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

Top 2016 Republican Fundraisers To Push For Immigration "Action"

0
0

Mitt Romney’s sought-after fundraising architect, and some of the GOP’s wealthiest donors, will make their immigration pitch on a media call next week, according to a release provided to BuzzFeed News.

Mary Altaffer / AP

Leading figures in Republican fundraising will hold a teleconference next week calling for an overhaul to U.S. immigration policy — a move that could put pressure on GOP presidential hopefuls as they head toward 2016.

The Tuesday call, which will be moderated by longtime conservative immigration advocate Grover Norquist, will include Mitt Romney's former finance director Spencer Zwick; California-based fast food CEO Andrew Puzder; and billionaire health care executive Mike Fernandez.

Fernandez, who contributed at least $1 million to help elect Mitt Romney in 2012 and helped raise many millions more, has said he is leaning toward supporting Jeb Bush in the upcoming election. But Puzder, who helped fund Carly Fiorina's 2010 Senate campaign, so far appears up for grabs in the early race for Republican money; and Zwick, who led Romney's 2012 fundraising efforts, has not yet aligned himself with any of the prospective candidates who are courting him.

The call serves as the latest illustration of tension between GOP donors — whose business interests and personal ideology often lead them to support more lenient immigration measures — and conservative activists, who generally oppose such policies.

The teleconference will be hosted by the Partnership for a New American Economy, which boasts a bi-partisan collection of co-chairs including Rupert Murdoch, Michael Bloomberg, Bill Marriott, and Julian Castro.


Despite Report, The Army Hasn't Yet Changed Transgender Service Policy

0
0

USA Today initially reported Monday afternoon on an Army “decision” to make it harder to discharge transgender service members. After the Army would not confirm the news and advocates questioned the report, USA Today corrected the story on Monday evening.

AP Photo/Visar Kryeziu

WASHINGTON — After questions were raised about a Monday afternoon report declaring a change in Army policy for transgender service members, USA Today backtracked on the report — now reporting only that a change is being considered.

"We have nothing for you on this issue," Army spokeswoman Alayne Conway told BuzzFeed News early Monday evening, asked throughout the afternoon about the early afternoon report in USA Today that the "decision to discharge transgender soldiers from the Army now has to be made by a top, senior civilian official."

At 7:28 p.m., more than five hours after its initial report was published, USA Today backtracked, saying that the Army is only "consider[ing]" the move, and changing its characterization of a document it had obtained from an "undated memorandum" to a "draft."

Sources familiar with the effort told BuzzFeed News they have been aware that such a policy shift has been under consideration. Currently, all service branches have regulations and policies that ban transgender people from serving openly. Under current Army policies — not federal law, as was the case with out lesbian, gay, and bisexual service — transgender people are considered "administratively unfit" for service.

Under the proposed change, as detailed in the document obtained by USA Today and described by sources familiar with the effort, the authority to discharge trans service members in the Army would be raised to the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Manpower and Reserve Affairs). Currently, commanders in the field can initiate and finalize discharges of service members who are transgender.

Allyson Robinson, the policy director at SPARTA, an LGBT service members and veterans organization, characterized the document relied on by USA Today in its report as "unpublished draft" and urged caution.

"Jumping to conclusions based on early, unpublished drafts has the potential to jeopardize any positive adjustments to policy that might be under consideration," she told BuzzFeed News. "I wish it were true to say policy change had occurred. Unfortunately, in military personnel policy, there is no such thing as an 'unpublished change.'"

Further still, she added: "Until the Pentagon publishes updates to the governing regulations, there is no actionable change, and transgender service members are still at risk."

As recently as Monday evening, sources tell BuzzFeed News that the document — an All-Army Activity, or ALARACT, notice to commanders in the field — had not been published to those commanders.

"A USA Today reporter gave us the ... memo on Friday," the Palm Center's Aaron Belkin told BuzzFeed News, referring to it later as an "undated ALARACT."

The ACLU's Joshua Block, also quoted in the USA Today report, confirmed that he was provided the undated document on Feb. 13 as well. Block, who noted that the ACLU has been advocating on behalf of individual service members regarding transgender service, had no further information about the status of the document.

The document, if published, would echo actions taken while the Defense Department reviewed the "don't ask, don't tell" law in 2010. In March 2010, then-Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced that he was raising the level of the officer authorized to start separation proceedings under the law to a general or flag officer in the service member's chain of command. Later, in October 2010, the level was raised even higher, to allow discharges only to be approved by the secretaries of the service branches — in consultation with top Pentagon officials.

Advocates have been pushing for policy action or a review on trans service since before "don't ask, don't tell" even came to an end, and pressure is expected to heat up as the new defense secretary, Ash Carter, takes the helm. A report that Eric Fanning, currently the undersecretary of the Air Force, is expected to be named Carter's chief of staff added to those expectations.

Fanning, an out gay man, was one of the first military officials to express support for ending the policy banning out transgender service. Since then, Air Force Secretary Deborah Lee James, also announced support for a review of the policy.

Pentagon spokesman Nate Christensen confirmed to BuzzFeed News that the Defense Department has undertaken a "routine, periodic review of the Department's medical accession policy," the medical standards for joining the military, "earlier this month." The news was first noted in the USA Today report.

"There is no specific review of the Department's transgender policy on-going," however, Christensen explained — saying that this is a review of the medical policy more broadly. "We routinely review our policies to make sure they are accurate, up-to-date and reflect any necessary changes since the Department's last policy review. The last review of this [medical policy] was conducted in 2011. The current periodic review is expected to take between 12-18 months; it is not a specific review of the Department's transgender policy."

Personnel and Readiness officials are conducting the review, Christensen said.

The "draft" document shared by USA Today with advocates and researchers on Feb. 13:

The "draft" document shared by USA Today with advocates and researchers on Feb. 13:


View Entire List ›

Axelrod: No "Major Scandal" In Six Years Proves Obama Administration's Ethics

0
0

“I’m proud of the fact that basically you have had an administration in this place for six years in which there hasn’t been a major scandal. And I think that says a lot about the ethical strictures of this administration.”

youtube.com

David Axelrod, a former senior adviser to President Obama, says he's proud of the fact "there hasn't been a major scandal" during the administration's six years in office.

Axelrod was responding to a question from the audience about the so-called Washington revolving door between lobbyists and the White House during a discussion of his recent book at the University of Chicago Institute of Politics.

"I don't think that's true," Axelrod said to a questioner, specifically citing Mark Leibovich's book This Town on officials in the Obama administration entering the revolving door after Obama had promised to discourage such practices in his 2008 presidential campaign.

"I think that in the administration itself and the White House, I don't think that's true. I mean there are exceptions, there have been a few exceptions but the rule has basically been that there has been a ban on the revolving door and these two year strictures against such revolving door."

In his 2013 book, This Town, Leibovich writes about the president's 2008 promise and the debate which ensued over keeping lobbyists out the administration. Beside listing what he calls "unholy triplet" of three Obama officials heading to the private sector (Geoff Morrell to BP, Peter Orszag to Citigroup, and Jake Siewert to Goldman Sachs), he notes a new "stubborn truth" of Obama's Washington.

"One of the stubborn truths of Obama-era Washington is that everyone is now, in effect, a special interest, a free agent, performing any number of services, in any number of settings. It goes well beyond the technical classification of "registered lobbyists." Self-pimping has become the prevailing social and business imperative.

Axelrod added that the absence of a major a scandal in six years was proof of the Obama administration's ethics.

"And I'm proud of the fact that basically you have had an administration in this place for six years in which there hasn't been a major scandal. And I think that says a lot about the ethical strictures of this administration."

Axelrod said his inability to take other clients when he left the White House in 2011 to help with the president's re-election campaign proves the strict policies against the revolving door the Obama administration had in place.

"I know when I left there were some pretty strict strictures about who I could--I
didn't take any other clients but the re-election campaign when I left in 2011 because if I had, I could not have initiated a call to anyone in the White House," said Axelrod. "If I had a client who had any interests before the administration. That didn't exist before. You know, has it been pristine, has there been any sort of shadying anywhere, I can't say that is the case, that it's been pristine. But has it been lightyears better than it has before? Absolutely. "

DHS Will Not Accept Applications For Deportation Deferment Program After Court Ruling

0
0

The Department of Homeland Security has suspended plans to begin accepting deportation deferment requests on Wednesday, Feb. 18.

Department of Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson.

Joshua Roberts / Reuters

The Department of Homeland Security will comply with a temporary injunction issued by a federal judge in Texas that halts the implementation of President Obama's executive actions that would shield more than 4 million undocumented immigrants from deportation.

Federal judge Andrew Hanen from the Southern District of Texas issued the injunction on Monday. DHS originally planned to begin accepting deportation deferment requests Wednesday, Feb. 18, but has suspended those plans.

"I strongly disagree with Judge Hanen's decision to temporarily enjoin implementation of Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA) and expanded Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA)," DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson said in a statement. "The Department of Justice will appeal that temporary injunction; in the meantime, we recognize we must comply with it."

