
By the time the Proposition 8 case ended on a technical ruling that returned marriage equality to California but prevented a national ruling about same-sex couples' marriage rights, Griffin had been made the head of the Human Rights Campaign and marriage equality was looking like a much more likely proposal — especially with the Supreme Court's ruling striking down DOMA's ban on federal recognition of same-sex couples' marriages.
Since then, it has been a race back to the Supreme Court. Earlier Wednesday, a federal judge in Texas declared that state's marriage amendment unconstitutional — sending that case to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals — while other appeals are pending in the 4th, 6th, 9th, and 10th Circuits as well.
“Whatever our righteous intentions, the world does not hold us blameless when civilians die.”
Jonathan Ernst / Reuters
WASHINGTON — Senator Elizabeth Warren gave her first major national security speech on Wednesday focused on warning against civilian casualties in American wars. But neither in her speech nor in a following question-and-answer session did she mention a marquee Obama administration policy that has resulted in many controversial civilian deaths: drone warfare.
"It is critical to consider the chaos and factionalization that can arise in the wake of military intervention," Warren told an auditorium at Georgetown University, "critical to evaluate the potential for military intervention to spark an insurgency or fuel a civil war, critical to consider the possibility that civilian casualties in one conflict could be used as a recruiting tool or rallying cry for extremists in other parts of the world."
"Unintended consequences can have a profound impact," she continued. "Whatever our righteous intentions, the world does not hold us blameless when civilians die."
Her speech, titled "Collateral Damage, National Interests, and the Lessons of a Decade of Conflict," marked the first time Warren — who is mostly known for her tough stances on big banks that have made her a darling of the progressive left — has seriously dipped a toe into the foreign policy and national security worlds.
Warren's speech argued that civilian casualties in warfare have helped to make the United States a target of extremists and called for reform in the military to prevent and to deal with the fallout from such casualties.
She called for "establishing training programs that directly address civilian casualties," improving "our efforts to track civilian casualties during any military engagement" and making that data publicly available, and instituting "best practices for what to do in the wake of civilian casualties."
Quoting David Petraeus, Warren said: "We must continue – indeed, redouble – our efforts to reduce the loss of innocent civilian life to an absolute minimum." Continuing the quote, she added: "Every Afghan civilian death diminishes our cause. If we use excessive force or operate contrary to our counterinsurgency principles, tactical victories may prove to be strategic setbacks."
While Warren's rhetoric against civilian casualties was strong, she avoided the topic of drones completely — an omission that seemed calculated to avoid a conflict with the White House over a signature policy.
In a question-and-answer session after the speech with Dr. Edward Montgomery, the dean of Georgetown's McCourt School of Public Policy, Warren avoided placing blame on the administration for civilian casualties. Montgomery asked her how much responsibility belongs to the president, how much to the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and how much to the commanders on the field.
"Our soldiers on the ground began to teach us the importance of paying close attention to civilian casualties in this very different kind of war that's very different from a war in which everyone wears uniforms and we meet on pitched battlefields," Warren said.
"The real point now is to take that lesson on up the chain of command," Warren said. "This has to be something in my view that has to be absorbed into the military and into our leadership. We need to have this as part of our national conversation. That's true for all of us, so I see this as a question of responsibility borne not just by those in the field, but responsibility borne by all of us."
After a nearly weeklong firestorm of pressure and criticism, Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer finally rejected religious freedom legislation that many said would lead to discrimination.
Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer announced Wednesday she has vetoed Senate Bill 1062, controversial religious freedom legislation that many critics said would have led to widespread discrimination, particularly against LGBT people.
"Senate Bill 1062 does not address a specific or present concern related to religious liberty in Arizona," Brewer said. "I have not heard of one example in Arizona where a business owner's religious liberty has been violated. After weighing all of the arguments, I have vetoed Senate Bill 1062 moments ago."
The legislation is broadly worded and could result in unintended and negative consequences, the Republican governor added.
Brewer's decision comes after days of protests and intense pressure from citizens, civil rights advocates, business leaders, and political figures, during which the governor offered little indication of how she would act on the measure before her Saturday deadline.
