“They’re all fine people, but if they’re missing votes then they ought to change that, I mean c’mon, this is — the pay people get in public life is good.”

w.soundcloud.com

Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush says his opponents for the presidency shouldn't be missing votes in the Senate or they should "resign, you know."

"No, I'm really kind of saying the system itself is the problem," Bush told radio host Michael Medved when asked if his speech Monday on changing Washington was aimed at his presidential rivals who are currently in the Senate.

Bush, speaking in Florida on Monday, gave a broad speech how he would bring changes to what he termed "Mount Washington" if elected. Bush said he would push for a balanced budget, an "unequivocal six-year ban on lobbying...for ex-members of the House and Senate," and a line-item veto, among other items mentioned in the speech.

"They're all fine people, but if they're missing votes then they ought to change that, I mean c'mon, this is — the pay people get in public life is good," Bush added. "It's a sacrifice to be away from their families, I'd admit that, but if you're there for three days, you ought to be able to show up and vote — or resign, you know."

"That would be — and then go pursue your whatever your desires are, but showing up for work it's what's required of every American," Bush added. "It seems to me that Congress ought to feel a duty to do the same."

Several of Bush's presidential rivals, such as Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, and Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul have sporadic and sometimes poor attendance records for Senate votes and committee hearings. Bush last served in elected office in 2007.

With his announcement Tuesday, Kasich becomes the 16th Republican presidential candidate and the last major Republican expected to enter the race.

Darren McCollester / Getty Images

Ohio Gov. John Kasich formally announced on Tuesday his bid for the Republican nomination for president.

Kasich is a latecomer to the primary race, with the first Republican debate only two weeks away. Under the current guidelines, Kasich is unlikely to participate in that debate, which will be held in Cleveland.

The former U.S. congressman is expected to campaign largely on his record as governor of Ohio and has touted the post-recession economic turnaround in the important battleground state under his watch. Kasich also expanded Medicaid under Obamacare, which is controversial with many conservatives but something that he has defended.

Following his announcement Tuesday, Kasich is expected to head to New Hampshire for a series of town hall–styled events.

Two Wisconsin legislators ask the Justice Department to update the family of Dontre Hamilton, who was shot 14 times by a Milwaukee police officer, on the status of its investigation.

Maria Hamilton, center, the mother of Dontre Hamilton, who was killed by a police officer in a downtown park in Milwaukee speaks to group of mothers marching against police brutality at the "Million Moms March" in Washington, on Saturday, May 9, 2015.

Jose Luis Magana / AP

WASHINGTON — Two Wisconsin lawmakers are pushing the Justice Department for an update on the status of the federal investigation into the death of Dontre Hamilton, who was shot 14 times by a Milwaukee police officer last April.

It's been almost seven months since the Milwaukee County District Attorney's office announced that it would not bring charges against the officer, Christopher Manney, who shot and killed Hamilton.

Now, Sen. Tammy Baldwin and Milwaukee Rep. Gwen Moore say Hamilton's family deserves an update.

"We respectfully encourage the Department of Justice to expedite these reviews and to provide the Hamilton family with an update on the status of its efforts around Dontre's death," the two lawmakers wrote.

Baldwin and Moore also requested that the Justice Department speed up its ongoing "pattern and practice" investigation into civil rights abuses by the Milwaukee Police Department.

Hamilton, 31, was said to have a history with mental illness. The circumstances around Hamilton's death sparked protests in Milwaukee, and led Moore to push for a federal review of Milwaukee police practices.

"A thorough investigation of the Milwaukee Police Department would serve justice by ensuring that public faith is restored," Moore said.

Moore has also pushed for a budget increase to fund training to help law enforcement officers avoid violent conflict with the mentally ill.

Here is the letter:

The Honorable Loretta Lynch
United States Attorney General
Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20530

Attorney General Lynch,

We write to express our concern about the slow pace of the federal review of potential civil rights violations in the officer-involved shooting death of Dontre Hamilton, and federal "pattern and practice" review of the Milwaukee Police Department. We respectfully encourage the Department of Justice to expedite these reviews and to provide the Hamilton family with an update on the status of its efforts around Dontre's death.

It has been more than fourteen months since that tragedy occurred. It has been more than six months since Milwaukee County District Attorney John Chisolm declined to file charges against Office Christopher Manney in relation to the shooting and U.S. Attorney Jim Santelle announced a federal review of the case. However, according to the Hamilton family, they have not received any updates as to the status of this review.

Furthermore, U.S. Attorney Santelle began to solicit information from members of the Milwaukee community as early as October 2012 in support of a potential "pattern and practice" investigation of the Milwaukee Police Department. This announcement came after the July 2011 in-custody death of Derek Williams, which the medical examiner ruled a homicide. While we understand that the Justice Department continues to solicit community complaints about the conduct of the Milwaukee Police Department, we share the concern and frustration of the Milwaukee community with the pace of this review.

We continue to hear from Milwaukee constituents who are fearful and distrustful of law enforcement, particularly after the deaths of Derek Williams and Dontre Hamilton. We believe tangible progress on these federal investigations will help to restore trust between the Milwaukee Police Department and the broader community and can lead to the implementation of policies and practices that will better protect our officers and better serve the people of Milwaukee.

Law enforcement personnel have extremely difficult jobs and they put their lives on the line every day to help keep our communities safe. In Milwaukee, there has been an alarming increase in violence in recent months and, now more than ever, we must ensure that there is trust between police and the people they serve to help reduce crime and strengthen this community.

Thank you again for your attention to this matter, and we look forward to working with you going forward.

Sincerely,

Representative Gwen Moore
Senator Tammy Baldwin

As first lady and senator, Clinton talked repeatedly about the transition from welfare to work as a “transition from dependency to dignity.”

Cliff Owen / AP

In the 1990s and early 2000s, Hillary Clinton touted the success of Bill Clinton's 1996 overhaul of the country's welfare system, framed as the transition from "dependency to dignity" — a subject she hasn't spoken much about this year during her campaign.

Bill Clinton's overhaul of the welfare system, which was passed in conjunction with a Republican-controlled Congress, replaced a major federal welfare program with block grants to states, required adults to find a job within two years of receiving aid, placed a five-year limit on aid, blocked future legal immigrants from welfare assistance, and cut $24 billion in food stamps. It was denounced by many Democrats, including Peter Edelman, who resigned from his post at the Department of Health and Human Services, arguing that the law would do "serious injury to American children."

"It's important to recognize, though, that simply passing a law requiring welfare recipients to find work would have failed to fulfill the President's promise. Too many of those on welfare had known nothing but dependency all their lives, and many would have found it difficult to make the transition to work on their own."

"One day, Rhonda Costa's daughter came home from school and announced, 'Mommy, I'm tired of seeing you sitting around the house doing nothing.' That's the day Rhonda decided to get off welfare. Today, Rhonda is an administrative assistant at Salomon Smith Barney, a New York financial services firm. After a year and a half on the job, she earns $29,000 a year with full benefits and stock options.