"Accordingly, the Department of Homeland Security will not begin accepting requests for the expansion of DACA tomorrow, Feb. 18, as originally planned. Until further notice, we will also suspend the plan to accept requests for DAPA."

Eric Holder: I Don't Worry Too Much About Terminology Debate On Islamic Extremism

0
0

“I think that people need to actually think about that and think about really, are we having this conversation about words as opposed to what our actions ought to be?”

Pool / Reuters

WASHINGTON — Attorney General Eric Holder Tuesday dismissed conservative critics of the Obama administration who have accused the president of downplaying the religious leanings of violent extremists.

"We spend more time, more time talking about what do you call it as opposed to what do you do about it," Holder said. "If Fox didn't talk about this, they would have nothing else to talk about, it would seem to me. 'Radical Islam,' 'Islamic extremism,' you know, I'm not sure an awful lot is gained by saying that."

Conservatives have criticized the administration for, they say, shying away from mentioning Islam when talking about recent terrorist attacks. President Obama has said those labels alienate the vast majority of Muslims who share in the horror at terrorism and dismiss the self-proclaimed religious motivation of groups like ISIS.

Speaking at the National Press Club, Holder dismissed the debate itself as a sideshow.

"It doesn't have any impact on our military posture. It doesn't have any impact on what we call it on the policies that we put in place," he said. "What we have to do is defined not by the terms that we use, but by the facts on the ground. So I don't worry an awful lot about what the appropriate terminology ought to be. I think that people need to actually think about that and think about really, are we having this conversation about words as opposed to what our actions ought to be?"

Holder said fighting terrorism is a "difficult problem" and an "ongoing issue," but the words used to describe terrorists, he said, have no bearing in it.

"The terminology, has, it seems to me, little or no impact on what ultimately we have to do," Holder said.

GOP Congressman: Atlanta Fire Chief's Ouster Over Anti-LGBT Comments Exactly Like What Soviet Union Did

0
0

“And what we’re seeing now is the government being used as an arm, an enforcer to force people to act and think in a certain way. This is exactly what the Soviet Union did.”

w.soundcloud.com

Republican Rep. Barry Loudermilk of Georgia said the firing of an Atlanta fire chief after he wrote a book condemning "homosexuality" and "lesbianism" as "sexual perversion" morally equivalent to "bestiality" and "pederasty" is just like what happened in the Soviet Union.

"This whole idea we have in the nation today is once you're elected then you have to give up all of your personal beliefs and that it isn't the case," Loudermilk said on Family Research Council's Washington Watch radio program Monday. "We're here to represent a government and to ensure that the government exists to protect those rights of conscience."

Loudermilk said now the government was being used as "an enforcer," forcing people to think a certain way.

"And what we're seeing now is the government being used as an arm, an enforcer to force people to act and think in a certain way. This is exactly what the Soviet Union did. The irony of this right now is there are many elements of the church which have more liberties in Russia today than they do in America."

Atlanta Fire Chief Kelvin Cochran was fired over his book, Who Told You That You Were Naked, after the city of Atlanta said "his judgment and management skills" came into question. Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed said, "Cochran's personal religious beliefs are not the issue," with the city saying he distributed the material to some fire department employees.

Cochran recently filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, accusing the city of violating Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Acts when they fired him, claiming he was terminated for his religious beliefs.

Earlier, Loudermilk said people "have to stand up" for people like Cochran, saying if they don't it would lead to more people like him being removed from government.

"We have got to stand up for people like Chief Cochran. We need to stand up for their rights. The people need to be voicing their opposition to what's going on or what you're going to see happen is a purging of anyone like Chief Cochran who doesn't find that box that the far-left has created saying this is how we want people to look, act, and think. You'll start seeing more and more of these people removed from government and that influence at a decision-making level will be removed. And so that is the danger we are facing in the short term to anyone who doesn't think exactly the way that certain elements think we ought to think, or act..."

Loudermilk added that Cochran and people like him were being fired for "reflecting or stating the same beliefs that our founding fathers stated."

Obama Administration Shying Away From Full Ban On Combat Gear For Local Cops

0
0

Public statements from top officials indicate the White House will keep sending military hardware designed for the battlefield to local police forces after Ferguson.

Gary Cameron / Reuters

WASHINGTON — In the end, the Obama administration believes cops need their armored personnel carriers.

The final chapter of the post-Ferguson debate about federal programs that put combat military hardware in the hands of local law enforcement likely came Tuesday, when Attorney General Eric Holder told a lunch crowd at the National Press Club that military hardware is a necessary part of the police force, especially in the big cities.

"If you're in New York City and you have to deal with a terrorist incident, I think that some of the military equipment that has been made available to state and local authorities, in fact, can be useful," he said. "Now, again, it depends on the kind of equipment. Abrams tanks I don't think should be shared with our state and local counterparts. It's hard for me to imagine a situation in which that would be useful. But armored carriers and things of that nature I think can be useful if deployed in appropriate ways."

Holder said pretty clearly what Obama administration officials have been more careful about in public statements for months now: The White House is not embracing legislative efforts launched by libertarian Republicans and liberal Democrats to end so-called "police militarization" programs outright. Instead the administration will push a series of smaller changes to the programs aimed at changing the way local police are given surplus combat hardware from the Pentagon or helped to purchase it by federal grant programs run out of the Department of Homeland Security.

Militarization will still be a main focus of the Obama administration's post-Ferguson policing efforts, but the changes proposed will likely fall far short of the Commander-In-Chief-ordered end to the Pentagon program anti-militarization advocates hoped for last August. The administration plan shaping up as the president's 21st Century Policing Task Force deliberates is for strict new training and data collection requirements for police who use military equipment.

Those are changes long-sought by anti-militarization activists, who say police often turn to combat equipment and weapons without understanding their danger. There's been very little in the way of official centralized data collection on the use of military equipment by local police, leading advocates like the ACLU to compile it themselves from meticulous examination of local and state police reports. A June 2014 ACLU report found raids featuring military hardware were disproportionately carried out in minority communities. Mandated data collection, advocates say, will provide invaluable insight into how federal police militarization programs work and could provide fuel for further regulation of them.

There was hope among some advocates that the White House would go farther, however. That faded in the months after Ferguson when a promised White House review of militarization programs resulted in some small changes to how military surplus weapons are sent to police forces but not much else. (The administration declined to comment for this story on the record.)

That was followed by a series of administration statements that supported equipping local cops with combat hardware. In November, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest pointed to the police response to the Boston Marathon bombing as evidence that combat gear was needed by local cops (it was something of an apocryphal tale). In January, Philadelphia Police Commissioner Charles Ramsey — appointed by Obama to lead the federal task force examining police-community relations — forcefully defended combat-equipped police at a gathering of mayors in Washington.

"If you have a situation like we had in Paris, you don't want a cop to show up with a flashlight and a baton," Ramsey said. "The term 'militarizing the police' sounds so bad, but to take away equipment just because someone thinks it looks military-like is a problem."

Ramsey also called for police to be "clear about under what circumstances should the equipment be deployed and guidelines about how to deploy it properly in those cases."

Holder offered a similar take Tuesday.

"Then the question is, what kind of training do they have? What kind of training do they have with regard to how it should be deployed? When should it be deployed?" he said. "I think... that the deployment of at least some of that military hardware in Ferguson exacerbated what was a pretty difficult situation."

Holder said more mundane details — like how military vehicles deployed by police look — were worth looking at, too.

"I think there are even some fundamental things about how do these things get painted? What do they look like? If it looks like the military is, in fact, occupying American streets during civil disturbances, that I think is not a good thing for the American people or for the world necessarily to see. So there are a number of questions I think that have to be worked through," Holder said. "So I wouldn't really disagree with Chuck Ramsey from Philadelphia. I think there is the need for it, but we just need to use, deploy this equipment in a way better than we have in the past."

Eric Holder Endorses Death Penalty Moratorium As Some States Halt Executions Over Drugs

0
0

The attorney general suggested a nationwide hold on executions pending a Supreme Court review of Oklahoma’s lethal injection protocol. Alabama, Florida, Ohio, and Tennessee have halted executions recently over drug issues, and activists called for Oregon’s outgoing governor to take action on the issue as well.

Attorney General Eric Holder said on Tuesday that a death penalty moratorium would be "appropriate" until a Supreme Court review of Oklahoma's lethal injection procedure is finished.

Attorney General Eric Holder said on Tuesday that a death penalty moratorium would be "appropriate" until a Supreme Court review of Oklahoma's lethal injection procedure is finished.

Attorney General Eric Holder speaks at the National Press Club in Washington on Tuesday, Feb. 17.

Manuel Balce Ceneta / AP Photo

Holder, "speaking personally" at an event at the National Press Club, said, "Fundamental questions about the death penalty need to be asked. And among them, the Supreme Court's determination as to whether or not lethal injection is consistent with our Constitution is one that ought to occur. From my perspective, I think a moratorium until the Supreme Court made that determination would be appropriate."

Last month, the court ordered Oklahoma to postpone its executions until a legal challenge involving the use of a contested sedative in the lethal injection process is resolved.

