With only a few days until the official start of the Republican National Convention, it seems all anyone can talk about is what is going to happen in Cleveland. While we all spent the past week practically bursting with anticipation as we waited for Donald Trump to announce his vice presidential running mate, now that the news is out the build up to the convention has seemed to plateau. But, good news for all you thrill-seeking political followers out there, because drama is back! Not five minutes from the site of the convention in Cleveland, a new billboard has popped up, and it’s a good one.

A giant billboard of Trump and Ted Cruz kissing just went up 5 minutes from the RNC https://t.co/OD96csFsCNpic.twitter.com/YcLjGt1EXP

— JamesMichael Nichols (@jamesmichael) July 14, 2016

That’s right folks, this gigantic billboard right outside the RNC features an artistic representation of Donald Trump and Ted Cruz kissing.

The billboard–which was funded and put up by Planting Peace, a non-profit focused on spreading peace through humanitarian aid–reads, “Love Trumps Hate. End Homophobia.” Aaron Jackson, the President of Planting Peace, claims that this billboard is a direct response to the recently released GOP platform on LGBT issues.

Many have noted this week that the platform up for ratification at the convention is perhaps the most homophobic platform that the Republican party has ever seen. While the platform has some expected positions, like defining marriage as between a man and a woman, it also includes much harsher and intolerant provisions, such as subtle support for conversion therapy. Republican leaders, like president of the Log Cabin Republicans Gregory Angelo, are disappointed with these archaic stances on homosexuality:

Opposition to marriage equality, nonsense about bathrooms, an endorsement of the debunked psychological practice of ‘pray the gay away’–it’s all in there. This isn’t my GOP, and I know it’s not yours either. Heck, it’s not even Donald Trump’s!

Planting Peace’s response to these hateful stances is an attempt to remind members of the LGBT community that they matter and are loved. The group insightfully points out in a statement:

What Donald, Ted and the Republican platform either fail to realize, or realize and just don’t seem to care about, is that their words and actions toward our LGBT family–especially LGBT children–have meaning and impact. LGBT children hear these messages telling them they are nothing but second class citizens and are left feeling somehow broken or “less than.”

The group hopes this billboard will challenge conservatives at the convention and, really, people everywhere to think about the effects that their hate can have on people in the LGBT community. Thus far, the response has been overwhelmingly positive, with people posting online about how art like this makes America a great country.

Hateful speech and homophobic party platforms are not something that our country should support ever, especially not in 2016. It’s time for love to trump hate. Here’s to hoping Ted Cruz and Donald Trump making out will forever burn that reality into the minds of closed-minded people everywhere.

Alexandra Simone

Alex Simone is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street and a student at The George Washington University, studying Political Science. She is passionate about law and government, but also enjoys the finer things in life like watching crime dramas and enjoying a nice DC brunch. Contact Alex at ASimone@LawStreetmedia.com

The post Billboard of Trump and Cruz Kissing Displayed Next to RNC appeared first on Law Street.

The Republican National Convention–during which Donald Trump will presumably go from “presumptive” Republican nominee to the Republican nominee–is just a few days away. In anticipation, Trump is releasing his VP pick tomorrow. Sources today are saying that Indiana Governor Mike Pence is going to be that pick.

Who is Mike Pence?

Pence was elected governor of Indiana in 2012. He previously represented Indiana’s 6th District in Congress for six terms. He began his career in politics as a talk radio host, focusing on politics.

Why would Trump pick Pence?

Trump’s candidacy has been anything but orthodox, and his VP pick has been hotly anticipated. But what does Trump stand to gain by picking Pence?

Rallying the Social Conservatives

Pence is, without a doubt, a staunch social conservative. Fellow Law Streeter Alex Simone wrote a takedown of Pence back when he signed an incredibly restrictive abortion bill–women called Pence to update him on their menstrual cycles to protest the legislation. He also has a lot of social conservative street cred when it comes to his opposition to LGBT rights and his Christian background. Given that some of Trump’s social conservative positions have been questioned, Pence’s background may be part of the attraction.

More Friends 

Pence’s resume will also likely come in handy. Trump has been certainly running against the establishment, and while a lot of Republicans–including current Speaker of the House Paul Ryan–have fallen in line, Pence’s many friends on the Hill could still be a good get. Pence spent 12 years in the House, and reportedly remains deeply respected there. Representative John Carter, a Republican from Texas, told the Hill:

I’d be dancing in the aisles. He’s one of the best we’ve ever had in Congress. I’d love to see Mike Pence be the guy. It’d be awesome.

Regional Balance

Pence is from the Rust Belt–an area that Trump may need to rely on if he hopes to win the presidency. As Ronald Brownstein of the Atlantic put it during a more nuanced look at Donald Trump’s need for Rust Belt voters:

Large Rust Belt prizes such as Ohio, Iowa, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin would be indispensable for any Trump general-election bid because they offer him the best chance to tip states primarily by widening the GOP advantage among the blue-collar white voters who have keyed his advance in the Republican primaries.