Today, Rhonda is an administrative assistant at Salomon Smith Barney, a New York financial services firm. After a year and a half on the job, she earns $29,000 a year with full benefits and stock options."

View Entire List ›

The Democratic senator from Oregon also laid out his concerns with the deal, including the lack of anytime, anywhere inspections.

youtube.com

Sen. Ron Wyden, a Democrat from Oregon, said Saturday that he has concerns about the nuclear deal with Iran, adding that that he believes the Obama administration is "flouting" Congress by going to United Nations to get approval first.

"Now there was a new wrinkle in this on Friday, which concerned me, which was the administration was talking about going to the U.N. to get approval," Wyden told a town hall audience this weekend. "I think the U.N. does some very good things, I think they do some other things not so good. But the point is going to the U.N. before the Congress weighs in is really in my view flouting the Review Act, you know the whole point..."

"I hope I've told you what my concerns are a, b, how I'm going to proceed with it, and three, I didn't much care for this notion that suddenly this is going to go to the U.N. and somehow there would be a U.N. stamp of approval before the Congress has a chance to review it."

The U.N. Security Council voted unanimously on Monday in support of the deal reached. Republican members of Congress had already voiced disapproval at the president going to the U.N. before Congress.

Earlier in the the town hall, Wyden said that Iran possessing a nuclear weapon was "unacceptable" to him and that he always supports "diplomatic solutions," noting that he voted against the Iraq War in 2002. Wyden then laid out what he saw in the agreement with Iran that "concerned" him.

"First, when this all began the focus was on dismantlement, dismantling the facilities that would allow them to have a bomb. It seems this has kind of moved now towards to sort of accepting it and managing it and the like," said Wyden. "So I'm going to be working my way through that."

"At the beginning, and I've seen clips of this, we were really under the assumption that there would be anywhere, anytime inspections," he added. "Now we're hearing talk about like 24 days or something notice before inspections."

"And third, I have some questions that I'm going to be talking to my engineering friends and physics friends about this question with respect to the centrifuges because that's really crucial to Iran's building of a nuclear weapon. And the challenge of course is that the Iranians don't think in terms of months and years. They think in terms of decades and building that caliphate. So I'm going to take the time to do this right. Don't to expect me to issue any proclamations on this in the next 15 minutes. I think the stakes here are enormous."

"Right now, for me, more questions than answers," Wyden concluded.

The Drug Enforcement Administration has suspended compensation payments to confidential informants after a watchdog report finds no legal basis for them.

Elaine Thompson / ASSOCIATED PRESS

The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) has paid out untold millions of dollars in federal workers' compensation benefits with no legal basis to the families of killed or injured confidential informants, according to a Justice Department Inspector General report released Tuesday.

An audit by the Inspector General found the DEA paid out more than $1 million in 2013 alone in Federal Employees' Compensation Act benefits to 17 confidential sources.

In one case, the Inspector General wrote, the DEA paid out more than $1.3 million between 1989 and 2012 to the widow of a killed informant. Payments have been ongoing in other cases since 1974.

How much money the DEA has paid out over the years in the benefits to confidential informants and their families is unknown, because the Justice Department and Department of Labor do not track the payments.

"Although the exact amount of DEA confidential source (benefit) payments is unknown, it is clear that significant taxpayer dollars have been expended," the Justice Department Inspector General wrote.

In addition, the Inspector General says there is no legal basis for extending compensation benefits intended for federal employees to confidential informants.

The law cited by the DEA as justification for the payments, the Inspector General wrote, "does not provide a legal basis for the DEA's position that its confidential sources were appropriately categorized as non-federal law enforcement officers eligible for FECA benefits."

In a statement, a Justice Department spokesperson said the DEA "has placed a moratorium on submitting new FECA claims for confidential sources to the Department of Labor."

"DEA has also determined that, although a determination should be based on the facts of each individual case, the presumption should be confidential sources are not 'employees' pursuant to FECA and should not be eligible for benefits," the spokesperson said.

The Inspector General also reported that its investigation into the DEA's confidential informant program has been obstructed by the agency.

"Our audit work thus far has been seriously delayed by numerous instances of uncooperativeness from the DEA, including attempts to prohibit the OIG's observation of confidential source file reviews and delays, for months at a time, in providing the OIG with requested confidential source information and documentation," the Inspector General wrote. "In each instance, the matters were resolved only after the Inspector General elevated them to the DEA Administrator."

Inclusv review of FEC data shows Clinton leading with 32% staff of color, Sanders 10%, and O’Malley 9%. Group calls for campaigns to release quarterly diversity reports, while O’Malley and Sanders campaigns blasts the numbers as false.

Ruby Cramer/BuzzFeed

Diversity hiring group Inclusv has released staff diversity hiring numbers for the 2016 Democratic campaigns, which show that the Clinton campaign leads the pack.

But, the group says, all three campaigns are falling short on the issue.

The group, founded by Obama campaign veterans, says that Clinton is doing the best job on diversity: 32% of her campaign hires are minorities, based on July 1 FEC filings, followed far behind by Sanders at 10%, and O'Malley at 9%.

The group noted that the figures were estimates because of hires made after the filing deadline and called on the campaigns to release quarterly diversity hiring reports for the most accurate data to be available.

"In order for Democrats to win they have to inspire and generate enthusiasm in the communities of color," Inclusv co-founder Steve Phillips, a top Democratic donor, told BuzzFeed News, noting that 42% of Obama's voters were people of color.

The O'Malley campaign blasted the report, calling it false.

"As a board member of Inclusv and as the director of public engagement for Martin O'Malley, I am disappointed that the organization released numbers they know to be false," said Gabi Domenzain, who was brought on in a high-level role last month after serving as the director of Hispanic media for Obama in 2012.

Domenzain said she joined O'Malley's team prior to his launch, and is one of the highest ranking Latinas on a presidential campaign this cycle.

Sanders campaign called the information incorrect. "Of the 51 people on staff, 13 are minorities including African-Americans, Latinos and Asians. That's more than 25 percent," the campaign said.

The release of the diversity numbers comes after a disruptive protest this weekend by #BlackLivesMatter activists at the Netroots conference in Phoenix brought the issue of Democratic campaigns addressing issues important to black activists and voters to the forefront of the national conversation.

O'Malley was criticized and shouted down for saying "all lives matter" and "white lives matter," which the activists felt minimizes the history of blacks in the country. He later apologized. Sanders, who was criticized for trying to stay on his economic inequality message despite the protests, cancelled meetings afterwards. The next day, he tweeted the names of Sandra Bland and Eric Garner, two high-profile deaths the activists had mentioned.