Holder's comments come at a time when other states are facing challenges from death row inmates on the constitutionality of execution protocols.

Holder's comments come at a time when other states are facing challenges from death row inmates on the constitutionality of execution protocols.

Oklahoma's newly renovated death chamber at the Oklahoma State Penitentiary in McAlester.

Sue Ogrocki / AP Photo, File

Two days before his Feb. 19 execution, Alabama inmate Tommy Arthur — who filed a lawsuit challenging the state's lethal injection protocol — was granted a temporary stay by the U.S. District Court.

The Florida Supreme Court stayed the Feb. 26 execution of Jerry Correll pending the Supreme Court's ruling in the Oklahoma case.

Other executions in Ohio and Tennessee scheduled for February were also stayed due to legal challenges over the states' lethal injection procedures.

In Oregon, anti–death penalty advocates and lawmakers urged the outgoing governor, John Kitzhaber, to commute all 34 death sentences in the state before his resignation effective at 10 a.m. PT Wednesday.

Announcing his resignation, Kitzhaber said, "I am proud that Oregon has not invoked the death penalty during my last four years on the watch," but the former governor maintained silence on the issue.

On Feb. 13, Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Wolf announced a moratorium on the death penalty in the state that would remain in effect until his review of a forthcoming report on capital punishment.


View Entire List ›


Ron Paul: U.S. Didn't Really Want To Catch Bin Laden Because They Needed An Excuse To Invade The Middle East

0
0

“Ya know, they knew where Bin Laden was. I don’t think they really wanted to catch him because he was used as the excuse for us, you know, invading various countries and building up the military.”

Mark Makela / Reuters

Former Republican presidential candidate and congressman Ron Paul says he doesn't believe the United States government wanted to catch Osama Bin Laden because they needed him as an excuse to build up the military and invade Middle Eastern countries.

"Matter of fact, can't you just see the difference that might have occurred. Ya know, they knew where Bin Laden was. I don't think they really wanted to catch him because he was used as the excuse for us, you know, invading various countries and building up the military," Paul said on Scott Horton's radio program.

Paul was discussing his September 11 Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001 in the context of the debate over the Authorization for the Use of Military Force against Islamic State. Paul's letter of marque and reprisal would have authorized a small private force to capture Osama Bin Laden for the United States.

"So if you had a private force that was going to be paid to go over and get him because they had pretty good knowledge of where he was and taking care of him early on, just think of the benefits that would have come from a very, very narrowed approach to you know, going after those people that were participating in 9/11."

Here's the audio:

w.soundcloud.com

GOP Congressman: President Obama And Iranian Regime Are "Unusually The Same" In Their Lawlessness

0
0

“Something is unusually the same with this President and the regime in Iran: the lack of rule of law.”

Arizona Republican Rep. Paul Gosar says the Iranian government and President Obama are "unusually the same" in their lawlessness.

"Something is unusually the same with this President and the regime in Iran: the lack of rule of law," Gosar told the Iranian American Community of Arizona at a speech last week during their February symposium on "countering Islamic fundamentalist nuclear-armed Iran."

"I wish I had a better scenario with this president, but think about it, fast and furious, Benghazi, IRS, the AP reporters, James Rosen. I'll keep taking my shoes and socks off to show you how sore my feet from plugging the dykes of all the holes in the dam. It goes on and on and on. This president has said that he's going to fundamentally transform this country. He's doing it."

Here's the video:

View Video ›

buzzfeed-video1.s3.amazonaws.com

Jeb Bush Makes Vague First Foray Into Foreign Policy

0
0

His prescription: Hit ISIS, arm the Ukrainians, keep NSA surveillance, chuck the original justification for getting into Iraq in 2003. Broad strokes, but few details.

Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush listens to a question during an appearance at The Chicago Council on Global Affairs in Chicago, Illinois, February 18, 2015.

Jim Young / Reuters

CHICAGO — "I am my own man," Jeb Bush declared on Wednesday, making a conscious effort to create the appearance of distance between his and his brother's foreign policy.

But in his first major foreign policy-related address as a likely presidential candidate, Bush was vague on many of the topics of the day, and appeared to generally embrace the foreign policy legacies of George W. Bush and George H.W Bush's presidencies, while offering clues as to how he'll stack up against other Republican primary candidates on these issues.

In a question-and-answer session after his speech to the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, Bush criticized some aspects of the Iraq War, pointing out that claims that Saddam Hussein's regime had weapons of mass destruction "turned out not to be accurate" and that "not creating an environment of security after taking out Hussein was a mistake." But he praised the surge, calling it "one of the most heroic acts of courage politically that any president's done" and "hugely successful."

Bush read his address from notes on the podium in front of him and raced through his speech so fast that there were no pauses for the mostly silent audience at the Fairmont Hotel to applaud, though he loosened up and seemed more comfortable during the question-and-answer session. He acknowledged up front that the legacy of his brother and father's tenure as president is something he'll have to contend with as a candidate.

"Just for the record, I love my brother, love my dad, and love my mother as well, if that's okay," Bush said. "I'm my own man and views are shaped by my own thinking and my own experiences."

But Bush stayed vague on some of the most pressing foreign policy issues of the day, and proposed few actual policy changes. He flubbed the number of ISIS fighters, saying in his speech that it was more than 200,000. (A Bush spokesperson told BuzzFeed News that he "misspoke" and "meant more than 20,000"). The CIA estimated in September that the real number of ISIS fighters is between 20,000 and 31,500. On ISIS in general, Bush had no real policy proposals, saying simply that the U.S. needs to "take them out."

"It's violent extreme Islamic terrorism," Bush said "The more we try to ignore that reality the less likely it is that we'll develop appropriate strategy to garner the support of the Muslim world, to like I said, tighten the noose and take them out."

He didn't seem totally firm on aspects of Russia policy, at one point praising Obama for a "forward lean" in the Baltics, then saying he wasn't sure if it had been implemented but was "assuming that it has been implemented." Bush criticized the Obama administration for not yet providing defensive weapons to the Ukrainians, calling the hesitation "feckless," and also expressed skepticism of the "reset" with Russia — a point on which, as a presidential candidate, he could attack Hillary Clinton, who was secretary of state during the attempted reset.

Bush seemed more comfortable when talking about Latin America, where he has personal experience; Bush holds a degree in Latin American studies, he resides in South Florida, and he and his wife lived in Venezuela for a while when he was a Texas Commerce Bank official. He also seemed more comfortable when he could talk about domestic policy, which he did frequently, even during the supposedly foreign policy-focused speech.

Although Bush is already behaving like the presumptive general election candidate, parts of his speech on Wednesday gave clues to how he'll stack up on foreign policy against the emerging Republican presidential field in the primaries next year. Bush appears to be defining himself to the right of potential candidates like Sen. Rand Paul, embracing a broadly interventionist view of U.S. foreign policy. On issues like Cuba, Bush was critical of the Obama administration's move to open relations with the country, sounding like potential rival Sen. Marco Rubio.

America's influence "has been a benefit to the world," Bush said, criticizing the Obama administration for being "inconsistent and indecisive."

Bush came out in favor of National Security Agency surveillance, saying "for the life of me I don't understand" why people have a problem with NSA metadata collection, and that the "debate has gotten off track." He called it a "hugely important program." This represents another area in which Bush is pitting himself against Paul.

And in Bush's choice of advisers, too, he seems to be hewing relatively closely to the legacy of his brother. Reuters obtained a list of some 20 people who will be providing foreign policy advice in some capacity to Bush; the list includes key George W. Bush administration figures like Stephen Hadley and Paul Wolfowitz.

The Growing Effort To Protect LGBT People From Discrimination Under The Civil Rights Act Of 1964

0
0

After decades of failed attempts to pass LGBT job protections through Congress, change could be coming instead through the historic civil rights law. A new memorandum from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission obtained by BuzzFeed News lays out the case.

Diana Smithson, left, and Jacqueline Cote faced $100,000 in health care costs because Wal-Mart refused health insurance coverage for same-sex spouses until recently.

Courtesy of Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders

WASHINGTON — Federal agency action and court decisions could bring about something that advocates have been unable to achieve legislatively: federal LGBT job protections.

Efforts to protect transgender people under existing sex discrimination bans have been percolating — and, for the most part, successful — since 2011. But moves by a key executive agency over the past six months demonstrate a renewed focus on the previously unsuccessful effort to provide protections to gay, lesbian, and bisexual people under the same laws.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and LGBT advocates have begun taking action and pressing their case, respectively, to encourage courts to take an expansive view of existing bans on sex discrimination to include discrimination against people based on both gender identity and sexual orientation.

The EEOC has, thorough its actions, informally taken the lead on the issue. In a comprehensive field memorandum issued Feb. 3 and obtained by BuzzFeed News, the agency argues that LGBT job protections should be — and within the agency, already are — available under current law.