"To the supporters of the legislation, I want you to know that I understand that long-held norms about marriage and family are being challenged as never before," Brewer said. "Our society is undergoing many dramatic changes. However, I sincerely believe that Senate Bill 1062 has the potential to create more problems than it purports to solve. It could divide Arizona in ways we cannot even imagine and no one would ever want."
Republican proponents of the bill and other supporters pushed the bill in an effort to protect the religious freedom of individuals and businesses who wish to deny goods and services to anyone they'd like based on a sincerely held religious belief — actions that could be defended under the law in court if a "substantial burden" to the exercise of the religion is proved.
Opponents of the bill, ranging from Arizona citizens to business and government leaders, argued the vague language in the bill would ultimately lead to legal discrimination against people, especially the LGBT community, with some calling it a "license to discriminate." During the debate in the state House last week, Democratic Minority Leader Chad Campbell put it simply, "This is state-sanctioned discrimination towards the LGBT community. There is no doubt in my mind about that. None." By the same logic, critics have also said the law would allow people in businesses with one religious belief to deny services to people with a different religious belief, under the bill's broad language.
The bill's sponsors have repeatedly rejected those claims.
But the roar of fallout over the bill has been clear: Veto the bill. Major American corporations with significant business interests in Arizona like American Airlines, Delta Air Lines, Intel, Marriott International, Apple, JPMorgan Chase, and dozens of other businesses have put their economic clout behind rejecting the bill. Government leaders like Secretary of State John Kerry and both members of the state's delegation to the U.S. Senate, John McCain and Jeff Flake, said they hoped Brewer would choose to veto — along with former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. And even three Arizona state senators who voted for the bill last week — Bob Worsley, Adam Driggs, and Steve Pierce — changed their minds this week, three votes that could have failed the measure in the Senate, where it passed 17-13.
Additionally, on Wednesday the Hispanic National Bar Association announced it has pulled its 2015 convention from Arizona and denounced the bill as, "Laws that return us to a darker time in the nation's history simply cannot be tolerated." And with the 2015 Super Bowl slated for Feb. 1 in Arizona, the Super Bowl host committee there expressed concern over the legislation on Monday.
While some cities in Arizona have LGBT protections that could have been affected by the bill, there are no statewide laws in Arizona that protect citizens from anti-LGBT discrimination.
Opponents of SB 1062 quickly announced support of Brewer's action.
"Discrimination has no place in Arizona, or anywhere else," said Alessandra Soler, executive director of the ACLU of Arizona. "We're grateful that the governor has stopped this disgraceful law from taking effect, and that Arizona will remain open for business to everyone."
In line with the concerns expressed by corporations and business groups, Human Rights Campaign President Chad Griffin said vetoing the bill spared Arizona from "institutional discrimination and economic catastrophe."
"Make no mistake, there is no better way to doom jobs in a state than by signing license-to-discriminate bills," Griffin said in a statement. "The bipartisan outpouring of opposition to this bill is all the proof you need that this country isn't turning backwards. Governor Brewer did the right thing in stopping this assault on businesses and the LGBT community and we call on her and the legislature--and governors and legislators in other states--to resist any attempt to give license to discrimination."
And supporters of the bill, such as the Center for Arizona Policy, said its purpose was "distorted" by opponents.
"Today's veto of SB 1062 marks a sad day for Arizonans who cherish and understand religious liberty," the organization said. "SB 1062 passed the legislature for one reason only: to guarantee that all Arizonans would be free to live and work according to their faith."
Similar religious freedom bills have been introduced in a number of states in recent months, but Arizona's was the first state to pass and advance to the governor.
“What you see happening in Ukraine brings back those memories.”
AP Photo/Erik Schelzig
WASHINGTON — Sen. Bob Corker fears that the situation in Ukraine could devolve into a "replay" of the 2008 Russia–Georgia war and thinks the United States must do something that shows its military strength in the region as a message to Russia.