A Different Public Presence

Trump’s unpredictability, passion, and willingness to piss anyone and everyone off have characterized his campaign. Pence, while described by some as a “firebrand,” is more of a practiced politician. He plays to his strengths–Adam Wren of Politico described him as having an “aw-shucks Hoosier persona.” That certainly stands in contrast to Trump’s New York accent and abrasive personality and could win more voters to Trump’s ticket.

So…is Trump/Pence set in stone?

Not quite. Trump isn’t set to announce his VP until tomorrow in New York. But according to “a Republican with direct knowledge of the decision,” it’s going to be Pence.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post It Looks Like Governor Mike Pence will be Trump’s VP Pick appeared first on Law Street.

As the Republican National Convention–which will be held in Cleveland, Ohio–approaches, the GOP is drafting its platform. A party’s platform doesn’t set any requirements or binding language, but it does provide guidance for the party’s direction in coming years. It can be an opportunity for a party to show that it’s made progress on issues, or that it’s ready to move in an optimistic direction. Unfortunately, this year it seems that the GOP is once again taking an archaic view on social issues. Here’s a look at some of the crazy things that have come up in platform talks:

Pornography

The GOP may be taking a stand against porn, deeming it a “public health crisis.” The draft party platform currently includes an amendment written by Mary Frances Forrester, a delegate from North Carolina, that states:

The internet must not become a safe haven for predators. Pornography, with its harmful effects, especially on children, has become a public health crisis that is destroying the life of millions. We encourage states to continue to fight this public menace and pledge our commitment to children’s safety and well-being. We applaud the social networking sites that bar sex offenders from participation. We urge energetic prosecution of child pornography which closely linked to human trafficking.

While fighting human trafficking is certainly laudable, the rest of the amendment is a bit overdramatic, and there’s no real evidence to suggest that porn has destroyed the lives of millions.

Gay Marriage

After  gay marriage’s big SCOTUS win last summer and the fact that almost 60 percent of Americans support same-sex marriage, you would think that the GOP would cool it on insisting that marriage can only be between one man and one woman. You’d be wrong.

Some on the platform committee–including Rachel Hoff, the first gay individual to sit on that committee–wanted to soften the GOP’s language on gay marriage. But they were overwhelmingly voted down. For now, it appears that opposition to same sex marriage will stay in the platform.

Bathroom Mania

There was the HB 2 craziness in North Carolina earlier this year. Now, multiple states are suing the Obama Administration over a directive that requires public schools to allow students to use the bathroom that conforms with their gender identity. So, it follows that there would be language about bathrooms in this year’s GOP platform draft. Here’s a draft of that language:

This is the draft language opposing Obama admin’s guidance to schools re: trans kids and bathrooms/locker rooms pic.twitter.com/OyWfVaxbB5

— Liz Goodwin (@lizcgoodwin) July 11, 2016

Log Cabin Republicans President Gregory Angelo talked to the Daily Signal, and made a good point about how ridiculous this addition seems:

This is a foolish issue to nationalize and talk about within the Republican Party platform. It literally drags the platform into the gutter when so many people who are on this committee seem hell-bent with some obsession with bathroom use.

Conversion Therapy

Another socially conservative issue that became a topic of discussion was gay conversion therapy. Delegate Tony Perkins, who heads up the Family Research Council introduced conversion therapy language into an amendment and the subcommittee voted to approve it. Gay conversion therapy (sometimes called reparative therapy) is a discredited practice that attempts to change an individual’s sexual orientation, and has been banned by multiple states. Perkins stated:

It’s what it says, it’s whatever therapy that a parent wants to get for a minor child. There’s states that are trying to restrict what parents can do for loving their children. Parents have a better idea I think than legislators or government bureaucrats.

via GIPHY

What’s Next?

And there you have it, all the crazy stuff that could be included in the GOP platform. Nothing is set in stone yet, but the fact that some of these topics were even up for discussion isn’t a great sign when it comes to social progress in the U.S.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Will the GOP Platform Stay Stuck in the Past? appeared first on Law Street.

Don’t expect to see any Apple gear at the GOP Convention in Cleveland next month–the tech giant announced that it will not provide any funds, devices, or support to this year’s convention, like it has done in the past. Why not? Apple is protesting Donald Trump’s controversial remarks about minorities, women, and immigrants.

So, @realDonaldTrump, you’re such a “great” businessman and negotiator. You’re costing the #RNC sponsors (#Apple, #Ford, etc.). WTF?!#HaHa!

— (((B. Paul Stuart))) (@BrianPaulStuart) June 18, 2016

Apple is the first company in Silicon Valley to take this stance. Others like Google, Facebook, and Microsoft have already pledged some financial support to the convention. At the 2008 Republic and Democrat conventions, Apple donated about $140,000 worth of MacBooks and other products. In 2012, it did not donate free merchandise to the conventions because Democrats placed a ban on corporations financing their nominating events.