Further still, the agency directs field offices to "alert" the main office "when they encounter [cases] with the potential for policy development," signifying an interest in strong enforcement of this interpretation. Specifically, the memo mentions the EEOC's interest in "claims related to discriminatory policies; insurance issues including benefits for same-sex couples or transgender individuals; access to facilities based on gender identity" and other questions about coverage of sexual orientation and gender identity under Title VII.

Multiple EEOC officials declined requests to discuss the memorandum on the record, and an EEOC Office of Communication and Legislative Affairs official who did respond to the request told BuzzFeed News she was unfamiliar with the field memo.

There is increasing support for the idea that the ban on sex discrimination in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 should be held to include transgender people even outside the EEOC. The Justice Department backed that interpretation of Title VII in December 2014 — with Attorney General Eric Holder calling it "the best reading" of the law. In January, the department filed a "statement of interest" in a case brought by a transgender woman who is suing Saks department store, asserting that she should be allowed to bring a lawsuit claiming anti-transgender discrimination under Title VII.

The argument that sexual orientation should be covered under Title VII's sex discrimination ban, however, is more of an uphill battle — particularly due to some early court rulings that held explicitly that sexual orientation discrimination is not protected by Title VII.

But those early rulings have been undermined by cases since then allowing sex-stereotyping claims under Title VII and barring same-sex sexual harassment — not to mention gay rights cases — and Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders executive director Janson Wu told BuzzFeed News that now is the time to expand the way the law is interpreted.

"Decades ago, the courts made a wrong turn when they separated out sexual orientation from sex discrimination protections. And we are trying to right that wrong," he said Tuesday. "When you are discriminating against somebody because of who they love or because of the sex of who they love, then you are discriminating against them on the basis of sex. You can't separate out those two things."

On Jan. 29, the EEOC agreed, issuing a "probable cause" notice in a claim GLAD brought on behalf of Jacqueline Cote, a Wal-Mart employee, and her wife, Diana Smithson. Cote was denied health insurance coverage for Smithson, who has been diagnosed with ovarian cancer.

"The aim of our lawsuit, first and foremost, is to achieve justice for Jackie and Dee, who have been wronged by Wal-Mart," Wu said. "They racked up over $100,000 in medical expenses because of Wal-Mart's discrimination." GLAD will seek conciliation of the claim now within the EEOC, but Wu said they are prepared to take the case to federal court in Massachusetts if that step fails. The LGBT legal group also has a second similar case pending in federal court in Connecticut.

He added, though, a larger goal: "Second, we absolutely believe it is right, legally, that discrimination against gay and lesbian people is illegal under sex discrimination prohibitions under Title VII," he said. "And it could not be clearer in this case, where, if Jackie was a man, she would have gotten those benefits. Period."

The EEOC has been a driving force behind this change, with part of its "strategic enforcement plan" adopted in 2012 specifically focused on LGBT protections.

In April 2012, the EEOC issued a decision asserting that Title VII's sex discrimination ban included a ban on discriminating against transgender people. That case, brought by Mia Macy, has been the basis for much of the movement in support of the transgender coverage effort — including the EEOC's first direct litigation, filed in September 2014, on the issue. Although most LGBT groups were loathe to discuss the issue publicly when serious efforts to pass legislation in the form of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act were afoot, many have spoken up more directly in recent months.

In August 2014, the EEOC acted again, issuing a decision that the sex discrimination ban often can include protections for people who are discriminated against because of their sexual orientation as well — a small, but significant, step toward sexual-orientation inclusion under Title VII.

"I think the EEOC is definitely mapping out a more robust way of thinking about these claims. Just like for discrimination against trans people, you can view it as a type of sex stereotype or you could view it, per se, as a form of taking gender into account," the ACLU's Joshua Block told BuzzFeed News.

The EEOC decisions are important because they are binding for federal employees' claims and are taken into account by courts considering similar claims, but also because they stand as the view of the EEOC within the agency's field offices across the country — where private discrimination claims are taken and investigated.

In a five-page memorandum issued on Feb. 3 and distributed to field offices across the country, the EEOC has moved forward on that final front. The memo — written by the director of the EEOC's Office of Field Programs, Nicholas Inzeo — directs field offices across the country that people alleging both gender-identity-based and sexual-orientation-based discrimination have a right to file a complaint with the commission, which is to be investigated as a claim of sex discrimination under Title VII.

In addition to laying out the case made over recent years by the EEOC regarding transgender coverage under Title VII and a recent federal district court decision allowing a sexual orientation-based Title VII claim to proceed, Enzeo details at length a little-noted case that signals the EEOC's path forward on the sexual orientation coverage issue.

When a three-judge panel of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals decided in September 2014 that Warnether Muhammad could not bring a case against Caterpillar for sexual-orientation-based discrimination under Title VII or a related retaliation claim because, as the court put it by relying on earlier decisions of the 7th Circuit, such discrimination "is not prohibited conduct under Title VII," the EEOC and several LGBT groups quietly leapt into action.

Days after the decision, the ACLU of Illinois contacted Muhammad's lawyer, letting him know that they wanted to support a request that the 7th Circuit reconsider Muhammad's appeal. Specifically, they were concerned by the language in the decision that closed off the possibility of sexual-orientation-based discrimination being covered by the sex discrimination ban in Title VII.

On Oct. 9, 2014, the ACLU of Illinois was joined by the national ACLU, the Human Rights Campaign, Lambda Legal, and the Transgender Law Center in filing an amici curiae — or friends of the court — brief in Muhammad's case, asking the court to remove the portions of the decision that "casually reaffirm[ed]" decisions that are more than a decade old "without fresh analysis," including the recent EEOC decisions.

Block, who worked on the brief for the ACLU, explained that many of the earlier cases finding that Title VII did not include sexual-orientation-based claims "were decided before Lawrence [v. Texas]," the Supreme Court case striking down sodomy laws, "and I think the idea that Title VII could ever be used to protect sexual orientation discrimination, I think seemed so unimaginable to many judges that they just couldn't interpret the statute that way — regardless of what [the Supreme Court] said" about sex stereotyping being impermissible.

In addition to the LGBT organizations, the EEOC itself filed its own amicus brief, stating that "an increasing number of courts (as well as the Commission) have recognized that intentional discrimination based on an individual's sexual orientation can be proved to be grounded in sex-based norms, preferences, expectations, or stereotypes" since the 7th Circuit first considered the question "over thirty years ago." In addition to its own rulings, the EEOC pointed to a March 2014 decision by a federal district court judge in D.C. that "'plaintiff's status as a homosexual' — without more — plausibly suggested the discrimination was based on gender stereotypes, and thus states a Title VII sex-discrimination claim."

A week later, on Oct. 16, 2014, the three-judge panel amended its ruling, deleting the language stating that sexual-orientation-based discrimination could not form the basis for a sex discrimination claim under Title VII.

Remarkably, none of the LGBT organizations involved in the 7th Circuit case issued news releases about the successful effort — nor did the EEOC. Since then, the EEOC has included discussion of the effort in its summaries of LGBT involvement, but it issued no news release regarding the filing of the amicus brief or when the amended decision was released.

Block said the silence on the development was simply because "it just seemed a little bit too technical of a law reform to go out with a press release," adding, "[W]e didn't actually change the law in the 7th Circuit and we didn't actually get a different result for this person. It just avoided needlessly reaffirming old law." HRC and Lambda Legal officials echoed Block's explanation for the lack of publicity on the brief and result.

In its field memo, the EEOC makes clear that its aim is more than protection of cases where someone is "viewed as insufficiently masculine or feminine by others based on the person's dress or manners" — an argument firmly established in case law as covered by Title VII.

Rather, EEOC's Enzeo wrote that the agency's argument in the Muhammad filing was that "intentional discrimination based on an individual's sexual orientation can be proved to be grounded in sex-based norms [because they] can include the expectation that men should be sexually attracted to women and that women should be sexually attracted to men."

Such an interpretation would, in most cases, mean that sexual-orientation-based discrimination itself would effectively be protected under Title VII — similar to the growing support for gender-identity-based discrimination protections under the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The field memo now directs that EEOC offices across the country should treat sexual-orientation-based discrimination complaints as such. As Tico Almeida of Freedom to Work told BuzzFeed News, "This memo shows that the EEOC's doors are fully open to accepting and investigating complaints from gay, lesbian, and bisexual Americans who suffer workplace harassment or unjust firings simply because of the sex of the person they love."

GLAD's Wu, however, did not let Congress off the hook, saying, "People are being harmed today because of both a misinterpretation of [Title VII] law, as well as congressional inaction. … We're not going wait while more people are being harmed by employment discrimination." Their litigation to expand the interpretation of Title VII, he added, "does not obviate the need for Congress to pass explicit protections."

But, until then, and although most LGBT organizations have been quiet about their work on this front until now, the effort to expand Title VII protections for lesbian, gay, and bisexual workers — in addition to the transgender workers already seeing some protections — appears to be one of the next fronts in the LGBT rights movement.

Of the success seen thus far on the transgender coverage efforts, the ACLU's Block said that "courts are shedding the blinders that they had that artificially constrained" rulings in favor of trans inclusion.