"I was the first U.S. official to fly to Tbilisi when Russia went into Georgia, and the first official to go up to Gori and witness the bombings and what Russia had done with their tanks and other artillery," Corker, the ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said in a breakfast meeting with reporters on Thursday. "What you see happening in Ukraine brings back those memories."
"I know there's been reports that Russia is actually printing up passports — if you remember, that's exactly what they did in Georgia," Corker said, referring to Russia's Duma's debating a plan to give passports to ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine.
"I continue to be concerned that we're going to see a replay of what we saw in Georgia because I think their interests there candidly are even more important to Russia than what's the case, certainly, in Georgia," Corker said.
The Russian military has been carrying out drills along its border with Ukraine, stoking fears that the Russians could be planning a military intervention. Tensions have risen in the country's pro-Russian east since the flight of former President Viktor Yanukovych from Kiev.
"The question will be, can the West act quickly enough but also responsibly to deal with the financial issues that exist there?" Corker said.
"And in the interim can we make those proclamations, statements — can we show strength in the region to try to deter Russia from doing other things that are either soft partitioning of the country or, candidly, doing something more aggressive militarily?" Corker said.
Corker said that a staffer of his had proposed a display of U.S. military strength in the region to send a message to Russia — "some new strategic relationship with Poland, or doing something that shows, and I'm talking about militarily, doing something that shows that we have strong interests in the region, that we stand by the region."
Corker criticized the administration for dealing with the Ukraine crisis "as with so many other foreign policy crises, it seems like we're dealing with events ad hoc, as they move along."
“Critically important” step, advocates say, that will make D.C.’s insurance coverage “the most comprehensive in the country” for transgender people.
Washington, D.C., Mayor Vincent Gray participates in a rally calling for comprehensive immigration reform on the Washington Mall, Oct. 8, 2013.
Jason Reed / Reuters
WASHINGTON — Insurance plans regulated by the D.C. government must cover transgender health care expenses, including gender reassignment surgery, D.C. Mayor Vincent Gray announced Thursday.
"This action places the District at the forefront of advancing the rights of transgender individuals," Gray said in a statement. "It also fully implements the District's Human Rights Act by incorporating gender identity and expression as protected classes in the District's health insurance laws."
The National Center for Transgender Equality praised the move, announcing that the decision created "the most comprehensive [insurance] plans for transgender Americans in the United States."
In a revised bulletin issued Thursday from the D.C. Department of Insurance, Securities, and Banking, it notes that D.C.'s Unfair Insurance Trade Practices Act "prohibits discrimination in health insurance based on gender identity or expression." Specifically, the bulletin concludes:
[I]t is the position of the Department that treatment for gender dysphoria, including gender reassignment surgeries, is a covered benefit, and individuals diagnosed with gender dysphoria are entitled to receive medically necessary benefits and services under individual and group health insurance policies covering medical and hospital expenses.
Further, it states that the government "would view attempts by companies to limit or deny medically necessary treatments for gender dysphoria, including gender reassignment surgeries, to be discriminatory," and therefore, prohibited under D.C. law.
Andy Bowen, NCTE's policy associate, said in a statement, "This victory reaffirms growing agreement among advocates and the medical community that DC's healthcare nondiscrimination laws require that insurance cover medically necessary transgender healthcare."
Although California, Colorado, Connecticut, Oregon, and Vermont have provided some insurance-related protections, advocates are pointing to D.C.'s move as the most comprehensive.
Andrew Cray, a policy analyst at the Center for American Progress's LGBT Research and Communications Project, said in a statement, "This policy will make D.C.'s healthcare programs and insurance coverage the most comprehensive in the country for the full scope of health care that transgender people need throughout their lives."
Bowen noted that the move will be used by advocates pushing for similar coverage elsewhere. "Critically important is that as more states follow the District's lead, we'll be better able to educate the medical community about respectfully and comprehensively meeting our healthcare needs. And that sets us up for more wins like this in other states," she said.
“Something… something that may not fit with that office, correct?”