A spokeswoman for the GOP convention told Politico that “we are working with a variety of major tech partners who are focused on being part of the American political process.” In April, Google said it would attend the convention and would be the official live stream provider, despite pressure from protestors who called Google to back out because of Trump’s inflammatory comments. Microsoft will donate computers and software, but will not provide funds to Republicans, like it has in the past. Despite Mark Zuckerberg’s criticism of Trump, Facebook has pledged financial and other support to the convention.

Apple declined to comment on its decision, so it’s unclear whether or not it will still provide financial support to the Democratic convention in Philadelphia next month. A spokesperson for the Trump campaign did not respond to Politico’s request for a comment. Donald Trump has singled out Apple in speeches, criticizing CEO Tim Cook’s stance on encryption, while also calling for a boycott on its products.

Of course #Apple is uneasy over Donald J. Trump. Who isn’t? #rnc #uspoli #p2 https://t.co/wxjVfc31wD

— Truth Mashup (@truthmashup) June 19, 2016

Usually, tech companies donate to Democratic and Republican efforts equally. Apple typically does not engage in politics, but Cook has tried to forge relationships with Democrat and Republican lawmakers. Last year, Cook and a handful of top Republican house leaders dined in D.C. together.

However, Apple’s decision is not totally unprecedented. HP, who was a major donor to the GOP convention in 2012, backed out of funding this year’s convention because of pressure from activists at ColorofChange.org in June. The New York Times reported in March that several corporations were thinking about scaling back their donations to the RNC because of Trump’s political ideology.

“We want them to divest from hate. We want them to pull all their money and support,”  said Mary Alice Crim, field director for Free Press Action Fund, which is part of the anti-Trump campaign. She added that tech companies that are backing the convention need to be “thinking hard about where they put their brand, and whether they want to align their brand with racism, hatred, and misogyny.”

Inez Nicholson

Inez is an editorial intern at Law Street from Raleigh, NC. She will be a junior at North Carolina State University and is studying political science and communication media. When she’s not in the newsroom, you can find her in the weight room. Contact Inez at INicholson@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Apple Won’t Support the RNC Because of Trump appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Unrest on Okinawa Island: Protesters Call For Removal of US Military Bases

Okinawa Islanders have had enough. After a 20 year-old Japanese woman was raped and killed at the hands of a US Marine, intensified protests sprung up Sunday to remove U.S. military bases from the island. This is largest demonstration against the U.S. since the rape of a 12 year-old girl by two American marines and a Navy sailor in 1995.

These crimes are not tolerated in the states so why are they committed by our servicemen overseas? The issue risks weakening ties between Japan and Washington, and has yet to be endorsed by Japanese lawmakers. Read the full story here.

Rant Crush

RantCrush collects the top trending topics in the law and policy world each day just for you.

The post RantCrush Top 5: June 20, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to the RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through the top five controversial and crazy stories in the world of law and policy each day. So who is ranting and who is raving today? Check it out below:

Trump Pisses Off Buzzfeed, You’ll Never Guess What Happens Next

Online news, quiz, and listicle giant Buzzfeed is pulling out of a massive $1.3 million advertising deal with the Republican National Committee to protest Donald Trump’s rhetoric. Buzzfeed’s CEO, Jonah Peretti stated:

Earlier today, BuzzFeed informed the RNC that we would not accept Trump for President ads and that we would be terminating our agreement with them. The Trump campaign is directly opposed to the freedoms of our employees in the United States and around the world and in some cases, such as his proposed ban on international travel for Muslims, would make it impossible for our employees to do their jobs.

Peretti also said:

However, in some cases we must make business exceptions: we don’t run cigarette ads because they are hazardous to our health, and we won’t accept Trump ads for the exact same reason.

Good for you, Buzzfeed!

Rant Crush

RantCrush collects the top trending topics in the law and policy world each day just for you.

The post RantCrush Top 5: June 6, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

Early on in his quest to preside over the most powerful nation on earth, questions were raised about Donald Trump’s temperament. The businessman swore he had a “presidential” side to him that would reveal itself as the race moved on. On Monday, Paul Manafort, Trump’s newly hired delegate guru, experienced the difficulties of trying to summon his new boss’s more polished side.

According to Politico, Trump is uncomfortable with Manafort’s recent directives aimed at cleaning up his speaking style, even urging him to use a teleprompter in lieu of his more “wing it” inclinations.

A few weeks ago, Trump recruited Manafort in an effort to prevent a contested convention in Cleveland in July, and if need be, to draw on his years of experience to ensure that the convention goes Trump’s way. Manafort has decades of experience navigating contested conventions, managing Gerald Ford’s efforts in 1976 and Ronald Reagan’s in 1980.

There have been signs of late that Manafort is doing more than managing Trump’s delegate game.

Last week, at a gathering of the Republican National Committee in Florida, Manafort let slip a statement that implied Trump is simply “projecting an image” at the moment:

“The part that he’s been playing is evolving into the part that now you’ve been expecting, but he wasn’t ready for, because he had first to complete the first phase… You’ll start to see more depth of the person, the real person. You’ll see a real different way,” Manafort told AP reporters who attended the gathering at a resort in Hollywood, Florida.