"If staffers of color are not at the forefront within every department of your campaign, it's inauthentic to say you are ready to lead our nation on issues like immigration or criminal justice reform," said Inclusv co-founder Quentin James, the former black Americans director for Ready for Hillary, echoing the complaints by activists this weekend of the need for real engagement on minority issues. "If candidates want our support, people of color have to play prominent and vital roles within their campaigns."

In a statement, the Clinton campaign said hiring a diverse staff will continue to be a top priority. "From fundraising to our political operation to various roles in the early states, we're proud that we have staff in all aspects of the campaign that reflects America's diversity," a spokesperson for the campaign said.

The Clinton campaign has announced a number of Latino hires, and often states that the campaign does not believe in only hiring minorities for roles that only deal with minority issues. National political director Amanda Renteria, campaign treasurer Jose Villarreal, and Nevada state director Emmy Ruiz, hold high-level roles on the campaign.

Activists at Netroots said Clinton will have to answer the same tough questions the other candidates were faced with. During a Facebook chat Monday, she said that black lives matter.

"Everyone in this country should stand firmly behind that," she wrote. "We need to acknowledge some hard truths about race and justice in this country, and one of those hard truths is that racial inequality is not merely a symptom of economic equality."

The Sanders campaign did not respond to a request for comment before publication.

While Inclusv said some numbers would not be accurate because of the filing deadline, Domenzain took issue with the report saying O'Malley has zero Latino hires.

"The governor and his staff are committed to surrounding themselves with diverse voices as is exemplified by his leadership on issues most important to minority communities across the country," she said.

Trump, in his own words, in 2004: “You’d be shocked if I said that in many cases I probably identify more as a Democrat.”

FREDERIC J. BROWN / Getty Images

Trump said in 2009 that Obama was "a strong guy who knows what he wants," a person with "the mark of a strong leader," and "totally a champion." He even bestowed the greatest Trumpian honor upon Obama, saying, "I would hire him."

In 2011, while considering making a run for president, he placed himself at the vanguard of the "birther" movement, demanding that Obama show his birth certificate and fueling suspicions that the president was not born in the United States.

youtube.com

Hillary Clinton

As has been widely reported, Hillary Clinton attended Trump's wedding in 2005. Trump also donated to her campaigns in 2002, 2005, 2006, and 2007. In 2007, he called her "very talented," a "great appointment" for secretary of state, and, in his 1997 book The Art of the Comeback, called her "a wonderful woman who has handled pressure incredibly well."

This year, he called her "desperate" and "sad."

The America We Deserve

View Entire List ›

“The U.S. Empire received a big boost from the 9/11 attack.”

Reuters

Former Rep. Ron Paul, the father of presidential candidate Rand Paul and past two-time candidate for the Republican nomination himself, writes in his new book that he believes "Zionism has played a role in our post-9/11 march toward empire."

Paul's book, Swords into Plowshares: A Life in Wartime and a Future of Peace and Prosperity, was released last Friday.

"Zionism has played a role in our post-9/11 march toward empire, and its influence has encouraged extreme interference in the Middle East," Paul writes in a chapter entitled "Making America Safe for Empire," under the sub-chapter, "Tyranny takes hold."

Paul was writing about how "theocracy has always been abused," in the paragraph preceding his comments on Zionism.

Here's the full paragraph:

Americans generally see spiritual safety as being in the realm of religion and theology and political philosophy as being determined by the professors and others who dwell on esoteric ideas. There is theocracy when the theologians gain control of the state to offer salvation and eternal life through using force to impose their will and enforce their rules. Theocracy has always been abused. The Founders feared it and worked hard to prevent it. Supporters of radical Islam frequently endorse a theocratic system. Aggressive Christian Zionists also like to use the state to promote their theological beliefs, especially in foreign policy and with social gospel teachings. Zionism has played a role in our post-9/11 march toward empire, and its influence has encouraged extreme interference in the Middle East.

Paul introduces the idea of the U.S. empire in the chapter titled, "Pursuing U.S. Empire," in which he states, "Our obsession with expanding our sphere of influence around the world was designed to promote an empire. It was never for true national security purposes."

Later in the chapter, "Making America Safe for Empire," Paul writes in sub-chapter "The 9/11 boost to U.S. Empire," that the Patriot Act was written before 9/11 "when the condition were not ripe for its passage. 9/11 took care of that."

"The U.S. Empire received a big boost from the 9/11 attack," writes Paul. "Paul O'Neill, George W. Bush's first secretary of the treasury, reported he was shocked that in the very first National Security Council meeting— ten days after Bush's January 2001 inauguration— the discussion was about when, not if, the U.S. should invade Iraq."

"We also know that the PATRIOT Act was written a long time before 9/11, when the conditions were not ripe for its passage," Paul continues. "Nine-eleven took care of that. The bill quickly passed in the U.S. House and Senate with minimal debate and understanding. Bush signed the bill into law on Oct. 26, 2001, a mere 45 days after the attack. Making use of a crisis is established policy."

Paul also writes our leaders explained al-Qaeda attacked us "because of our freedom and prosperity," to avoid "scrutiny of our foreign policy."

"The reasons for the attack were fully described by bin Laden," he writes. "His reasons were simple and straightforward. One: foreign troops on the holy land of the Arabian Peninsula. Two: constant bombing and lethal sanctions against Iraq. Three: favoritism for Israel over the Palestinians. There is zero evidence that the attacks were motivated by hatred of Americans because of our freedom and prosperity. The terrorists simply did not like the U.S. constantly meddling in the affairs of the entire Middle East region, defiling their holy land, and causing death and destruction for their people."

“I just don’t see enthusiasm for the drug,” a death penalty expert said.

Joseph Wood

The Supreme Court last month approved the use of a controversial drug in executions — but the decision left open questions about how exactly the drug can be used.

The court said midazolam — used in multiple botched executions in 2014 — can be used in executions. Despite the ruling, states haven't rushed to change their methods to the protocol the court approved.

The drug has been used in a three and two-drug protocol. The justices were clear, though, that the ruling only addressed the use of the drug as a sedative in a three-drug execution protocol. Midazolam, a drug similar to valium, also has been used twice in a two-drug protocol.

The two-drug combination resulted in botches in Ohio and Arizona. Those states paired midazolam with hydromorphone — an opioid.

Several states currently have that two-drug pairing as an option, but a death penalty expert who spoke with BuzzFeed News said that states are unlikely to turn back to this combination.

"I think it's very unlikely that any state would use the combination at this point," Megan McCracken with Berkeley's Death Penalty Clinic said. "Given that that combination of drugs has been used twice and both of those executions were very, very bad, I just can't imagine a state would want to take that chance and put itself in that position."

States like Ohio, Arizona, Louisiana, and California are all in flux now, and are still planning out what their next drug combination will be. Although the Supreme Court has approved midazolam in the three-drug protocol, those states have shied away from committing to using that combination, at least for now.

"I just don't see enthusiasm for the drug," McCracken said.