"I think you'll see a similar thing with sexual orientation discrimination — or at least that's certainly what we're hoping will happen," he added.


View Entire List ›

Documents Suggest Ebola Con Man's Cleanup Firm Claimed Training It Didn’t Have

0
0

Bio-Recovery Corp. employees didn’t get the training on dealing with hazardous waste the company claimed they had until after they cleaned up Ebola in New York City, documents suggest. The latest in a BuzzFeed News investigation into the company and con man Sal Pane.

Brendan Mcdermid / Reuters

New York City officials have insisted that the firm they hired to clean up Ebola had "the requisite skills" to do the job, despite mounting evidence that the firm was run by a con man, Sal Pane, who made numerous false claims about his experience.

But documents uncovered by BuzzFeed News suggest that Bio-Recovery Corp. claimed to have training certification it did not have when it was hired by the city to decontaminate an infected man's apartment.

After the first confirmed case of Ebola arrived in the United States in October of last year, the city contacted Pane, who was identified as the "president" of Bio-Recovery. When Dr. Craig Spencer became New York's first confirmed Ebola patient, the city hired Bio-Recovery to clean up Spencer's apartment.

Pane's company told officials that Bio-Recovery employees had completed a training certification program through the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). OSHA has a training standard for people to learn how to handle dangerous waste before actually doing so in the field.

OSHA training certificates sent to the city and obtained by BuzzFeed News via a public records request show that Bio-Recovery employees completed the training in November of last year — after they had already cleaned up Ebola, and after BuzzFeed News first reported on Pane's history as a scammer.

Pane made dozens of media appearances before and after the cleanup as a self-described expert in hazardous waste, referring to the Ebola scare as Bio-Recovery's "Michael Jordan moment." But an ongoing BuzzFeed News investigation found that Pane persuaded the grieving sister of the recently deceased man who ran Bio-Recovery for more than a decade to sell the name of the company. Pane then claimed the dead man's experience — including cleaning up after an anthrax scare in 2001 — as his own. BuzzFeed News also found that Pane owes the state of New York more than $12 million in civil penalties for a mortgage scam perpetrated during the financial crisis.

In response to these revelations, officials said the city would review "this situation," but stood by Bio-Recovery's expertise in handling Ebola. Now, asked about the OSHA certificates, the city has dropped that line of argument. In a short written statement, after days of requests for comment, the city's Department of Health and Mental Hygiene said that it "vigorously reviewed all of Bio-Recovery's cleanup work and determined it was successfully performed and that there were no public health risks. That said, as a result of recent revelations about Bio-Recovery, the Health Department will not retain the services of this company, and will seek out other cleanup firms if the need for this emergency work arises again."

In a brief phone call with BuzzFeed News, Pane defended his own qualifications. "I hold tons of licenses," he said. Asked if he had the OSHA certifications before the cleanup, he said, "I had certification for five years. Of course." He said that the company updates its certifications "every time."

He also lashed out against BuzzFeed News: "This is really ridiculous. You guys are wasting your time … You're trying to make a story of absolutely nothing right now, and it's just the way you guys do it."

"Just respect me," he added, "and don't call me anymore." He hung up before BuzzFeed News could ask more questions, and did not respond to an email about the certifications.

Workers from Bio-Recovery's cleaning crew outside of the apartment where Dr. Craig Spencer lives in New York City.

Eduardo Munoz / Reuters

After months of epidemic in West Africa, Ebola reached American shores in late September, when officials in Dallas confirmed that Thomas Eric Duncan had come down with the disease. Soon thereafter, Pane began making frequent TV and radio appearances touting decades of experience.

He also appears to have begun telling people that Bio-Recovery had an Ebola gig. In an Oct. 7 email, WNYC reporter Caroline Lewis told the city that Bio-Recovery "says they have been contracted for Ebola cleanup," and asked whether such a contract was with the city. A city official replied that "we have not contacted any contractors."

Over the next two weeks — before Ebola reached New York — officials began planning for what would happen if the disease did arrive. The city's conversations with Bio-Recovery and Pane about the Ebola clean-up appear to have begun on Oct. 14. Over the following days, officials requested that the company provide them with references and a cost estimate for the scenario of an 800 square foot, three-room apartment with moderate contamination, 150 pounds of waste, in "Disposal category A." Bio-Recovery did so, estimating that it would cost upwards of $11,000, depending on the protective equipment used.

In emails from this time, Pane spelled his last name "Pain" and documents refer to him as the "President" of Bio-Recovery. Pane would later deny in numerous interviews that he ran the company, saying he was merely an employee. In those interviews, he referred to himself as the "foreman" or "chief safety officer." A former employee who asked not to be named previously told BuzzFeed News that was not true, and that Pane wouldn't put his name on documents out of fear his sketchy past might catch up with him. The sister of the company's previous owner, Ron Gospodarski, said Pane "acted like the boss."

Officials also looked at a "vendor performance evaluation" from the Medical Examiner's office showing Bio-Recovery received "satisfactory" reviews for work removing and destroying several caskets. The evaluation also showed the city still had the company's old address on file, from when it was owned by Ron Gospodarski. Gospodarski founded Bio-Recovery and ran it until he died in 2013, and his sister told BuzzFeed News that Pane duped her into selling the company name to him. In many media interviews, Pane had taken credit for his work, saying he personally did much of the work done by Gospodarski, such as cleaning up anthrax in 2001.

"When the anthrax was, in 2001, there was a thousand companies that were eligible to do it," Pane told Newsradio WDRC in early-October. "The only one that was prepared for it was us, and we were able to do it. It was one of the hardest processes I've ever had to be a part of."

"I've been dealing with pathogens, bacterias, and terrorism types of anti-warfare for decades," he said in another radio interview.

In 2001, Pane would have been a teenager. Associates of Gospodarski from the time of the anthrax cleanup said had never heard of Pane.

In discussions with city officials, Bio-Recovery's credentials came up, including what is known as the "HAZWOPER" standard. HAZWOPER, short for Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response, is the OSHA-required training for employers dealing with hazardous materials. It was established in the wake of the 1984 disaster that killed thousands of people in Bhopal, India, who were exposed to poisonous gas.

The training is meant to prepare people to deal with the dangers that might arise in a difficult cleanup situation, said Michael Ziskin, president and CEO of Field Safety Corp., who has been conducting HAZWOPER training since its inception.

"You don't want on-the-job training," Ziskin said.

Among other things, the training teaches employees how to properly remove personal protective equipment — which is particularly important when dealing with an infectious disease like Ebola, Ziskin said.

An OSHA official told BuzzFeed News that HAZWOPER training is not legally required for Ebola cleanup, like it is for other substances. Yet emails show that Bio-Recovery pointed to HAZWOPER certification as a sign of their expertise: A representative of Bio-Recovery told city officials in an unsigned message that all of the company's "technicians, supervisors, and safety officers have 40 hours HAZWOPER training." And in a separate email, two days before the cleanup, one city official wrote to another that Bio-Recovery had "positively affirmed that they have >10 staff on board with 40 hr HAZWOPER."

On Oct. 23, Dr. Spencer was diagnosed as positive for the Ebola virus. Officials discussed who would clean up his Harlem apartment to make sure it was not infectious. One declared in an email that of the 16 firms the city had contacted, "only two firms with the required expertise submitted bids."

Those two were Total Environmental Restoration Solutions and Bio-Recovery. The Health Department requested permission to have contracts with both firms. The emergency purchases were approved. The city went with Bio-Recovery.


View Entire List ›

Giuliani: Obama A "Moron" Who Isn't Defending America

0
0

“This president is moving us in a much worse and really frightening direction.”

youtube.com

Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani called President Obama "a moron" for negotiating with Iran over their nuclear program. The former mayor also drew a contrast between Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who he described as "a patriot."

"The president reformer who runs Iran, Rouhani, in '03 and '05, continued to enrich uranium while they had a standstill agreement with us," Giuliani told the Iranian American Community of Arizona at a speech last week during their February symposium on "countering Islamic fundamentalist nuclear-armed Iran."

"He did it secretly, and bragged about it, and we're negotiating with them," he continued. "This is like playing poker with a guy who cheated you twice before. You know who does that, a moron. An agreement with Iran with regard to nuclear power should be very simple. Iran should not be allowed to have any form of nuclear power."

Giuliani later took aim at Democrats and the White House who have alleged that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's speech to Congress next month is a violation of protocol. House Speaker John Boehner invited Netanyahu to address Congress without first informing the White House or Democrats.

The former mayor said Netanyahu was "a patriot" who protects his people, "unlike our president."

"And we are upset that Prime Minister Netanyahu wants to come here and defend his country," Giuliani said. "When someone who is a few hundred miles away wants nuclear weapons and has threatened to destroy his country of six or seven million people? It's smaller than New York City. Believe me. When I was mayor of New York, if someone threatened to destroy New York City, I would go anywhere, any place, any time, and I wouldn't give a damn what the president of the United States thought, to defend my country. That is a patriot. That's a man who loves his people. That's a man who protects his people. That's a man who fights for his people. Unlike our president."