Trump has cautioned Manafort, who he thinks is overstepping his role by urging him to go about things in a more “presidential” manner, something Trump is not quite ready to do.

Trump has been avoiding the Sunday morning talk shows at Manafort’s request (the instances Trump often slips up, Manafort said), though Manafort himself has been making more appearances on television of late. Trump, who relishes screen time and has bragged about his ability to procure free media coverage, is suspicious of Manafort’s recent media time, sources told Politico.

The beneficiary of the latest Trump camp tension: Corey Lewandowski, Trump’s campaign manager who has been privately dueling with Manafort since he was hired in late March. Just last month Lewandowski was charged with battery after a video implicated him in forcefully grabbing Breitbart reporter Michelle Fields by the wrist at a campaign event in Jupiter, Florida. The charges were dropped and Trump, who was under pressure to relieve his longtime friend of his duties, doubled down and reiterated his support for his campaign manager.

And because of recent tension between Manafort and Trump, it seems Lewandowski will be granted even more sway moving forward. Whether the team can get on the same page as the fight for delegates drags on throughout the summer remains to be seen.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trump Scoffs at Campaign Aides’ Attempts to Turn Him ‘Presidential’ appeared first on Law Street.

On the internet, everyone can have an opinion. The idea behind Change.org is that if enough people share an opinion, the powers that be will listen and accommodate their requests. Some petitions are superficial, like this one demanding that Instagram present photos chronologically. Some are touching, such as this one by the mother of a murder victim asking that the killer not receive a death sentence. One petition that has been getting attention recently is a petition for the Republican convention in Cleveland—an event with the potential to incite riots—to be an open carry zone for firearms.

Ohio is already an open carry state, but Quicken Loans Arena, the venue for the RNC convention, forbids firearms inside the premises. The petition explains in no uncertain terms how dire the need for firearms at the convention truly is. The author, a man named Len Davies refers to Quicken Loans Arena’s policy as “a direct affront to the Second Amendment,” arguing that it puts “all attendees at risk.” Davies even quotes the NRA as saying, “gun free zones… tell every insane killer in America… [the] safest place to inflict maximum mayhem with minimum risk.”

If the petition comes to pass, the GOP candidates (as well as the managers of Quicken Loans Arena) will have a tricky decision on their hands. From one point of view, open carry is a no-brainer because all three republican candidates have voiced their disapproval of gun-free zones. The petition cites several quotes from each candidate: Donald Trump has called multiple times for the expansion of open carry areas, saying “you know what a gun-free zone is to a sicko? That’s bait.” Ted Cruz has said “look, if you’re a lunatic ain’t nothing better then having a bunch of targets you know that are going to be unarmed.” John Kasich worked to end “gun-free zones” at National Guard facilities in Ohio.

While the decision would ultimately come down to the venue’s management, candidates and figureheads of the RNC will be encouraged to respond to this petition. Supporting open carry at an event like this one could be a very dangerous move, but denying open carry could be seen as a violation of second amendment rights. If a candidate supports open carry in their state, that should mean they see it as a safe choice and would have no issue following the same rules at an RNC event. The petition decries the “hypocritical act of selecting a ‘gun-free zone’ for the convention.”

Some of the petition’s supporters may have ulterior motives, however. Many tweets and Facebook posts seem to indicate that the petition’s proponents aren’t quite friends of the RNC and are sending a tongue-in-cheek request for mayhem and chaos at the Cleveland convention. It’s also likely the petition’s author isn’t a ‘true conservative,’ as some elements of his petition read so strongly that they may be a parody. Davies capitalizes “HUSSEIN” in Barack Obama’s full name, and refers to ISIS using Dubya’s favorite phrase—”evil-doers.”

These petitions do occasionally enact real change but are often just digital wishful thinking. Don’t hold your breath for Cleveland to become the ‘wild wild (Mid)West’ just yet. Expect this petition to make some buzz, especially if it reaches its goal for petitioners. If you believe in the cause, add your name, and if you don’t, add your name just to add fuel to the fire. In all likelihood, nothing will change. Today, the Secret Service announced unequivocally that there will be no guns at the RNC convention, but it never hurts to try.

Sean Simon

Sean Simon is an Editorial News Senior Fellow at Law Street, and a senior at The George Washington University, studying Communications and Psychology. In his spare time, he loves exploring D.C. restaurants, solving crossword puzzles, and watching sad foreign films. Contact Sean at SSimon@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Open Carry Petition A Double-Edged Gun for GOP appeared first on Law Street.

Primary season is upon us, and it seems you can’t scroll through your TV guide without passing a televised political debate. For political junkies, the primary debates are equivalent to Sunday Night Football, with fans watching eagerly for stand-out moments, which can be alternately career–defining, or campaign–destroying. It’s easy to feel saturated with the political back-and-forth, especially considering the GOP candidates will debate seven times in the first three months of 2016.