BILL O'REILLY: "There haven't been that many strong women leaders throughout history. But when you're president of the United States you have to deal with people like Putin, you have got to deal with the real ornery Mullahs in Iran. Look, the Mullahs in Iran, they think women are like subspecies."
Watch the full clip below:
Yes, this happened.
The state has requested a stay of the order.
WASHINGTON — U.S. District Court Judge John Heyburn ordered Kentucky officials to recognize same-sex couples' marriages performed out of state, an order that followed his Feb. 12 opinion in the case.
Kentucky's Constitution and laws that ban recognition of such marriages, Heyburn wrote, "violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, and they are void and unenforceable."
Although state officials earlier Thursday sought a stay of his order pending any appeal, none was issued in Heyburn's order, though a response could follow.
Additionally, Heyburn on Thursday granted a request to allow additional couples seeking full marriage rights — as opposed to recognition of marriages conducted elsewhere — to intervene in the case.
Heyburn set a schedule for the briefing on that issue Thursday as well:
After another culture war defeat in Arizona, young Evangelicals are trying to rally believers behind a new issue: human trafficking. “I would say among my peers, modern-day slavery is a whole lot more tangible to them than religious liberty.”
Passion Conference, where more than 40,000 Christian college students rallied around stopping human trafficking.
Courtesy of Passion Conferences
On Jan. 2, 2012, more than 40,000 Christian college students gathered at the Georgia Dome in Atlanta for a four-day "spiritual awakening" led by the well-known Evangelical pastor Louie Giglio. The conference was studded with worship rock anthems and energized sermons designed to marshall the faithful — but the cause they were rallying around had nothing to do with same-sex marriage or abortion. Instead, the sons and daughters of Jerry Falwell's "Moral Majority" were raising money and organizing grassroots campaigns aimed at ending global human trafficking.
The event received only marginal press coverage, but the White House took notice. A few weeks later, senior Obama adviser David Plouffe sat down in the White House with Joshua Dubois and Michael Wear, the president's ambassadors to America's believers. Plouffe had seen data that suggested young Evangelical voters were up for grabs in the upcoming election, and he wanted to know how the president could appeal to that demographic, according to someone with direct knowledge of the meeting. They discussed a range of tactics, and at the end of the meeting Plouffe asked which single issue could make the biggest difference in courting young Christians.
"Human trafficking," Wear responded.
On the heels of another bruising blow to the religious right's political agenda — with conservative Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer vetoing a bill Wednesday night aimed at protecting religious business owners who don't want to provide services for same-sex weddings — many young Evangelicals, conflicted about the culture wars of the past, are working to make the issue of trafficking a top priority for their movement. And politicians on both sides of the aisle, eager to win their support while steering clear of polarizing social issues, are beginning to respond.
Since the 2012 conference, where students reportedly donated more than $3 million to the anti-trafficking cause, churches and campus Christian groups across the country have joined the "End It" movement, an awareness campaign armed with alarming statistics like a 2013 State Department estimate that 27 million people are currently enslaved throughout the world. Among activists there's no one definition of human trafficking — the commonly cited State Department statistic includes both people enslaved in the sex trade and in forced labor. In addition to spreading the word — Christians throughout the world, including Tennessee Republican Sen. Bob Corker, drew a red "X" on their hands Thursday for "Shine A Light On Slavery Day" — advocates are calling for more aggressive government action, and pressuring corporate hotel chains and airlines to train their employees to recognize trafficking victims.
Leith Anderson, president of the National Association of Evangelicals and longtime spiritual adviser to Tim Pawlenty, said trafficking has migrated from a niche concern among liberally-minded "social justice Christians" to an increasingly prevalent platform plank for Evangelicals across the political spectrum. And while the nonpartisan nature of the cause has largely kept the cable news bookers at bay, Anderson predicted it could become the defining issue of politically active Evangelicals in years and decades to come.
"I'm not sure it's to the forefront yet," Anderson said. "I don't think it's anywhere near peaking."