The first time midazolam was used in a two-drug execution, an Ohio inmate gasped and choked for 26 minutes. The second time the combination was used, Arizona inmate Joseph Wood "gulped like a fish on land" for nearly two hours before dying, according to a reporter's description.

"The Wood execution did not involve the protocol at issue here," Justice Samuel Alito wrote in the opinion. "Arizona used a different two-drug protocol that paired midazolam with hydromorphone, a drug that is not at issue in this case. When all of the circumstances are considered, the... Wood execution [has] little probative value for present purposes."

Wood's execution required 15 separate doses to kill Wood, and lasted for 1 hour and 57 minutes. It was long enough for Wood's attorney to get a federal judge on the phone to debate if the execution should be called off.

"I am very concerned… that suspending the execution may do more harm than good," Judge Neil Wake said, according to a transcript of the call. Less than 10 minutes later, Wood was dead.

After the execution, Arizona hired CGL, a company comprised of former corrections officials throughout the nation, to investigate. CGL's 54-page report offers a rudimentary comparison of execution protocols throughout the U.S., but offers no explanation of what went wrong in the longest known lethal injection.

According to the report, CGL approached an independent medical expert who "could not offer an explanation as to why the initial administration of drugs was not sufficient to complete the execution," and why it took an additional 14 doses.

The medical expert added that the drugs Arizona used "should be an effective option," the report says.

Kenneth McGinnis, who ran the Illinois Department of Corrections while the state had the death penalty, ran the investigation. His report found that, although there were some deviations from the protocol, "staff performance in no way contributed" to the length of time it took Wood to die. McGinnis said that "the execution the execution was not 'botched' in comparison to what occurred in Oklahoma," despite Arizona's lasting more than twice as long. McGinnis said he was unavailable for an interview.

After Ohio's 26-minute execution, the state's expert defended the results. It was "exactly what I predicted to happen," Dr. Mark Dershwitz said.

Arizona is still considering how it should carry out executions in the future. CGL recommended keeping the two-drug protocol as a backup option, with the preferred choice of a single dose of pentobarbital, as used in Missouri and Texas.

Whitney Curtis / Getty

The activists started with a simple question: “What side are you on?”

The chant rang through the hall of the Phoenix Convention Center on Saturday morning, upending a presidential forum at the annual progressive conference, Netroots Nation. And one after the other, the two candidates there struggled to find the right reply: Martin O’Malley was defensive, Bernie Sanders frustrated.

Two days later, Hillary Clinton got her own question. Had she been there — had she shared the stage with her two opponents — how would she have responded?

“Black lives matter,” she wrote from her campaign’s account on Facebook. “Everyone in this country should stand firmly behind that.”

But the activists behind Saturday’s demonstration — known as Black Lives Matter — weren’t much more satisfied with the response from Clinton.

The group’s name, often written as a one-word hashtag, is now synonymous with a broad and urgent social justice movement to raise questions about structural racism and violence involving law enforcement. Two years after its founding — even as it remains a dispersed, bottom-up organization — Black Lives Matter has also become an increasingly vocal, commanding presence in the 2016 presidential race.

The group is poised to present a constant challenge to these campaigns: Activists have promised more appearances, more protests, more questions. And so far, according to the co-founder of Black Lives Matter, Patrisse Cullors, no candidate has shown “authentic engagement” — including, she said, Clinton.

The leading Democrat has long voiced support for the movement. She first affirmed the phrase “black lives matter” as early as December. Most recently, on Tuesday, Clinton said the words again at campaign stop in a Detroit bake shop, when a local activist, Ife Johari, questioned her about social justice. “If you really believe, as you do and I do, that black lives matter,” she said, “you have to talk about what it’s gonna do to help lives really develop to the fullest of their God-given potential.”

Still, Clinton has not met with Black Lives Matter activists — and her campaign officials have yet to formally reach out to movement leadership, according to four people aligned with Black Lives Matter, whose members are set to convene this weekend in Cleveland for a conference, the Movement for Black Lives.

“We want a candidate who will take up a people’s platform,” Cullors said in an interview on Saturday evening. “We will be at every single debate.”

The “authentic engagement” Cullors is looking for — whether from Clinton or one of her competitors — requires, at least at first, a lot more listening than talking.

”Authentic engagement is saying to the people who are calling out anti-black racism, ‘I want to hear what you have to say, and I’m going to sit and listen,’” she said. “It’s not giving a prepared speech, or saying, ‘Well let me respond.’”

Clinton officials did invite Deray Mckesson, a lead organizer behind a new effort to foster new participation in the movement, to attend the campaign’s “official launch” event last month — a rally on Roosevelt Island in New York. And when Clinton attended a community meeting at a church in Missouri — just after the shooting of nine worshipers in Charleston, S.C. — aides worked with the church to ensure that local movement leaders were invited, according to a campaign official.

Black Lives Matter activists are strongest in number in states like Maryland, Missouri, and New York — the sites of prominent deaths and subsequent protests. Although the movement has grown nationwide — particularly through Twitter — some Democrats say the organization still lacks a central spokesperson or leader.

Clinton has stumbled before in the eyes of critics and members of the movement. At the Missouri stop last month, Clinton talked to attendees about her mother’s perseverance. "Years later when I was old enough to understand I asked her, 'What kept you going?' Her answer was very simple. Kindness along the way from someone who believed she mattered. All lives matter."

Within the movement, answering “black lives matter” with “all lives matter” is seen as diminishing. But campaign officials have stressed that Clinton made the remark within a different context: talking, as she does often, about her mother. (On Saturday, O’Malley was booed when he responded to the protests directly with the phrase, "Black lives matter, white lives matter, all lives matter.")

O’Malley, so far, is the only known candidate to have met formally with Black Lives Matter. The former governor sat down with activists from the group last Tuesday in New York City, a source familiar with the meeting confirmed.

Ross D. Franklin / AP

After the demonstration on Saturday morning, Sanders cancelled a meeting there with Black Lives Matter activists and backers, according to participants. One, Elon James White, said the campaign arranged the gathering to “get Sanders on track with the conversation about issues around racial justice.”

The U.S. senator from Vermont — whose campaign has focused with great intensity on an almost exclusively economic message — has attracted crowds of thousands from the progressive and labor communities. But Sanders has also argued that many of the questions driving the Black Lives Matter movement are rooted in “economic matters” — a frame activists have largely rejected.

The movement is adamant that police violence is systemic. Activists view, for instance, Clinton's vow to equip police officers with body cameras as insufficient.

"We've witnessed the deaths of black people — Eric Garner, John Crawford, Tamir Rice — and witnessed their killers not be indicted or held accountable for their violence," said Zellie Imani, a Black Lives Matter activist and blogger. "[The] majority of patrol cars have dash cameras, cameras that capture police brutality, and they are still not indicted or convicted.”

“Body cams cannot end police brutality, and neither can Hillary."