Giuliani said "the president isn't doing" what is necessary to stop future deaths like the victims of Sept. 11, 2001 and American hostage Kayla Mueller. He added that Congress must stop the president from selling out to Iran, like British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain sold Czechoslovakia out to Adolf Hitler.

"And I implore our Congress to stop this weak president, for doing things that will be so difficult to reverse. That even if the next president were a Ronald Reagan, it might be difficult to reverse. After all, we are never going to bring Kayla Mueller back to life. And we are never going to bring those people there back to life. And I am never going to have my ten close friends that I lost on September 11th, who were killed by Islamic extremist terrorists. I'm never going to have them ever again. And I'm never going to have my 343 firefighters. Never going to have them ever again. We can't bring them back, but we can make sure there aren't more of them. This president isn't doing it. This president is moving us in a much worse and really frightening direction. And Congress must stop it, and the people must stand up and say, no, no, no. We will not sell out to Iran the way Chamberlain sold out to Hitler. No!"

Ron Paul: "Good News" That Secession Is Happening

0
0

“The good news is it’s gonna happen. It’s happening.”

View Video ›

buzzfeed-video1.s3.amazonaws.com

Former Republican presidential candidate and congressman Ron Paul says secession is happening and it's "good news." Paul later predicted the states would stop listening to federal laws.

"I would like to start off by talking about the subject and the subject is secession and, uh, nullification, the breaking up of government, and the good news is it's gonna happen. It's happening," Paul, the father of potential Republican presidential candidate Rand Paul, told a gathering at the libertarian Mises Institute in late January. The event Paul was speaking at was titled "Breaking Away: The Case for Secession."

Paul said secession would not be legislated by Congress, but would be de facto, predicting "when conditions break down...there's gonna be an alternative."

"And it's not gonna be because there will be enough people in the U.S. Congress to legislate it. It won't happen. It will be de facto. You know, you'll have a gold standard when the paper standard fails, and we're getting awfully close to that. And people will have to resort to taking care of themselves. So when conditions break down, you know, there's gonna be an alternative. And I think that's what we're witnessing."

Later, Paul said the Federal Reserve would end and the states would stop listening to federal laws they didn't agree with.

"The Fed is gonna end. There is going to be a de facto secession movement going on. The states are going to refuse to listen to some of the laws. We've seen tremendous success already with states saying to the federal government, 'We're not gonna listen to you anymore about the drug laws.' And they're getting out of it, and I think the American people are waking up to that, and as far as I'm concerned, the more the merrier."

Here's the full video of his speech:

Here's the full video:

youtube.com


Under New Leadership, Republican LGBT Group Aims To Spend $40 Million This Cycle

0
0

Tyler Deaton will take the leadership role at the American Unity Fund and associated PAC going into 2016. This year, Deaton says, the focus is on the states.

Charlie Neibergall / AP

American Unity, the pro-LGBT Republican group formed in 2012, is getting new leadership and aiming over the next two years to double the $22 million it already has spent on LGBT efforts in the party.

Tyler Deaton will assume the senior leadership role for American Unity Fund and American Unity PAC, taking the place of Jeff Cook-McCormac, who is leaving his post to work for one of the group's top donors.

Deaton has run state efforts for American Unity for the past two years, after coordinating the successful Republican-based effort to keep marriage equality in New Hampshire. Cook-McCormac is leaving to work with Dan Loeb, the hedge fund manager who was one of the early Republican mega-donors to support marriage equality and remains a major donor to American Unity.

Margaret Hoover, the fund's president, praised Cook-McCormac's leadership at American Unity, highlighting "the hard-dollar donor network that we established that channeled more than $2 million in hard donations to Republican candidates last election cycle — and then another $20 million through AUF and AU PAC since 2012."

"Jeff's leadership was really critical there. That's not nothing. That is a really significant contribution to LGBT freedom by Republicans," she said, adding, "I know $22 million is a hard thing to double in a cycle, but I know Tyler's ambitious and eager, and he hopes to have a track record as impressive as Jeff."

The group, with Deaton taking on the senior role, plans to focus on state efforts in 2015. Cook-McCormac called Deaton the "perfect person to step into this role."

"While people remain clearly committed to getting the marriage issue across the finish line, there is a lot of interest in how we can take the next critical steps in moving nondiscrimination forward — particularly in red-state legislatures and, ultimately, culminating in a federal law," Cook-McCormac said.

Deaton detailed, broadly, the group's aims for 2015 in a conversation with BuzzFeed News earlier this week.

"What we're wanting to make clear in the coming year is that American Unity Fund is prepared to increase its commitment to our work in the states, investing up to $6 million in state efforts across the country to protect more LGBT Americans and build the momentum for a nationwide resolution on nondiscrimination," Deaton told BuzzFeed News.

"To that end, we're going to have a two-prong approach, where we'll be working to advance non-discrimination bills while also continuing to work to defeat anti-LGBT measures, like Arizona's SB 1062, which we worked to defeat last year — along with a whole host of other anti-LGBT legislation."

Former Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman, who came out in 2010 and become a leading voice for marriage equality, praised the organization and its incoming and outgoing leadership, telling BuzzFeed News, "AUF has provided an important, articulate voice that marriage equality is consistent with conservative principles like limited government, more freedom, & promoting strong families. I am hopeful and confident that Jeff's work will continue and know from our work together in New Hampshire [on marriage] and other efforts that Tyler will add terrific value to this important work."

The Big, New Bipartisan, Well-Funded Effort To Change The U.S. Criminal Justice System

0
0

New offices, new lobbyists, new money pour into a new national criminal justice effort — that features some of the most well-known names in progressive and libertarian politics.

Nate Guidry/Pittsburgh Post-Gazette / MCT

WASHINGTON — The biggest names in progressive politics and libertarian-leaning conservatism are launching an aggressive, well-funded lobbying effort aimed at changing the U.S. criminal justice system.

For the first time, the groups on both sides of the aisle — long allied on efforts to reduce mandatory sentences, lower prison populations, and re-evaluate the war on drugs in the states — will move their efforts from state-based policies to the federal level.

On Thursday, the Coalition for Public Safety debuted with a high-profile conference call featuring major operators in political advocacy. Koch-funded activists like FreedomWorks' Matt Kibbe and the Center For American Progress' Neera Tanden sketched out a promise to work together on criminal justice efforts. Morale was high on the call, with leaders from both sides talking about how they don't agree on much, but do agree that criminal sentencing is out of control.

While the multimillion-dollar CPS campaign is an attention-getting new effort, these two sides have been working together on criminal justice for a long time. The Koch brothers have poured millions into efforts to lower prison populations in the states — often working closely with the ACLU to do it. The work has been extremely successful in states like Texas and Georgia, where Republican-controlled governments have warmed to the old liberal criminal justice cause in the name of fiscal responsibility. Ridding prisons of non-violent criminals, the argument goes, has the potential to save millions of dollars for state governments as well freeing up more money for anti-recidivism efforts like job training.

CPS has the attention of criminal justice advocates in Washington. The White House, which has made lowering drug sentences and reducing racial disparities in criminal sentencing a top priority, told BuzzFeed News Thursday the Obama administration plans to embrace the Coalition for Public Safety.

"The breadth of this coalition demonstrates the widespread support for rethinking our approach to juvenile justice, reducing incarceration, reforming our prisons and jails, and easing re-entry in fair and cost effective ways," a White House official said. "We look forward to sitting down with this new coalition to share ideas."

Asked about the possibility of a White House meeting, a spokesperson for the CPS said, "We'll be doing a number of meetings in the next few weeks."

But CPS is really only the flashiest part of the new effort to bring the successful criminal justice advocacy efforts from the red states to the Republican-controlled Congress.

The Texas Public Policy Foundation, home of Right On Crime — the biggest name in conservative-based criminal justice policy — is a member of the CPS coalition, but it's also bringing its criminal justice effort to D.C. on its own for the first time. Up until a few weeks ago, Right On Crime was solely focused on the states. Now the group's top policy expert, Vikrant Reddy, has moved to Washington and TPPF officials say he'll spearhead their effort to convince the Republican Congress to do what many Republican state legislatures have done.

"It's an expansion that's dictated by political change in Washington," David Reaboi, TPPF spokesperson, said in an email. "A more conservative Congress naturally is more interested in the kinds of conservative solutions we talk about."

Criminal justice advocates could also be getting a boost from the tactics that helped pull the GOP toward the tea party in recent cycles. On the CPS conference call Thursday, FreedomWorks' Kibbe signaled his group could add criminal justice to its candidate-vetting program and could score criminal justice votes the way it does on votes that raise taxes.

Advocates already have a raft of bipartisan legislation to push forward. Last week, a bipartisan group of senators led by Illinois Democrat Dick Durbin and Utah Republican Mike Lee re-introduced the Smarter Sentencing Act, a bill heavily favored by advocates on both sides of the aisle. They're up against Republican leaders like Senate Judiciary Chair Chuck Grassley, who has said he's not interested in any legislation that reduces mandatory minimum sentences. The new D.C. coalition said Thursday they hope a promised return to regular order in the Senate means bills like the Smarter Sentencing Act will move ahead despite establishment Republican opposition.