As the issue has gone mainstream in conservative Christianity, politicians have begun working it into their speeches and legislative agendas. Shortly after his aides discussed it in early 2012, Obama gave a shout-out to anti-trafficking efforts at the National Prayer Breakfast, praising young Christians who "worship the God who sets the captives free and work to end modern slavery." And just weeks before the election, at the Clinton Global Initiative, Obama spoke at length about the issue, in remarks that one adviser called "the longest speech on slavery of any president since Abraham Lincoln."
Meanwhile, stalwarts of the religious right like Rick Santorum and Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback have prominently featured the issue in public remarks. Florida Sen. Marco Rubio introduced a bill with Democratic Sen. Kay Hagan in December meant to combat human trafficking in U.S. child welfare systems. Asked about Rubio's involvement in the issue, spokesman Alex Conant cited the senator's religious beliefs.
"Obviously, Sen. Rubio is a person of faith, and this is an issue that both he and his wife care a lot about," said Conant.
For a rising generation of idealistic Christian voters who are drawn to theologically-tinged activism but repelled by their parents' culture wars, human trafficking represents an obvious target.
Rebecca Harper, a 25-year-old Evangelical and associate at the Christian public relations firm the Clapham Group, watched the recent battle in Arizona warily. She said she's sympathetic to Christians' marriage-related concerns, but argued that trafficking is much more deserving of her attention and energies.
"I would absolutely say modern-day slavery is more important than the marriage issue," Harper said. "It's a difference between the most basic of freedoms and something that often feels petty. When the marriage issue is debated on the public scene, regardless of your theological beliefs surrounding the issue, it doesn't carry the same urgency as modern-day slavery."
She added that the movement's goal of putting a permanent end to global human trafficking is easier for young Evangelicals to get behind than defending bakeries that don't want to supply cakes for same-sex weddings.
"I would say among my peers, modern-day slavery is a whole lot more tangible to them than religious liberty," she said. "It's a whole lot easier to understand how taking away someone's physical and mental freedoms harms someone. It's a very clear and obvious injustice."
But not all conservative Christians are willing to surrender traditional culture war battles in favor of less controversial issues. Hogan Gidley, who has worked as a spokesman for both Santorum and Mike Huckabee, said Christians won't let candidates off the hook on same-sex marriage or abortion just because they talk up anti-trafficking efforts in their speeches.
"For the true Evangelical, human trafficking will never be the new marriage," Gidley said. "And some politicians are going to try to use it as a smokescreen to not have to answer tough questions about marriage or life. They're reading the tea leaves on marriage, and they're trying to replace it with issues like trafficking and hoping no one will notice. And my point is, that won't work. Evangelicals are going to recognize that in a heartbeat."
Nancy Pelosi and other members of Congress had expressed their concern over the loan to World Bank President Jim Yong Kim.
Gary Cameron / Reuters / Reuters
WASHINGTON — The World Bank has indefinitely delayed a decision on a $90 million health care loan to Uganda that was slated to be approved on Friday in response to the country's enactment of anti-gay legislation.
"We have postponed the project for further review to ensure that the development objectives would not be adversely affected by the enactment of this new law," a Bank spokesperson told BuzzFeed Thursday.
Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) called World Bank President Jim Yong Kim on Wednesday to express her concern with Uganda's new Anti-Homosexuality Bill, her spokesman said.
"Yesterday, Leader Pelosi spoke with President Kim to express the concerns of Members of Congress about the legislation enacted in Uganda," Pelosi's spokesman, Drew Hammill, told BuzzFeed in an email. "While we appreciate the difficult decisions President Kim has to make and their impact on the lives of many in the developing world, many Members believe that such a blatant act of discrimination should not go unnoticed."
Former Massachusetts Rep. Barney Frank and other Democratic members of Congress expressed concern about the loan to Kim as well.
Kim sent an email to Bank employees on Thursday afternoon condemning discrimination against gay people and lesbians. Though focused on the safety of personnel in countries with anti-gay laws, it included some of the strongest language to date from Bank leadership that homophobia is of concern to the institution, which is charged with economic development.
"These acts of discrimination against a group of people because of their sexual orientation cannot be tolerated," Kim wrote, noting that 83 countries criminalize homosexuality. "They are against our staff principles that call for treating everyone with fairness, impartiality, and respect."