Her campaign advisers — now three months into the race — have concentrated their time and resources in the four states that begin the presidential primary. As a result, much of their black outreach has occurred there, on a local level, with operatives on the ground building relationships with black lawmakers and black churches.

In South Carolina, Clinton's state director, Clay Middleton, is helping lead the effort.

Her political director also spent much of the early campaign with coalition leaders and immigration and labor activists. Clinton herself met earlier this month with the Congressional Black Caucus on Capitol Hill, in addition to other members.

Last year, Clinton faced a series of protests from DREAMer activists, the undocumented youth who wanted the future candidate to support executive actions to slow, reduce, or end deportations. The demonstrations became a regular feature of politics in 2014, leaving a lasting impression on the party.

Clinton’s campaign hired Lorella Praelli, a DREAMer activist, for the role of Latino engagement director. The candidate herself laid out an extremely specific — and progressive — slate of policy proposals on immigration early in the campaign.

Clinton’s Facebook answer on Monday — in response to a question from a Washington Post reporter — stated that “black people across America still experience racism every day,” and went on to propose body cameras, changes to drug sentencing, and funding for education.

Dante Barry, the executive director of Million Hoodies for Justice, called it “predictable.”

"This response was not enough nor did it get to the points,” Barry said. “The questions I want her to answer are: How will she end white supremacy? I want concrete action steps — this is about ending racism and I want to see how she matches up to that without dodging questions about power. And what does it mean to be safe?"

The president told Jon Stewart the U.S. had to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon using diplomacy, “or potentially we have a military option.”

President Barack Obama with Jon Stewart on The Daily Show Tuesday.

Evan Vucci / AP

Comedian Jon Stewart turned to Iran early in the show, asking the president whose side the U.S. is really on in the Middle East. Obama said the U.S. is fighting the terror group ISIS, then added of Iran, "Look, this is an adversary."

"As has been said frequently, you don't make peace with your friends," Obama added, referring to the deal signed with Iran last week. The agreement is designed to prevent the country from getting nuclear weapons.

The president appeared on the show in advance of Stewart's final episode as host, which is scheduled for Aug. 6.

"I'm issuing a new executive order, that Jon Stewart cannot leave the show," Obama joked. "It's being challenged in the courts."

Later, Obama seemed to suggest that if the deal with Iran hadn't been signed it could have led to war, stating the U.S. could use diplomacy, "or potentially we have a military option."

Obama also compared the deal to the U.S. relationship with the Soviet Union during the Cold War, but said the difference now is that the U.S. is "not giving anything up" or having to disarm.

The president joked that his critics had only vague ideas for improvement, such as "if you'd brought Dick Cheney to the negotiations, everything would be fine."

Obama and Stewart joke about current affairs on The Daily Show.

Evan Vucci / AP

The Obama administration has taken heat from both sides of the spectrum for its relationship with journalists, and midway through Tuesday night's show Stewart asked the president if he felt he had "dealt appropriately with the media."

Obama conceded that the White House may have been too "slow" in figuring out ways to communicate, but said "there's a learning process that's taking place."

"Overall I think that the problem with our interaction with media is probably overstated," he argued, instead blaming the problems on the "balkanization" and "splintering" of the media environment.

View Entire List ›

Greg Kahn for BuzzFeed News

WASHINGTON — The central argument against the sweeping changes to the war on drugs proposed by the Obama administration and others goes like this:

If you take away stringent mandatory minimum sentences for drug crimes, prosecutors can no longer use the fear of prison to flip drug criminals. If they can't flip drug criminals, they can't go after more powerful and dangerous drug criminals.

And if they can't go after those criminals, they can't hope to make a dent in the illegal drug trade.

This was the governing principle of the prosecutors fighting the war on drugs for decades. Just a year or so ago, under the direction of former Attorney General Eric Holder, prosecutors changed the way they charged some drug criminals, avoiding charges carrying mandatory minimums when possible. Some prosecutors worried they'd lose their ability to net the biggest fish.

Sally Quinlan Yates, a career federal prosecutor now leading Obama administration efforts to reduce or eliminate mandatory minimum drug sentences on Capitol Hill, says the old system was all wrong, and she can prove it.

"There were some out there who were saying, and I understand this, 'We'll never get another defendant to cooperate with us, they're not going to plead guilty, they're not going to cooperate with us. We've lost our leverage, we won't be able to work our way up the ladder,'" Yates, the deputy attorney general, told BuzzFeed News. "But that's turned out just not to be true. In fact, the rate of guilty pleas has stayed exactly the same as it was prior to our new mandatory minimum policy and in fact the rate of cooperation is the same or has gone up slightly."

Yates has been saying for years that mandatory minimums — which don't apply in the vast majority of cases federal prosecutors coerce cooperation from all the time — aren't necessary to put high-level drug offenders behind bars. Now she's overseeing the process by which prosecutors move away from mandatory minimums, and she's one of the leading advocates in the administration push to eliminate mandatory minimums altogether in most cases.

It's a fundamental change to the way prosecutors think about their work when it comes to drug cases. Getting convictions without relying on mandatory minimums is a key legacy of Holder's term as Attorney General, and now it's a central part of Yates' argument to lawmakers that it's time to change the nation's sentencing laws.

As real momentum builds on Capitol Hill to rewrite sentencing laws with the goal of refocusing prosecution and lowering the prison population — an issue of prime importance President Obama in the final months of his presidency — Yates is among the top administration aides helping the process along on Capitol Hill. She meets regularly with the members of the Senate in both parties attempting to hash out a bipartisan criminal justice compromise they can pass before the end of the year.

As that effort continues, Yates will continue to be among the most prominent administration faces pushing the Obama team position. On Wednesday, she'll speak at a bipartisan criminal justice policy summit that organizers hope will solidify momentum and help keep the ball rolling in Congress.

Yates has drawn the praise of advocacy groups who say she's able to connect with Republicans in a way the Justice Department often wasn't able to when Holder was in charge, due in part to GOP rhetoric that cast Holder as the biggest villain in the Obama administration.

Criminal justice is a top policy goal for Holder's successor, Loretta Lynch, and Yates also works closely with top department officials to help push unilateral changes to prosecution procedure set down by first by Holder and now by Lynch. She also spends a lot of time talking to working prosecutors, the group that has expressed the greatest skepticism toward the sweeping changes pushed by criminal justice advocates and the administration.

"People get used to doing things a certain way. You ask folks to do something differently, there's naturally some discomfort with that among certain prosecutors, I think," she said. "So change is hard."

Yates knows how to speak their language. On paper, she is basically the prototypical tough-as-nails federal prosecutor.