Amidst all the chaos of these events, however, there are some regulations the campaigns and candidates must follow. Each of the two major parties lay out a schedule and a list of restrictions–if you want to be their nominee, you have to play by their rules. Both the Republican and Democratic National Conventions forbid candidates from performing in sanctioned debates if they participate in an un-sanctioned debate. This means that the debates organized by the party are the only debates a candidate can participate in, if they want that media coverage.

When it comes to scheduling there are stark differences, however, between the parties. The DNC announced that it would organize a total of six debates from 2015-2016, down from 26 debates in the ’07-’08 election. The RNC also reduced the number of debates, from the 20 between 2011-2012 to twelve debates this season.

Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, the chair of the DNC, has received criticism for limiting the number of official debates, and for scheduling the debates for time slots with low viewership. Critics of Wasserman-Schultz see the debate schedule as support for Hillary Clinton, as Clinton is a more familiar candidate, while Bernie Sanders might benefit from more airtime to introduce himself to voters and put his message forward.

One loophole used by candidates on both sides is to join a “forum” or “town hall.” These events still involve candidates answering questions live on television, but are distinct from debates in that the candidates take turns, and don’t interact with or respond to each other. The Democrats and Republicans each have four forums scheduled.  As for other debates, MSNBC and The Union Leader newspaper are considering hosting a separate, unsanctioned debate, which could disqualify participants.

Thursday’s Republican debate is already drawing headlines for the candidate who won’t be there–none other than the chief headline-drawer himself, Donald Trump. Trump asked followers on Twitter whether he should attend the debate, and eventually his campaign stated he will refuse to participate due to his discontentment with Megyn Kelly’s position as moderator. A move like this might spell trouble for the RNC’s ability to control its already anti-establishment candidates. This does not, however, bar him from participating in other official debates.

Fox News representatives fired back at Trump’s refusal, poking fun at his decision to poll his millions of Twitter followers.

We learned from a secret back channel that the Ayatollah and Putin both intend to treat Donald Trump unfairly when they meet with him if he becomes president — a nefarious source tells us that Trump has his own secret plan to replace the Cabinet with his Twitter followers to see if he should even go to those meetings

Trump didn’t take too kindly to the barb:

The statement put out yesterday by @FoxNews was a disgrace to good broadcasting and journalism. Who would ever say something so nasty & dumb

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 27, 2016

Following this refusal, Ted Cruz, Trump’s biggest rival in the Iowa caucus, challenged Trump to a “mano a mano” debate between the two. This sort of event would be right in Cruz’s wheelhouse, as during his undergraduate years he shined on Princeton’s extemporaneous debate team. But such a debate would be against the RNC’s rules, and would forbid either candidate from participating in future RNC debates.

While leadership from each party has control over the sanctioned debates, we may see more town hall forums spring up throughout primary season. If rebukes like Trump’s become more common, the control of the parties might begin to slip away, leading to an even more unpredictable primary season.

Sean Simon

Sean Simon is an Editorial News Senior Fellow at Law Street, and a senior at The George Washington University, studying Communications and Psychology. In his spare time, he loves exploring D.C. restaurants, solving crossword puzzles, and watching sad foreign films. Contact Sean at SSimon@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Debate Drama on Both Sides in 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

In an exceedingly odd move, a legislative committee in Oklahoma voted this week to eliminate Advanced Placement U.S. History classes. This decision is part of a large, equally bizarre move to get rid of AP classes altogether across the state. Furthermore, the move away from AP U.S. History (APUSH) in Oklahoma is a facet of a much larger debate over what parts of American history we should be teaching our children.

The legislators who pushed for this change in claim that the APUSH curriculum only teaches “what is bad about America.” They also argue that it’s a revisionist view of history. Representative Dan Fish, who introduced the bill, also argues that it doesn’t fairly include a Christian perspective or teach “American exceptionalism.”

Before you think this view is coming from a few crazy crackpots, it’s important to point out that the Republican National Committee itself has weighed in on the debate. Last summer it released a resolution slamming the APUSH curriculum. According to the RNC, the recently revised APUSH guidelines: “reflect a radically revisionist view of American history that emphasizes negative aspects of our nation’s history while omitting or minimizing positive aspects.”

I’m sure some of you are wondering how people can quibble over history–after all, aren’t most facts undisputed? Well, it’s pretty much universally accepted that history can be taught from different perspectives and through various lenses–take the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the end of World War II, for example. One perspective may teach that those bombings, while yielding tragic results, stopped the war and prevented further deaths through protracted fighting. Another perspective could argue that regardless of why the bombs were deployed, the mass destruction of civilians is unacceptable. While neither of these perspectives is necessarily wrong–they do each adhere to the facts of those historical events–they by nature tell different narratives.

So that leaves us with a conundrum–there’s no real right or wrong answer to how we should teach our history. Clearly, some people in Oklahoma disagree with how it’s being taught there, and while I can’t emphasize how much I disagree with their concerns, they are still allowed to have those concerns.