But in the Republican-controlled House last year, establishment Republicans were able to squelch the efforts to change sentencing law despite bipartisan backing. With the amped up lobbying effort, however, advocates are hoping that this year will be different.

Man Who Once Defended Georgia Sodomy Ban To Oppose Religious Liberty Bills

0
0

Former Georgia Attorney General Mike Bowers will team up with LGBT advocates in opposing legislation pending in the state now. Bowers is best known nationally as the man who defended sodomy laws in Bowers v. Hardwick.

Michael Bowers unsuccessfully ran for governor in Georgia in 1997.

Erik S. Lesser / Associated Press

WASHINGTON — Former Georgia Attorney General Mike Bowers, a man with a long history of opposing the rights of LGBT people, will be siding with the LGBT community this week in announcing his opposition to religious liberty legislation pending in the state legislature that he calls "deeply troubling."

Modeled in part on the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) but described as providing a "license to discriminate" by opponents because of their broad applicability outside of government, legislation of this type has been introduced in several states over the past year, including in the last session of Georgia's legislature.

"The obvious unstated purpose of the proposed RFRA is to authorize discrimination against disfavored groups," Bowers, who was attorney general in the state for 16 years, has determined of the Georgia legislation. A portion of his analysis — concluding that the legislation's "potential intended and unintended consequences are alarming" — was shared with BuzzFeed News on Sunday.

Those working with Bowers on the issue told BuzzFeed News that he is expected to hold a news conference discussing his analysis of the legislation at the Capitol on Tuesday. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported Saturday on Bowers' plan to oppose the legislation, noting that he had been hired by Georgia Equality to do the analysis of the legislation.

Bowers is perhaps best known nationally for opposing LGBT advocates' aims, however, having defended the state's sodomy law in the Supreme Court case that bears his name, Bowers v. Hardwick.

The 1986 decision upholding the state's sodomy law was overturned by the Supreme Court in 2003, but by then, Bowers was out of office — having unsuccessfully run for governor in 1997. Before then, however, he had a second major run-in with the LGBT community, rescinding a job offer in the Attorney General's Office to Robin Shahar after he found out that she planned to have a same-sex commitment ceremony with her then-partner. Bowers won a court challenge that Shahar brought against him for the action.

The scope of Bowers' newly announced views — and to what extent he would discuss or announce a reversal of his past positions — was not immediately clear.

Bowers has, though, determined that the RFRA legislation would provide an "excuse to practice invidious discrimination," noting the suspect timing of the legislation: "The timing of Georgia's legislation — and similar legislation in other states — coincides with the rapid legalization of gay marriage across the country, the United States Supreme Court's 2013 decision striking down the federal Defense of Marriage Act, and the 2014 Supreme Court ruling that religious freedom of expression excused compliance with mandatory coverage for contraception in employee health insurance programs."

Bowers also has concluded that "if enacted, the proposed [measures] will permit everyone to become a law unto themselves in terms of deciding what laws they will or will not obey, based on whatever religious tenets they may profess or create at any given time."

Additionally, he has concluded that, if passed into law, "the proposed RFRA is so full of uncertainties that those enforcing and administering it will take decades to sort out the dilemmas it creates." Specifically, Bowers has found that "[i]t has been decades since the Georgia Supreme Court issued a major ruling interpreting the free exercise law" — which means that Georgia courts, Bowers concludes, "could interpret HB 218 in a way that deviates from the federal courts."

Among the more striking comments from Bowers is his conclusion that the measures could be used to "justify putting hoods back on the Ku Klux Klan." The reason, he details, is because people could use the religious exemption that the proposed measures would provide as exemptions to the Anti-Mask Act — an attempt to reduce the KKK's presence in the state, which specifically excluded a religious exemption when it was passed.

The Libertarian Network That Rand Paul Hasn’t Walked Away From And Can’t Totally Control

0
0

A band of libertarian groups provide a big advantage for Rand (a ready-made base of operatives, volunteers, and donors), but a big drawback, too: They don’t work for him.

Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images

WASHINGTON — Last month, Rand Paul greeted a crowd of like-minded supporters: gun-rights enthusiasts with a libertarian bent in New Hampshire, the state where the Republican senator seems most likely to chase presidential primary votes.

Event organizers wouldn't let press into the event, devoted to guns, but reporters were able to see Paul greeting supporters in a black letterman-style jacket bearing the letters "NAGR."

The acronym stands for National Association for Gun Rights — an alternative group to the behemoth National Rifle Association, the group that NAGR says just isn't committed enough to the Second Amendment.

Paul routinely signs his name to their mailers. He's helped fundraise for the group on conference calls. But NAGR is just one of the wide network of libertarian activist groups that Paul remains aligned with, even as he prepares for a presidential bid this year.

The informal network of groups — NAGR, the Campaign for Liberty, the National Pro-life Alliance, and the National League of Taxpayers — are something of a holdover from Paul's more libertarian purist father. The groups operate independently from one another and from Paul, but their connections to the family run deep. Their activists provided a foundation of operative support for Ron Paul's presidential campaigns. But they didn't stop when the elder Paul retired: The groups fundraise aggressively and many have used Rand Paul's name to solicit donations and raise their profile.

Voters on their massive distribution lists get communications with Paul's name or messages signed by him, gaining exposure and a fundraising base for him. An email from the National League of Taxpayers for example, will go out under Paul's name and ask supporters to sign a petition supporting a balanced budget amendment and then say contributions to the group are "urgently needed."

Rand Paul's connection to the network is no real secret — the libertarian groups were the subject of stories from reporters like David Weigel and others last year. The question in many of those stories was the same: If and when would the senator walk away from the groups.

A year later, the answer seems clear: Rand Paul isn't walking away from the groups, and they'll continue to use his name on their promotional materials, even if he can't control what they do.

The relationship between Paul's political operation and the groups is more fluid than brokered — many political operatives come up through organizing groups like these. Paul's top adviser, Doug Stafford, is himself a veteran of a libertarian-minded group, once serving as a top official at the National Right to Work Committee, including during the early days of his role as an adviser to Paul. Dudley Brown, NAGR's director, says he's known Stafford for years and supported the elder Paul's 2012 presidential bid. And Rand Paul has credited Campaign for Liberty director John Tate, who ran his father's 2012 presidential campaign, for playing a "crucial role" in bringing Stafford into his political orbit.

Stafford declined to comment for this story.

These days, Tate's group routinely sends out emails to its activist listserv with "pub notes" (a message at the top) signed by Paul — the latest hit inboxes on Feb. 10. He emphasizes the relationship on these fundraising appeals is not collaborative.

"We don't coordinate or work with Rand and never get calls from them saying don't do this, or please do this," Tate told BuzzFeed News.

Many people get the emails. But the mail is where the money is. A voter in Iowa might get mailers from all these groups — and many with Rand Paul's name on them. These groups really depend on the lucrative, effective method of direct-mail fundraising.

Public financial disclosures show that the groups invest heavily in their mail operations. NAGR, for example, spent more than $9 million combined on internet and mail communications in 2013, according to IRS filings from that year. The National Right to Work Committee spent close to $1.2 million on list rentals and $458,618 on mail that year, according to filings.

The emblematic figure in this direct-mail world is Mike Rothfeld, whose firm Saber Communications is a key part of Paul's PAC's digital operation. A YouTube video of Rothfeld from 2012 offers a glimpse of Rothfeld's philosophy — the operative downs cup after cup of coffee while explaining "the real nature of politics" to the Young Americans for Liberty National Convention.

"I figured out that if I could write words that would raise money, they'd pay me," Rothfeld says in the speech, of his early days in politics. "And I could, and I did. And then I figured out that if I could run political campaigns they'd pay me for that too, so I learned to run political campaigns. Rand Paul was a client, and is a client. And Ron Paul is a client."

"I am a professional junk mailer," Rothfeld goes on to say. "I am a professional telemarketer. I'm a professional spammer — like, a hundred million pieces of, emails a month. And I'm a professional negative campaigner. And I'm damn proud of all four." Rothfeld's influence in Paul world, despite some skepticism from the hardcore libertarians, is substantial. Rothfeld was formerly in charge of the National Right to Work Committee's direct mail operations in the late 1980s and early 1990s, and he is a board member of NAGR.

Rothfeld declined to comment for this story.

NAGR, the gun group, offers some lessons in how the relationship with the senator can work, and what benefits and perils exist.

The group believes in "constitutional carry," meaning every American citizen should be able to own guns without a permit and believes that firearm safety training should be optional.

Right before the 2014 midterms, Rand Paul and the NAGR hosted a call ostensibly about "Mike Bloomberg's $50 million war on guns."

Paul told the 6,000 or so supporters on the line that he was "proud to be associated with the National Association for Gun Rights" and its president, Dudley Brown. Brown in turn said Paul has done "an amazing job" standing for gun rights in the Senate.

Callers asked what it is they could do to help Paul and Brown.