During her career first as a deputy prosecutor and later as the first woman U.S. Attorney running the district based in Atlanta, Yates racked up big victories. She helped put the Atlanta Olympic Park bomber, Eric Rudolph, away for four consecutive life sentences and led prosecutions on a nearly a dozen Atlanta officials on corruption charges in the mid-2000s, including Democratic mayor Bill Campbell. She led the successful prosecution of three Atlanta cops who killed 92 year-old Kathryn Johnson, who was black, in a so-called "no-knock" drug raid that mistakenly targeted her home. Basically, if you can imagine a prosecutor prosecuting it, Yates has done it.

In person, Yates has a lawyer's skill with phrasing, a southerner's chatty charm and a politician's penchant for caution. In an interview with BuzzFeed News in the Deputy Attorney General's sprawling WPA-era office suite in the Justice Department headquarters in Washington, Yates summoned all her powers to make sure to set expectations just right when asked how likely it is criminal justice legislation moves through Congress by the end of the year.

"Now I wouldn't say I'm confident," she said with a chuckle after a reporter suggested the word. "I would say I'm hopeful. Hopeful, hopeful. Not confident."

Yates' reserved optimism captures the current zeitgeist of the criminal justice moment. Red state efforts backed by a coalition of Koch-backed libertarians and prominent progressives like the ACLU have led to changes to nonviolent drug prosecutions that put an emphasis on drug treatment and anti-recidivism programs rather than lengthy and expensive prison sentences. In Washington, Obama has made criminal justice his next big policy push. Libertarian-leaning Republican lawmakers like Sen. Mike Lee of Utah, who have been pushing their party to adopt a criminal justice mindset like the one currently in play in GOP-controlled states like Georgia and Texas, have seen their efforts finally start to change minds among the establishment, tough-on-crime set.

The divide is now between so-called front-end advocates, who want changes to sentencing laws and penalties given to criminals when they first enter the system, and so-called back-end advocates who would rather leave sentencing alone and focus on parole eligibility and anti-recidivism programs.

Greg Kahn for BuzzFeed News

The politics are simple, and crucial. Front-end changes are more risky, opening up politicians to attack ads saying they favored lower sentences for criminals and reduced penalties for drug dealers. The most ardent criminal justice advocates are pushing front-end changes. Back-end changes are an easier sell politically, but have much less impact on prison populations, according to advocates. They're usually the most favored solution by politicians who are still closely tied to the tough-on-crime model of criminal justice that produced mandatory minimums for drug crimes in the first place.

Negotiations between the sides in Congress are continuing apace, but it's Washington, and it's election season soon and optimism is not exactly ever in real abundance in the nation's capitol. The administration is pushing front-end changes, and Yates suggested whatever bill makes it through congress needs to include them.

"Certainly we want to incentivize those who are in prison to participate in prison programs that will reduce recidivism," she said. "But that doesn't mean that we don't have an obligation to have a fair and proportional sentencing system in place on the front end. And I believe that our current system needs some adjustment in that regard."

"It's really essential we pair any back-end reform with meaningful front-end reform," Yates said later.

Significant changes are needed to restore trust in federal prosecutors among some Americans, Yates said.

"It's really important to me that the public have confidence in their criminal justice system. We don't operate very well if the public doesn't trust us," she said. "And I think we've gotten to a point now where there is some distrust in whether the system is operating fairly. And so I think we have a real obligation to right that."

Yates has impressed both Republicans on the Hill with her interest in hearing their concerns and advocates around Washington with her ability to navigate the often polarized politics of the city with a deftness they say was not always on display before she took her current job in March. In a term that saw extremely partisan fights over Lynch's nomination, Yates was welcomed to the job by Republicans in the Senate: both of Georgia's Republican senators supported her nomination and other prominent Republicans the Senate voted for her.

In the Senate, negotiators are debating all manner of ways to tweak the existing system. One goal is to separate the length of a drug sentence from the amount of drugs an offender is found with. This was the key metric in the tough-on-crime days of the 1980s and '90s, leading to press conferences with bags of drugs on the table, beaming prosecutors a lot of flashbulbs. Also, advocates say, many years doled out unfair, counterproductive sentences. Now, Yates and others say a focus on weight just means the courier who gets caught catches the sentence while the distributor who dispatched him or her catches a lower mandatory minimum if they're caught with a smaller volume of drugs.

"How do we rework the mandatory minimum system that we have now?" Yates said, describing the questions up for debate in closed door meetings across Washington these days. "Do we reduce the mandatory minimums? Do we reduce the amount of people who qualify for them? Do you add in other factors to determine if they qualify? All of those things are in the mix right now in terms of what is being discussed as possibilities."

Keeping the administration above the fray, and out of a position that may alienate Republicans, while also pushing Obama's policy goals could be a tall order as things move forward. But the other part of Yates' job may be the toughest. She has to help turn the Department of Justice around on drug prosecutions, a process began by Holder and given equal priority by Lynch. It wasn't that long ago that prosecutors in the Department of Justice measured their success by the amount of time they heaped onto an offender, whether or not that offender was the biggest possible fish or a real danger to the safety of others.

Changes implemented by Holder as part of his smart on crime iniative — which guided prosecutors away from throwing the book at low-level nonviolent drug offenses — led to a reduction in prosecutions. Yates is now in charge of implementing the new approach. She says most prosecutors welcome the changes, but Obama's recent round of clemencies for nonviolent offenders sentenced under the old rules put into perspective how much of a culture change is still under way at the Justice Department.

"There are cases now that I see when I review clemency petitions and I see cases that were charged under different statutes, different laws at the time, and different policies [at the Justice Department] that certainly trouble me from a fairness perspective," she said. "The prosecutors who were involved, they were following the department policies that were in place at the time. And so I'm not suggesting they were doing anything improper or unethical. But our thinking has evolved on this. And it's time that our legislation evolved as well."

Yates says prosecutors are open to changes, and she's got the statistics to keep pushing those who are still skeptical. In the end she thinks the Justice Department will be continue to make the changes it can to the way the war on drugs is fought even if Congress can't.

For Yates, the movement is a personal one.

"At the risk of sounding really corny now, I'm a career prosecutor. I've been doing this for a very long time. And I believe in holding people responsible when they violate the law," she said. "But our sole responsibility is to seek justice. And sometimes that means a very lengthy sentence, for people how are dangerous and from which society must be protected. But it always means seeking a proportional sentence. And that's what this sentencing reform is really about."

“Diplomacy doesn’t work without military force behind it…”

Gary Cameron / Reuters

Republican presidential candidate and Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul says he supports military action against Iran to prevent them from getting a nuclear weapon, even though he says it would only delay Iran getting a bomb.

"I think military force always has to back up diplomacy," Paul told radio host Mark Levin on Tuesday. "Diplomacy doesn't work without military force behind it, and I think making that decision is a difficult decision, but ultimately yes you have to have military force that backs up the diplomatic negotiations that you have. We have to say that there has to be force as a backdrop to this."

Paul told Levin he believed any decision made on Iran has to have "the best outcome" in mind. Paul said he thought an attack on Iran might delay them developing a nuclear weapon, but would actually allow them to develop a bomb faster in the long run.