Like I mentioned above, there’s also a bigger debate brewing over the applicability of AP classes in general. They’re standardized nationwide–although of course only students who sign up for the elite classes take them. They are also mostly uniformly accepted by different universities, although they’re applied to university curriculum requirements on a case-by-case basis. Oklahoma lawmakers are trying to do away with those as a whole, too. Another representative, Sally Kern, claims that AP classes violate a law passed in Oklahoma last year that eliminates Common Core standards.

While I don’t necessarily disagree with the premise that states should be able to dictate what their students learn, I think that AP courses fall into a whole different category. First of all, they’re not universally prescribed; each student makes the choice about what class he or she wants to take. Most colleges do view them favorably, and again, they can be used to obtain certain college credits. Robbing Oklahoma’s students of that opportunity just because you don’t agree with the perspective from which the history curriculum is taught seems petty and short-sighted.

History will never be one sizes fits all, and I think that students should have every opportunity to learn about the important events in our nation’s history from as many view points as possible. That being said, with the inability to learn from our APUSH curriculum, Oklahoma’s students have just been robbed as one of those perspectives.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Will AP History Become a Thing of the Past in Oklahoma? appeared first on Law Street.

Every now and then, we like to report on the various twitter battles, gaffes, mishaps, and everything in between because, frankly, who doesn’t find them funny? Law Street writer Anneliese Mahoney recounted the biggest political twitter mistakes of 2013 and now half way into 2014, the twitter fails, political or otherwise, just keep coming. Let us bear witness to the five latest WTH moments on Twitter so far this year.

[wooslider slide_page=”top-5-twitter-mishaps-gaffes-straight-fails-of-2014″ slider_type=”slides” thumbnails=”default” order=”ASC” order_by=”date”]

—

Ashley Powell (@ashley_powell)

Featured image courtesy of [Maryland GovPics via Flickr]

Ashley Powell

Ashley Powell is a founding member of Law Street Media, and its original Lead Editor. She is a graduate of The George Washington University. Contact Ashley at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Top 5 Twitter Mishaps, Gaffes, and Straight Fails So Far in 2014 appeared first on Law Street.

Former Republican Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee is facing criticism for comments he made during a speech on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at the Republican National Committee’s Winter Meeting. Ironically, the former Arkansas Governor was discussing how Republicans need to increase their efforts to attract women voters when he stated, “If the Democrats want to insult the women of America by making them believe that they are helpless without Uncle Sugar coming in and providing for them a prescription each month for birth control because they cannot control their libido or their reproductive system without the help of the government, then so be it.”

There was instant outrage as soon as Huckabee finished delivering his speech. The Democratic National Committee was quick to jump at the chance to attack the Republican Party for Huckabee’s words. White House Press Secretary Jay Carney stated that Huckabee’s comment “sounds offensive.” And a storm of tweets related to the subject were issued after the speech, including this one from House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi:

Even 100 years ago, it would have been hard to imagine a man making a statement as ridiculous as what Mr. Huckabee said today.

— Nancy Pelosi (@NancyPelosi) January 23, 2014

What is not important about his statement is the fact that his comments have been easily misconstrued to mean that women can’t control their sexual urges. Though it may have seemed that Huckabee said women have uncontrollable libidos, the former Governor actually meant something else entirely. Reading into the context of the quotation, Huckabee was really discussing that, in his view, Democrats are using the ‘war on women’ to portray women as needing the government’s help to manage their reproductive systems.

However, the actual meaning of Huckabee’s comment is what is truly disconcerting for the three reasons:

1. Huckabee believes that women don’t need the government’s aid with respect to their reproductive health.

Due to a key provision in the Affordable Care Act, women are now able to get their prescribed FDA-approved contraceptives without co-payment. This measure is huge for lower income women who, prior to the passage of the legislation, couldn’t fit the payment for contraceptives into their already tight budgets. If the federal government did not mandate that contraceptives be free to women through their insurance,  many women would not be able to gain access to birth control.  Thus, it is very concerning that Huckabee’s statement suggests woman do not need the government to step in to protect their reproductive rights.

2. The comment echos the common misconception that birth control is only for preventing pregnancy.

Huckabee’s statement draws further evidence to the fact that many have the wrong idea about birth control. Contraceptives are not solely used to prevent unplanned pregnancies while engaging in sexual activity (though it is extremely important that woman have access to birth control to control what happens in their own bodies).  Birth control is prescribed to many women for a variety of reasons. In response to Huckabee’s speech, Planned Parenthood released a statement noting that birth control “helps women plan their pregnancies and manage their lives, and many women use it for a variety of other medical reasons, including treatment of endometriosis that can lead to infertility.”  In addition to treating endometriosis, there are many other uses for birth control, including regulating a woman’s menstrual cycle, relieving menstrual pain, and clearing acne. In addition, according to a study done by the Guttmacher Institute, more than half of women surveyed who use a contraceptive use birth control for purposes other than pregnancy prevention. Thus contraceptives are not merely used for preventing pregnancy but for a multitude of other important issues related to women’s health.