Any form of "institutionalized discrimination is bad for people and for societies," he continued, adding: "And as we know well in this institution, widespread discrimination is also bad for economies."
This statement is significant because the Bank's large constituency from countries that oppose LGBT rights has made it complicated for a World Bank president to take a firm stand on this issue, said former Massachusetts Congressman Barney Frank, who also spoke with Kim this week about Uganda grant.
"I have no doubt that [Kim] is personally appalled by [Uganda's Anti-Homosexuality Law], but he's got a lot of countries to deal with," Frank told BuzzFeed. "There's a lot of sensitivity in the lot of the African countries. Same old, 'Don't interfere, you western nations.'"
Frank said he told Kim it could hurt support for the Bank among the U.S. and other major financing countries if "the Bank goes ahead and gives all this money to Uganda right after signing that terrible law." Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni signed the bill, which imposes up to a life prison sentence for homosexuality and criminalizes LGBT rights advocacy, on Monday.
The decision to delay the loan sends a powerful statement as many donor nations to Uganda and Nigeria debate how to handle healthcare funding in response to the new anti-gay laws. Uganda's bill, enacted on Monday, would impose up to a lifetime sentence for homosexuality, and Nigeria's legislation, enacted in January, has already sparked mob attacks on LGBT people. This is especially challenging to the United States, one of the largest donors to Uganda which appropriated $316 million to combat HIV in Uganda in FY 2013.
By delaying this grant, said Jennifer Kates, the Kaiser Family Foundation's vice president of global health and HIV policy, the World Bank is "sending the message that when countries are passing laws and policies that are harming people, that is going against the core values of the international community."
The World Bank Group
Washington, D.C. 20433
U.S.A
JIM YONG KIM
President 02/27/2014
12:35:11 PM
To: All Bank Group Staff
Subject: My position on discrimination and ensuring safety of our staffDear colleagues,
In light of recent news of legislation and of violence against gays and lesbians around the world, I want to send a strong message to all of you about discrimination and the safety of our staff.
These acts of discrimination against a group of people because of their sexual orientation cannot be tolerated. They are against our staff principles that call for treating everyone with fairness, impartiality, and respect.
We should also be mindful that these instances of discrimination are not isolated occurrences: 83 countries in the world outlaw homosexuality; more than 100 countries discriminate against women; and even more countries have laws that discriminate against minority groups.
Institutionalized discrimination is bad for people and for societies. And as we know well in this institution, widespread discrimination is also bad for economies.
On staff safety, we have already started to address this issue. Let me reiterate that we are doing -- and will continue to do -- our utmost to make sure that all staff, regardless of sexual orientation, are safe.
In the coming months, we will have a broad discussion about discrimination with staff, management, and our Board on these issues. Now is the right moment for this conversation.
Jim
Five years after storming the national political stage, the Tea Party finds itself in the same ideological doldrums that killed off the social movements of the ’60s and ’80s.
AP Photo/Charles Dharapak, File
WASHINGTON — Several hundred die-hard Tea Party activists Thursday found themselves sandwiched between a much larger convention of chiropractors and the annual fly-in lobbying convention of the National Treasury Employees Union.
Held at a Washington Hyatt, the fifth anniversary event for the Tea Party Patriots was a far cry from the halcyon days of 2009 when tens of thousands of conservatives descended on Washington for a Tea Party rally.
Big names from the movement's birth like Rep. Michele Bachmann and Rep. Steve King — as well as three senators — shared the bill with obscure bloggers and businessmen hawking books, websites, even insurance brokerage services.
"I'm doing a film on the U.S. constitution. It's unlike anything you've ever seen. It's going to educate, it's going to entertain," one attendee told conservative radio icon Mark Levin in the hall outside the dimly lit event space.
But more than sheer numbers was missing from Thursday's event: The day lacked either a single leader or issue to rally around. While Obamacare may have birthed the movement, it no longer motivates the Tea Party, if Thursday's lineup was any evidence.