"The decision has to be made, which is the best way to try have, you know, an outcome that is the best outcome. And I think the best outcome -- if you were looking at the best outcome from there -- if we were to use military force I think we delay a nuclear weaponization but I think ultimately what you end up having is you have situation where there are no more inspections and there may well be a quicker development of a nuclear weapon after that," Paul stated.

"I think as long as we have a chance of negotiations we should continue it, but it has to be verifiable. I think the mistake that this president has made is that I think he was so eager for a deal that he cut a deal that I think allows the collapse of the sanctions before you have evidence of consistent compliance."

Paul's willingness to use military force against Iran is markedly different from his past positions -- as a surrogate for his dad in 2007 and 2008, Paul said Iran didn't pose a threat to our national security.

"I find it hard to believe that a country that can't refine their gas is somehow a threat to our national security," Paul said at a 2008 campaign event for his father in Montana. In one 2007 interview with radio host and conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, Paul said that Iran wasn't a threat to the U.S. or Israel, citing estimates that Israel already has 100 nuclear weapons.

w.soundcloud.com

A bipartisan bill introduced in the Senate would grant the Department of Homeland Security a more focused role in monitoring and countering cyber threats.

Senators Susan Collins, Mark Warner, Dan Coats, and Kelly Ayotte. / Via Office of Sen. Warner.

In the aftermath of a massive data breach on the federal government's personnel database, which resulted in the theft of more than 21 million government employees' sensitive information, a bipartisan group of senators is working to bolster the security of federal networks and consolidate the government's cyberdefense.

The bill would accomplish this, the senators believe, by granting the Department of Homeland Security additional authority to monitor the networks of other federal agencies and to initiate countermeasures that would thwart cyber intrusions.

"The recent cyber attack at [the Office of Personnel Management] affected a staggering number of Americans and exposed a tremendous vulnerability with the status quo in the defense of federal civilian networks," Sen. Susan Collins said Wednesday. "Like millions of Americans, I received a letter that my personal data had been compromised."

Collins was joined by her Senate colleagues Mark Warner, Dan Coats, Barbara Mikulski, Kelly Ayotte, and Claire McCaskill.

The grand scale of the OPM breach, which was revealed earlier this month, was seen by many lawmakers as a reflection of incompetence among civilian leadership and a result of enduring negligence across government agencies to prepare for the rising threat of cyber attacks.

"The attack on OPM has been a painful illustration of just how behind the curve some of our federal agencies have been when it comes to cybersecurity," Sen. Warner said.

Shortly after the total number of affected employees was publicly disclosed, OPM Director Katherine Archuleta resigned. The stolen information included employees' Social Security numbers and fingerprints, as well as their home addresses and financial histories.

"Today's threats are too great to rely on each department and agency to protect their own networks, and recent evidence demonstrates that the status quo is unacceptable," Sen. Coats said. "It's time for [Homeland Security] to earn its title."

The legislation aims to focus the federal government's cyber defenses by giving the Department of Homeland Security a more direct role. Under the proposed changes, the DHS would be able to operate breach detection on all federal agencies across the .gov domain without an agency's permission. The Department would also be empowered to launch defensive measures once a threat has been detected on government networks.

The senators believe the proposed law will better protect sensitive data that's stored in scattered locations.

"We've got to employ every tool at our disposal to ensure this data can be protected, and that such a staggering security breach never happens again," said Sen. McCaskill.

LINK: 21.5 Million People Affected In Largest U.S. Government Hack In History

LINK: Katherine Archuleta, Director Of Federal Office That Suffered A Major Cyberhack, Resigns

View Entire List ›

“You don’t just get to pick and choose what laws you enforce.”

ROBYN BECK / Getty Images

Speaking on KTRS 550 radio on Wednesday, Republican presidential candidate and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker said he would enforce federal laws that ban the sale and use of marijuana in states were it has been legalized.

Walker said that he personally believes it is a state issue, but until federal law is changed, it needs to be enforced. He added that he was against the legalization of marijuana.

Host: In 30 seconds would your Justice Department go after Colorado for legalized marijuana sales?

Scott Walker: For me I think that should be a state issue but I also think that you can't ignore the laws. And until the federal government changes the laws you don't get to pick and choose in a just society whether you enforce the laws or not. You have to change them.

Host: So yes, you would go after Colorado?

Scott Walker – Well, I would enforce the law that was on the books no matter what it is. And again if we are going to change it, change it in the Congress. I believe it is a states issue, so I don't have a problem changing it. I don't think marijuana is something that should be legalized, I've opposed it at my own state because law enforcement in both political parties have warned me that that's a gateway drug, they worry it would open the door to others out there. But to me I still think that's something best handled at the state level. But the federal level, you've got to change the law. You don't just get to pick and choose what laws you enforce.

w.soundcloud.com

View Entire List ›

U.S. Sen. Tammy Baldwin is among the leading backers of the Equality Act.

AP / Ramde Dinesh

When congressional Democrats introduce a long-awaited bill on Thursday to protect LGBT Americans from discrimination, they also will take a step toward expanding existing civil rights laws to protect the rights of women.

The Equality Act would bar discrimination against people on the basis of their sexual orientation or gender identity by amending a band of existing statutes — most notably by adding those classes to provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. But what was never included in that five-decade-old law were protections against sex discrimination in places like hotels and restaurants.

The Civil Rights Act currently limits those protections to people based on their race, color, religion, and national origin.

The new bill would add sex — in addition to sexual orientation and gender identity — to the groups of protected classes in public accommodations, according to a fact sheet about the Equality Act obtained by BuzzFeed News on Tuesday. The fact sheet was circulated by senators earlier this week.

Furthermore, the bill would expand the types of public accommodation covered by the civil rights law. The existing statute applies to hotels and inns, food-service establishments, theaters, venues, and handful of other types of businesses. According to the legislative fact sheet, the Equality Act would add to that list retail stores, banks, transportation services, health care services, and a wide spectrum of entities that provide goods, services, or programs.

The Equality Act, the legislative fact sheet said, would also dictate that federal funds cannot discriminate on the basis of sex, in addition to sexual orientation and gender identity, in programs such as health care, child welfare, nutrition assistance, public education, or financial assistance for higher education.

Primary sponsors of the bill from the House and Senate — Rhode Island Rep. David Cicilline and Oregon Sen. Jeff Merkley — held an embargoed briefing on the legislation with a handful of reporters Wednesday. They will announce details of the bill — alongside Sens. Tammy Baldwin, Cory Booker, and Chuck Schumer; House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi; and Reps. John Lewis, Jared Polis, Mark Takano, Mark Pocan, Kyrsten Sinema, Sean Patrick Maloney, and Mike Honda — at a noon press conference on Thursday at the Capitol. No Republican members have thus far announced support for the bill.

The Equality Act would be the most comprehensive piece of legislation to date to protect LGBT people from discrimination — including in housing, workplaces, schools, and public accommodations.