3. Huckabee’s statement exposes his own hypocrisy with regard to government law on contraceptive coverage.

By claiming that the government should stay out of contraceptive coverage for women, Mike Huckabee ignores his own past as Governor of Arkansas. Bill Scher of Campaign for America’s Future noted that in 2005, Huckabee signed into law a measure that required Arkansas insurance plans to include coverage of birth control and other kinds of contraception. And Huckabee was not the only Republican supporting mandated contraceptive coverage for insurance. Five other GOP governors were responsible for signing similar bills into law, and George W. Bush never challenged federal mandates on contraception during his presidency. However, as soon as birth control became a partisan issue, Republicans were quick to move away from supporting state-mandated contraceptive coverage. If Huckabee believes that government should not sponsor birth control coverage, he should not stop at blaming only Democrats, but should also include his own past actions and those of other Republicans.

What is certain about Huckabee’s statement is that it won’t help the Republican party gain an influx of female voters. From this comment to Todd Akin’s infamous ‘legitimate rape’ gaffe, there are so many instances that prove Republicans are failing to properly address and understand women’s issues.  And while Huckabee’s comment has been misinterpreted as being more offensive than what he actual meant, perhaps the former Governor should have taken time to ensure his words would be clear before making a public speech that would be covered extensively by the media. Moreover, in bringing up the issue of women’s reproductive rights in an attempt to gain political clout for his party, Huckabee demonstrates that politicians are still politicizing an issue that needn’t be controversial at all: the right for women to control their own choices.

[Washington Post] [Twitter] [CBS News] [Guttmacher] [Campaign for America’s Future] [LA Times]

—

Sarah Helden (@shelden430)

Featured image courtesy of [Mike Nozell via Flickr]

Sarah Helden

Sarah Helden is a graduate of The George Washington University and a student at the London School of Economics. She was formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Sarah at staff@LawStreetmedia.com.

The post What Is and Isn’t Important About Huckabee’s ‘Libido’ Comment appeared first on Law Street.

Ask anyone what the biggest political controversy is of President Obama’s presidency: you’ll hear a few people talk about Benghazi and the NSA will inevitably come up. But it’s pretty safe to say that the majority of respondents will reference the Affordable Care Act. Otherwise known as ObamaCare, the ACA has been a huge talking point for partisan politics. And like with any hugely-partisan issue, lies abound. Here are the top 10 lies being told about the ACA:

10. 8.2 million Americans can’t find full-time work because of ObamaCare
Who Told it: The RNC and multiple Republican politicians, including John Boehner and Eric Cantor.

Courtesy of Talk Radio News Service via Flickr.

Why it’s a lie: The RNC looked at the Bureau of Labor Statistic’s figures this summer. They report the amount of people who are working a part-time job and would like to be working full time. What they do not report is why these workers are working a part time job….in fact there’s literally nothing about the Affordable Care Act in these statistics. Awesome unfair extrapolation RNC, you go.

9. “Obamacare contains an ‘abortion surcharge and a secrecy clause’ that forces ‘pro-life Americans…to pay for other people’s abortions.” 
Who told it: Rep Chris Smith (R-NJ)

Why it’s a lie: If you don’t want abortion coverage, you don’t choose one of the plans that includes abortion coverage. States are required to offer plans with and without the provision. If a woman chooses to have abortion coverage, she pays a separate fee into a separate account so that no federal dollars support abortion services. Every American has the option to choose a plan that does not give to abortion coverage.

8. Obamacare will add $6 trillion to the deficit.
Who told it: Rep George Holding (R-NC)

This was the time the same Rep fell asleep in Congress.

Why it’s a lie: Because the Affordable Care Act won’t raise the deficit at all, as projected by the CBO. In fact, it will reduce the deficit. Go back to sleep, Rep Holding.

These next couple examples will come from a category I like to call “things that happened on Fox News that aren’t true.”

7. A woman named Allison Denijs went on the Sean Hannity show and claimed that Obamacare would cost her more, and wouldn’t contain insurance for her daughter with a preexisting condition. 

Who said it: It was part of a segment on Sean Hannity’s show meant to show that “Average Americans are feeling the pain of Obamacare and the healthcare overhaul train wreck.”

Why it’s a lie: Stories like this are popping up on conservative outlets all across the country. But the case is that these stories aren’t actually true. Let’s look specifically at Ms. Denijs’s story. Her family currently pays $13,000 to purchase their own insurance, and then another $600 a month to cover their daughter with a preexisting condition. But under Obamacare, preexisting conditions are no longer an issue. A reporter who interviewed her found that she had never even looked at the exchange, and that she could find almost the exact same plan for just $7600 a year through the exchange.

6. On the same program, a man named Paul Cox claimed that he had to cut back on employee’s hours at his small construction business. 
Who said it: It was part of a segment on Sean Hannity’s show meant to show that “Average Americans are feeling the pain of Obamacare and the healthcare overhaul train wreck.”