David Webb, a black conservative talk show host, urged the gathered activists to remake the movement in the image of Frederick Douglass. Bachmann used her off the cuff speech to hit everything from the rise of China to the budget. Bachmann, who will retire at the end of this year, even warned the movement to not "take your marbles and go home" simply because of their 2012 electoral defeat.
Rep. Steve King, one of the early adopters of the Tea Party mantle, took a more philosophical approach, arguing the movement is about securing the fundamentals of Western culture like "liberty" and "free markets."
"We are anchored in western civilization, which is what these things are anchored in," he told the activists to applause.
Rep. Raul Labrador played up his roots as Puerto Rican Mormon and his unlikely rise to power in Idaho. Only Sen. Ted Cruz spent much time talking about Obamacare, and even then it was woven into his largely standard stump speech about his "optimism" for the 2014 election.
There were divisions in the crowd, too. "I get so frustrated talking to the neocons, I need a fucking shot of Jameson," said attendee Dylan Stephenson, a libertarian, before ordering a shot and beer during the lunch break.
Levin and others insisted the movement isn't dying.
"I don't think it's a problem at all. I think the problem is with government. Congress has 13 percent approval, Obama's got 39 percent approval, the media generally … are plummeting. I think there is a bubbling up out there of the population disgusted with the ruling class and all of its cheerleaders," Levin told reporters.
"I can tell from my own show, from the callers and the responses we get, people are pretty fired up," Levin added. "The Tea Party has been subject to relentless attack from the ruling class. Democrats, Republicans, Harry Reid, Boehner, the media, so forth and so on. If they were so ineffective and impotent my guess is they'd be ignored."
Rep. Matt Salmon said, "I think the ideals that the Tea Party stand for are alive and well, and I feel that more and more Americans are starting to feel it. I've seen polling numbers nation-wide where large numbers, astoundingly large numbers, of people say 'I affiliate my ideology with the Tea Party.' So I think in the next election both in the House and the Senate you're going to see the Tea Party have a huge influence."
Indeed, the only thread that ran through the day was the idea that the Tea Party can still wield power in the next election. At one point a Tea Party Patriots official took the stage to announce the group had raised more than $1.1 million over the last 10 days, announcing, "Let's show those establishment people and the permanent political class we mean business and we don't need their money, 'cause we gots our own!"
"We have a real chance to take the gavel from [Senate Majority Leader] Harry Reid's hand this year," Bachmann said, warning conservatives to remain active.
Bachmann's calls for the gavel of Harry Reid got polite applause, but the biggest cheers — and the fact that Republicans should be most concerned about — came when Rep. Tim Huelskamp called for the forcible end to Speaker John Boehner's leadership.
"Washington is threatened by what they cannot control. And Washington is threatened by freedom loving Americans … Isn't it high time we retired John Boehner's speakership?" the conservative firebrand said to thunderous applause.
Another message — this one from Sen. Rand Paul — was received much differently.
"There are times when people use language they shouldn't use," he said to a suddenly silent room.
"We can disagree with the president without calling him names … I don't call him names and I'm polite to him when I see him," he continued to activists wearing t-shirts and buttons that did just that.
Majority Leader Harry Reid caused a stir attacking the Koch Brothers on Senate Floor this week, but that’s probably on purpose. “There’s no downside to any elected official in this country attacking the Koch brothers,” said a Democratic strategist.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.
Jonathan Ernst / Reuters / Reuters
When Majority Leader Harry Reid went to the Senate floor this week to blast the Koch brothers and Americans For Prosperity, calling the personal stories in their anti-Obamacare ads largely untrue, the Republican response was swift.
"An apology is in order," said Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson in a statement. South Dakota Republican John Thune, too, called for an apology.
No one should be holding their breath: Democrats see attacks on the Koch brothers and any of their affiliates as one of the most effective messaging tactics they have heading into to the midterm elections. Reid didn't just say the ads were untrue; he called the Kochs "un-American" and accused the billionaire brothers of trying to buy elections.