“…all candidates really should focus on what they’re going to do to solve problems…”

Justin Sullivan / Getty Images

Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush says Donald Trump isn't going to solve problems by "preying on people's fears and anger."

The former governor of Florida was speaking on the Mike Gallagher Show Wednesday when he was asked if Trump's role in campaign was good or bad for the Republican Party.

"Well here's what I know, there's a lot of disaffection," Bush said. "As I campaign I hear it, I sense it. It's pretty clear that we've lost our way. People don't believe their government's working for them. Our economic growth has been tepid. You can see why -- the border's not being controlled effectively. You can see why people are angry. I don't think though preying on people's fears and anger is going to solve the problem."

Trump has called Bush "terrible," "pathetic," sent racially-charged tweets about Bush's wife (who is Mexican), and taken repeated swipes at him over his stance on immigration and education.

Bush said he's happy to talk about the big issues of day or his policy proposals, and he thinks all candidates should focus on that.

"You know, I'm happy to talk to you about any of the policy initiatives that we're proposing or just the big issues of the day," said Bush. "And all candidates really should focus on what they're going to do to solve problems and do they have the leadership skills to make it possible. When it gets to that I feel pretty good about my campaign."

w.soundcloud.com

The ad touts Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson’s opposition to President Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran and features a photoshopped image of President Obama shaking hands with Iranian President Hassan Rouhani — but the two have never met.

Restoration PAC

REUTERS / JASON REED

A new ad touting Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson's opposition to President Obama's nuclear deal with Iran features a photoshopped image of President Obama shaking hands with Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, as well as a still from a propaganda video produced by ISIS.

The ad, which is running in the Madison, Milwaukee, and Green Bay markets, was created by Restoration PAC, a group based in Oak Brook, Illinois.

"Some of our leaders, like Ron Johnson, understand that preventing Iran from getting the bomb is essential to our safety," warns the ad. "Others, like President Obama, insist on signing a toothless agreement that makes us less safe."

The ad's background images include a shot from an ISIS-produced video, footage of a smoldering World Trade Center, and an image of the president shaking hands with Iranian President Hassan Rouhani.

Obama and Rouhani have never met, however. The photograph was created from a image of Obama meeting with Indian Prime Minister Manmohan in 2011.

When asked for comment, Restoration PAC spokesman Dan Curry told BuzzFeed News, "I don't know what you're talking about. You're saying that's a photoshop — can you explain what you're talking about?"

When Curry was told that Obama and Rouhani have never met, Curry said he would "take a look at that."

Asked about the ad's use of ISIS-related imagery, however, Curry said it was "nonsensical" that media companies can use the propaganda videos but not political campaigns.

"So you're saying that media companies can use ISIS, what you call propaganda imagery, but political campaigns can't use ISIS imagery, no matter what the message they're trying to portray?" asked Curry. "That just doesn't make sense to me, it's just nonsensical."

"The point is to show ISIS as bad people," Curry said. "It certainly isn't being used as propaganda for them, it's being used as propaganda against them."

In a press release, Restoration PAC said that that ad was produced by "award-winning ad-maker Rick Reed, who specializes in national security issues and whose Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ad campaign was pivotal in re-electing George W. Bush President in 2004." The release also claims that "noted message expert Frank Luntz" also participated in the project.

View Entire List ›

“‘Service’ in our military to invade, occupy, and oppress countries in order to extend U.S. Empire must not be glorified as a ‘heroic’ and sacred effort.”

BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI / Getty Images

Former Rep. Ron Paul writes in his new book that "military personnel who march off to war are more victims and dupes than heroes."

Paul — who twice ran for the Republican presidential nomination and whose son, Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, is currently running for the nomination — released his new book Swords into Plowshares: A Life in Wartime and a Future of Peace and Prosperity last Friday.

"'Service' in our military to invade, occupy, and oppress countries in order to extend U.S. Empire must not be glorified as a 'heroic' and sacred effort," Paul writes. "My five years in the Air Force during the 1960s did not qualify me as any sort of hero."

Paul, who previously touted his military serve in his presidential campaign ads, writes that his thinking on his time in the military has changed.

"My primary thoughts now about that period of time are: 'Why was I so complacent, and why did I so rarely seriously question the wisdom of the Vietnam War?'" Paul writes. "The sad part is that the military personnel who march off to war are more victims and dupes than heroes."

"This is especially true when a draft is in place," Paul continues. "And remember that the threat of conscription always hangs over our heads as long as the people continue to allow wars of aggression. There still is a Selective Service System and draft registration for all 18-year-old males just in case the 'cause of freedom' requires more cannon fodder to fight the wars to maintain U.S. Empire."

Paul, who said earlier this year that on Memorial Day we should honor people such as Pentagon Paper leaker Daniel Ellsberg and NSA leaker Edward Snowden, similarly writes in his new book that true heroes are those who "alert the people to our own government's misdeeds."

"Our true heroes include those who have risked their lives and lost their freedoms in an effort to alert the people to our own government's misdeeds," writes Paul. "The warmongers are fond of calling those heroes traitors. Recognizing these heroes will help open people's eyes to the injustice of the dictators' wars. Truth is something to which the warmongers cannot easily adapt. Truth becomes treasonous in an empire of lies."

The masses must not be swayed by the glorification of dictatorial leaders. They also must not be fearful of their own fate if government is no longer responsible for the people's economic security and personal safety. Indeed , all governments, through the centuries, have so miserably failed at fulfilling these responsibilities. We must also reject the notion that loyal obedience to state dictatorial power is patriotic, necessary, and always good.

Our revered Founders were called America's original patriots because they rebelled against an oppressive government instead of praising the king and tolerating his army's abuse of the people's liberty. "Service" in our military to invade, occupy , and oppress countries in order to extend US Empire must not be glorified as a "heroic" and sacred effort.

My five years in the Air Force during the 1960s did not qualify me as any sort of hero. My primary thoughts now about that period of time are: "Why was I so complacent, and why did I so rarely seriously question the wisdom of the Vietnam War?" The sad part is that the military personnel who march off to war are more victims and dupes than heroes. This is especially true when a draft is in place. And remember that the threat of conscription always hangs over our heads as long as the people continue to allow wars of aggression. There still is a Selective Service System and draft registration for all 18- year-old males just in case the "cause of freedom" requires more cannon fodder to fight the wars to maintain US Empire.

Our culture that praises war and punishes truth -tellers of necessity must change if we expect to launch a new policy that will enhance the chances of achieving peace and prosperity. Our true heroes include those who have risked their lives and lost their freedoms in an effort to alert the people to our own government's misdeeds. The warmongers are fond of calling those heroes traitors. Recognizing these heroes will help open people's eyes to the injustice of the dictators' wars. Truth is something to which the warmongers cannot easily adapt. Truth becomes treasonous in an empire of lies.