"The only thing I'd say if each person on the phone call gave $100 you'd have $600,000," Paul said. "That's enough to make a difference in a close race."

Paul's connection to NAGR has caused some political tension in the past. The group presents itself as a more conservative alternative to the NRA — and runs ads against Republicans not sufficiently strong on gun rights, a frightening political prospect for many politicians, especially Republicans.

In 2012, NAGR's tactics pulled Paul into a public spat with a Republican congressman from Virginia, Scott Rigell, based on a number of ads the NAGR ran in his district that argued Rigell was trying to curb second amendment rights. (The ads also targeted former Majority Leader Eric Cantor, and in 2013, Sen. Susan Collins of Maine complained during a Senate GOP lunch that NAGR's ads were hurting her back home. Paul reportedly stormed out of the lunch.) Rigell confronted Paul, asking him to publicly refute the group or at least get them to stop attacking him. According to Rigell, Paul told him there was nothing he would do. At the time, Stafford told Politico, "Rand signs normal, run-of-the-mill activist emails and letters for numerous groups and this is one of them. That's all he's ever done for them, he's not affiliated with the group in any way, he doesn't control how they decide their activism should take place in terms of who the people are that need to be shored up on an issue."

Two years later, Rigell is still furious with Paul over the ads.

"He was completely indifferent to the truth. It speaks to his character and he's a man and public figure lacking in character. I think he is unworthy of the office he holds but certainly of a higher office," Rigell told BuzzFeed News.

"This will over time become increasingly an issue," Rigell added. "Not just because of what happened to me personally but because of the pattern that is there of working with groups that use nefarious methods and outright deception… And when presented with it, as a fellow member of congress and a fellow Republican, he was indifferent to it."

Asked about Rigell's comments, Paul's office declined to comment.

Rigell is not especially well known and the episode did not damage Paul broadly — but it offers a window into how an uncoordinated, though associated group could create public problems in a presidential cycle.

Brown, the president of NAGR, downplayed the connections his group and others have to Paul's political operation, citing the natural overlap of people within a political movement. (Though he did note that, when it comes to 2016, he didn't "see anybody on the horizon who is as strong on the gun issue as Sen. Paul is.")

"When I see, 'Oh wow, there all these connections,' all you have to do is spend 10 minutes on Facebook and LinkedIn and this and that and almost every single person in a real political movement in Washington, D.C., has a thousand connections," Brown said.

"I've been personal allies with a lot of people in the conservative movement," he said.

The tension between what might be good for Paul politically and what might be good for a group with a clear, narrow policy agenda is something that Tate is aware of, but said it wasn't an issue for the Campaign for Liberty. He said the group does not coordinate on fundraising with Paul, and while they do on some policy issues, he argued they don't pull punches.

"We work with Rand's office legislatively, for example on audit the fed," Tate said. "There's not any kind of coordination or effort to only do things that will help him or only do things that won't hurt him."

Tate stressed that the Campaign for Liberty emails that go out under Paul's name — which arrive in inboxes from a "rand.paul@campaignforliberty.com" email address — only include Paul as part of the "pub note," or introduction to the main body of the email.

"We never have him or any member of congress sign the actual email itself," Tate said. "It's more of a, 'hey, take a look at this.' We propose copy over and they send it back with yes or no." The group commands a large email list — a few million strong, Tate said.

He acknowledged that the Campaign for Liberty's deep ties to the Paul family can make it at least look like there is some kind of coordination going on for the Pauls' electoral benefit, but dismissed the idea.

"We've been through this once with Ron, and I guess my short answer is yes, it's always in the back of my mind and a concern, but we've already been through it," Tate said.

"A good friend of mine who's an attorney said no organization in America can follow to the letter the FEC, the IRS, the postal regulations, and state and local law, because in many cases they conflict with each other. Because of those, not fears, but concerns, we make sure that whatever the line is on activities by 501c4s, we step back five paces," he said. "There are people who assume we were only founded to help Ron run for president or help Rand run for president. Most people have realized that's not why we exist."

Paul's emails to Campaign for Liberty don't always have to do with legislative priorities for the group. The most recent, for example, exhorts activists to attend a "Political Leadership School" session run by the Delaware branch of the organization, because "you really do owe it to your ideas and principles to learn how to become the most effective activist you can be."

The groups, and wider world of the libertarian movement, became a more acute issue during the 2012 campaign, when a top aide was accused of bribing an Iowa state senator to switch his endorsement from former Rep. Michele Bachmann to Ron Paul.

The scandal originated with Aaron Dorr, an official from Iowa Gun Owners, a state-based group that has worked closely with NAGR and Brown (the two held a rally together as recently as October of 2014 prior to the midterm elections in Iowa).

In an October 2011 email, Dorr wrote that the state senator, Kent Sorenson, needed to be put on the payroll in exchange for endorsing Paul and giving the campaign a list of homeschoolers for targeted mail. The memo was sent to Tate. A former Paul campaign official, Dennis Fusaro, leaked this and other materials implicating the Paul campaign in the Sorenson bribe.

Last year, Sorenson pleaded guilty to illegally concealing campaign money — and admitted to taking $73,000 from Ron Paul's presidential campaign in exchange for an endorsement. No one else has been charged for any kind of crime related to the episode.

At the time, though, Jesse Benton, a longtime political operative for Rand Paul who is also married to the senator's niece, resigned from Mitch McConnell's re-election campaign, on which he was serving as campaign manager.

The crisis seems to have passed. Benton has since launched a new firm, and Rand Paul has said that he'll be a part of the 2016 operation.

Fusaro, now gone from the Paul political orbit after the leak, remains a critic of the way the way the libertarian groups function, and specifically the connection between the groups and direct mail. But in a phone call with BuzzFeed News last summer, even he acknowledged the big upside.

"The direct mail program and the other means they use to mobilize grassroots people on specific issues are building an army for Rand Paul," Fusaro said. "That's what they're doing. It's good politics, in one sense."

How Scott Walker Thinks About The Media

0
0

Wisconsin’s governor understands how the media works, as he illustrates in a new book from Guy Benson and Mary Katharine Ham. (Except occasionally when he doesn’t.)

Win McNamee / Getty Images

During the contentious days of the union protests in Wisconsin, Gov. Scott Walker figured out a secret way to get uninterrupted press time.

Walker outlines the strategy — and how he dealt with the onslaught of protests during the contentious period — in a new book, End of Discussion: How the Left's Outrage Industry Shuts Down Debate, Manipulates Voters, and Makes America Less Free (and Fun!), by Fox News contributors and long-time conservative writers, Guy Benson and Mary Katharine Ham.

"At the height of the [anti-budget] union protests, when we were approaching 100,000 protesters at and around the Capitol, I finally got wise," Walker tells Ham and Benson in an interview for the book. "I started holding press conferences at 5:00 because I knew that if I kept it concise, local television and some national outlets would cover it live. So I had an unfiltered way to talk to the state for about 10 minutes."

The protests in 2011 were over Walker's budget proposal, which, to meet a budget deficit, instituted significant increases to public-sector employees' benefits and pension contributions, and limited their ability to collectively bargain.

That media control of Walker's didn't last forever, and he admits that the protesters figured out what he was doing and adapted.

"They started to get really loud right around 5 p.m.," he says in the interview. "I'd be speaking to the press, and they'd make lots of noise. On one particular day, they were louder than they'd ever been, and a reporter asked me if those people had a right to be heard. And I said that they had every right to be heard, but that I wasn't going to let tens of thousands of people — and some were bused and flown in from other states — drown out the voices of millions of people around Wisconsin who elected me to do exactly what I was doing."

Walker notably delivered a critique of the media over the weekend, after being asked whether he believed President Obama is a Christian.

"I've never asked him that," Walker told the Washington Post. "You've asked me to make statements about people that I haven't had a conversation with about that. How [could] I say if I know either of you are a Christian?"

"To me, this is a classic example of why people hate Washington and, increasingly, they dislike the press," he said. "The things they care about don't even remotely come close to what you're asking about."

But inside that analysis, Walker also said he did not know whether the president is a Christian, spurring his press secretary to follow-up to clarify that the governor was trying to make a point rather than question the president — the kind of thing that doesn't always go smoothly in a presidential election cycle.

Still, Walker's seizure of an unadulterated media space in Wisconsin highlights both an eye for media opportunities and an underrated experience in front of a presidential campaign: the incredibly intense media and activist environment that followed changes he made to public-sector collective bargaining. Few other candidates will have been at the center of scrutiny like that, and so recently in terms of an truly online media environment.

In the interview with Ham and Benson, Walker describes some of the violent threats his family received following the budget and bargaining changes.

"One day, the leader of my security team came to me with a letter they'd intercepted that had been sent to my real home, our private home, that was addressed to my wife," he tells them. "It said that while there had never been a Wisconsin governor who'd been assassinated before, there was a first time for everything. It told my wife that she needed to stop me, and that the sender knew where my boys attended high school and where her father lived. It was scary, but it made me furious."

Viewing all 15742 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images