With the Democratic majority in the Senate on the line and vulnerable House Democrats fretting over Obamacare's troubles, get ready to hear candidates and committees invoke the Koch name at every opportunity.
"There's no downside to any elected official in this country attacking the Koch brothers. None, zero, zip," said Jim Manley, a former Reid aide and Democratic strategist. "You always need a foil, and it's taken a while for Democrats to get to this, but they are as good as any a foil given their efforts to buy elections left and right in this country."
One AFP ad featuring a Michigan woman with leukemia, who strongly criticizes Obamacare and says the law "jeopardized her health," has served as a particular flashpoint between the two parties. Politifact has called it " misleading and, at best, lacking critical context." In response, Republicans have claimed the majority leader was essentially attacking the cancer patient.
Despite opening himself up to that criticism, few in the Democratic campaign world see a downside in Reid painting the Kochs as electoral villains.
Democrats involved in House and Senate races told BuzzFeed that internal polling shows high disapproval for the Koch name among the Democratic base and independent voters — even as AFP's brutal anti-Obamacare ads blitz vulnerable candidates.
"They are a rallying cry for the Democratic base heading into the midterm election and a touchstone for independent voters who are looking at who is funding you as a reflection of where you are standing on the issues," another Democratic strategist said.
Mark Holden, a senior vice president and general counsel for Koch Industries, said as much in comments to Politico Playbook Friday — though he argued part of the reason is that AFP's ads "are having an impact."
"Using the Kochs' name is part of the Democratic playbook: They use pejorative language and demonize us," he said. "We saw it in '10, we saw it in '12, and now we're seeing it again. Whether Sen. Reid likes it or not, Charles and David Koch have First Amendment rights. We believe in tolerance and civility and respect, and would appreciate some of the same from Sen. Reid and his colleagues. The [Americans for Prosperity] ads are having an impact, which is why the Democrats are reacting the way they are. A lot of the Democrats use it for fundraising — stir up their base. It's also to intimidate those who disagree with the administration. They see what happens, and it squelches political dissent. That's why you see the proposed new IRS regulations for 501©(4)s — that's part of it, as well."
AFP sees the Democratic attack on the Kochs as a tired argument and one they will not ultimately win.
"They know they cannot defend this law, and no one on the left that has to face the voters wants to defend this law," said AFP President Tim Philips. "If you can't defend it, you have to attack and build up a bogeyman. They are making a calculated political decision, it's wrong and dishonest."
AFP has already poured tens of millions of dollars into races across the country and is showing no signs that they will let up. And practically every time a new ad goes up, the message in response from Democrats is the same: The special interests and the Kochs are imposing their will. To wit, when AFP announced a $1.4 million ad buy in North Carolina against Sen. Kay Hagan, Hagan's campaign spokeswoman told Politico the Kochs were trying to "buy a Senate seat because they know Kay will always choose the best interests of North Carolina over their special interest agenda"
Democrats are also looking at past races as a reason to stay on message when it comes to the Kochs. Justin Barasky, a spokesman for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, worked on the 2012 campaign of Sen. Sherrod Brown in Ohio where AFP spent millions boosting Brown's opponent Josh Mandel.
"Having that much money against your candidate by special interest groups makes things more challenging but it allowed us to contrast the agendas of the two candidates," Barasky said. "They knew Sherrod Brown would never go along with their agenda and Josh Mandel would. Every time an ad went up, it allowed us to say they know Josh will do their bidding in the Senate."
Carl DeMaio is a former San Diego city councilman who is running for Congress in California’s 52nd congressional district. He is challenging Democratic Rep. Scott Peters.
Via instagram.com
Via facebook.com
The president and vice president go for a run as part of First Lady Michelle Obama’s “Let’s Move” campaign.
“Power,” the first lady responded when asked by Extra . She was appearing on the show to promote her Let’s Move initiative to fight obesity.
"We’re going to see where the kids are, because by that time Malia will be in college, if you can believe that, and Sasha will be in her sophomore year in high school. We're going to let her make the choice and see where she’s most comfortable, because they've made the sacrifices for us to be here already. We’re going to play it by ear.”