 Why it’s a lie: The same Slate journalist who followed up on the Denijs’ story found that Mr. Cox only has 4 employees. Remember, Obamacare only applies to small businesses with 49 employees or more. This was the result of Slate’s interview with Cox: ” Paul revealed that he has only four employees. Why the cutback on his workforce? “Well,” he said, “I haven’t been forced to do so, it’s just that I’ve chosen to do so. I have to deal with increased costs.” What costs? And how, I asked him, is any of it due to Obamacare? There was a long pause, after which he said he’d call me back. He never did.”

5. Congress and the President are exempt from Obamacare. 
Who told it: Lots and lots of people. I’ll choose to harp on Rep Steve Scalise (R-LA) though.

Why it’s a lie: The ACA provides insurance for people who don’t already have it through employers. Congress provides insurance to its staffers and members. So in a sense, they are exempt, it’s just the same way that most Americans are. They do not need to use the exchanges to find insurance because they already have it.

On the note of people being exempt….

4. Muslims, Amish, and some other religious groups are exempt from the law. 

Who said it: A few different sources, but it mainly came from a chain email/Facebook/meme that claims that the word “Dhimmitude” is contained in the ACA text. It claims that Dhimmitude is the “Muslim system of controlling non-Muslin populations conquered through jihad (Holy War). Specifically, it is the TAXING of non-Muslims in exchange for tolerating their presenceAND as a coercive means of converting conquered remnants to Islam!”. It also claims that “Muslims are specifically exempted from the government mandate to purchase insurance and also from the penalty tax for being uninsured! Islam considers insurance to be “gambling,” “risk-taking,” and “usury” and is thus banned. Muslims are specifically granted exemption based on this.”

Why it’s a lie: There is a “religious conscience” exemption in the ACA. But it’s not based on a religion as a whole, rather a specific sect. For example, Amish might be exempt because they have established a history of making their own provisions. Self-employed Amish, don’t, in fact, pay Social Security taxes because they don’t collect Social Security benefits. They are self-sufficient. Muslims in the US are required to have the insurances as everyone else, for example, car insurance. They do not have the same kind of history as Amish groups, so they most likely wouldn’t meet this exemption.

3. It’s possible to go to jail if you don’t pay for insurance under Obamacare. 
Who said it: On Fox and Friends on October 28th, Brian Kilmeade stated that young people will either get insurance or pay the penalty “in order to avoid prison time or whatever ramifications.”

Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire

Why it’s a lie: There is a penalty in place if you don’t have insurance through an employer and don’t get it through the exchanges or some other means–$90 or 1% of income. However, there is specifically no criminal penalty–meaning it’s impossible to go to prison. (Unless of course, you don’t pay any of your taxes, but that’s a whole different story.) Here’s what the ACA says:

In the case of any failure by a taxpayer to timely pay any penalty imposed by this section, such taxpayer shall not be subject to any criminal prosecution or penalty with respect to such failure.

2. President Obama lied when he said “If you like your coverage you can keep it.”
Who said it: Everyone. I’m not kidding. Everyone.

Why it’s a lie: So this one is tricky. Obama did, multiple times, say if you like your coverage, you can keep it. Multiple times. And the thing is, that’s not completely true. If you like your coverage, but your coverage covers absolutely nothing, then you cannot keep it. The purpose of the ACA is to make sure that every single person in the United States has affordable, adequate healthcare that won’t lead to bankruptcy if a medical emergency occurs. If you’re a healthy youngish adult, it’s completely possible to get an insurance plan that stays great if you’re healthy, but bankrupts you if something happens. So, some people won’t be able to keep their plans, because their plans are bare-bones pieces of crap from the insurance companies that barely cover a paper cut. Was it correct of Obama to say that everyone can keep their plans? No. And he deserves all the political backlash he’s receiving for that. But, does forcing people to get adequate coverage hurt anyone? Absolutely, not. It’s good for those people, it’s good for the economy, and chances are it might even be cheaper. Remember to look for the silver lining, people.

1. Obamacare is the worst thing to happen to the US since slavery.
Who said it: Dr. Ben Carson during the Value Voters Summit.

Why it’s a lie: To channel the always amazing Amy Poehler: REALLY? Really, Dr. Ben Carson, since slavery? To begin, how could you ever consider comparing a bill intended to provide healthcare to everyone to enslaving other humans. That’s not apples vs. oranges, that’s kittens vs. demons. Also, I know that a lot of us slept through US History, but this country has done a lot of horrible, horrible things since slavery. We’ve had half a dozen wars, Japanese-American internment, dropping nuclear bombs on other nations, and now I’m too angry to think of any more. But seriously, Dr. Ben Carson, how did that ever seem like a good comparison?

And I know I’m supposed to be done now, but for anyone else who wants to get really angry today, let’s remember that a very large percentage of Americans don’t even know what the ACA is. Need I remind you of this Jimmy Kimmel video?

That’s it, I’m done.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [LaDawna Howard via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ObamaStillCares: Top Ten Lies About the Affordable Care Act appeared first on Law Street.