By Deborah Jian Lee Religion News Service CHICAGO (RNS) On a recent Sunday morning, Jenny Yang stood beside a giant wooden cross and made a case for immigration reform to members of an evangelical church. “As Americans, we have a responsibility when the laws are not working for the common good to change them,” she intoned from the pulpit. The talk was part of a broader, cross-country effort to persuade evangelicals to back the bipartisan immigration bill that’s working its way through Congress. Yang, 33, is one of the leading voices behind the Evangelical Immigration Table, a coalition of influential pastors and lobbyists working to drum up support for reform among believers and members of Congress. As the vice president of advocacy and policy at World Relief, the humanitarian arm of the National Association of Evangelicals, she frequently appears in the media urging a path to citizenship for the nation’s 11 million undocumented immigrants. But before the interviews with NPR and her editorial in the Washington Post, this movement leader was reluctant to speak up, fearing her own identity might be an obstacle to change. “…I thought people would discount my voice as an Asian American,” she said. “I thought they would say, ‘Oh, of course she would talk about immigration because she’s an immigrant.’” Yang was born in Philadelphia to South Korean immigrants and grew up attending a Korean Presbyterian church. In her younger years, she didn’t give much thought to her family’s immigrant identity — their U.S. citizenship meant they didn’t have to face the hurdles that confront many unauthorized immigrants. “I was probably in the same boat as any American in struggling over how to think about this, as an American and as a Christian,” she said. “I think a lot of people who immigrated here legally almost look down on those who came here on undocumented status.” But Yang’s perspective changed when she began working at World Relief. She saw the struggles of recent immigrants up close – parents who couldn’t drive, children who couldn’t go to school. “It’s the saddest thing because these people cannot continue on in their lives,” she said. In 2009 she and her World Relief colleague, Matthew Soerens, published the book “Welcoming the Stranger: Justice, Compassion and Truth in the Immigration Debate.” She braced herself for criticism, which came swiftly. Some mistakenly dismissed her as an “illegal alien” backing this cause out of self interest, she recalled. Others criticized the book, saying it downplayed the law breaking done by immigrants who come here illegally. Yang is familiar with these views. She meets regularly with members of Congress or their staff and hears about the flood of calls they receive from constituents who oppose what they see as amnesty for people who enter the country without permission. She knows many of the callers are angry and many of those callers are Christian. “The more hateful people became, the more impassioned I became to make this an issue about biblical values,” she said, referring to the multiple Bible verses about caring for “the stranger.” But this tactic remains contentious among Christians. “I think very often they’re taking some Bible quotes and making sweeping social and political claims that the text itself would not necessarily support,” said Mark Tooley, president of the conservative Institute on Religion and Democracy. “The scriptures and Christian tradition call for people to be treated decently and mercifully, but there’s also the distinction between the obligations of the civil state, which is of course to uphold order and law, and the church, which is of course to extend mercy and compassion to all people.” While the majority of white evangelical Christians say there should be a path for unauthorized immigrants who meet certain requirements to stay legally, only four in 10 back a path to citizenship. Most evangelicals see immigrants as a burden to society and a threat to American values, according to a survey by the Pew Research Center. But Yang and Soerens, who often tag-team their speaking gigs, say many congregations open up to their message because of its biblical roots. Even some resistant churches “go from being slightly antagonistic to slightly supportive,” said Soerens. And some audiences respond to the message with cheers and fist pumps, as seen at Yang’s recent talk at Chicago’s New Community Covenant Church. After the service, Yang pointed to this congregation’s diverse flock — a kaleidoscope of immigrants and non-immigrants — to explain another source of support. This church, she said, is emblematic of how “immigration is changing the face of the evangelical church,” making this moment ripe for a policy overhaul. To some, this move is merely a political grab. America’s demographics are changing and conservatives are playing catch up. Yang recognizes that for some leaders, that’s exactly what’s going on, but to her, “it’s not an issue of pandering, but about being biblically informed and realizing that immigrants are part of our community.” It’s that vision, she said, that sustained her through her initial doubt and gave her hope that this movement could drive home the mission at the heart of her work: to replace a broken system with one that’s more humane. Deborah Jian Lee is the author of a forthcoming book about progressive evangelicals and an adjunct professor at Columbia University’s Graduate School of Journalism.

Alexis Simendinger, RCPThe United States is confident the brutal regime of Syria’s Bashar al-Assad used chemical weapons against his own people multiple times “in the last year,” contributing to President Obama’s latest decision to dispatch direct military support to the rebels while continuing to pursue a negotiated political settlement in consultation with allies, the United Nations and Congress, the White House announced Thursday evening.A White House official declined to confirm that Obama explicitly authorized sending U.S. arms to the rebels, as reported by the Wall...

Julian Zelizer, CNN

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton criticized the across-the-board budget cuts known as sequestration on Thursday, decrying the cuts' detrimental effects on scientific research. While speaking at a Chicago charity dinner for Citizens United for Research In Epilepsy, the nonprofit founded by former senior Obama adviser David Axelrod and his wife, Susan, Clinton made a rare comment on Washington political battles, warning attendees of the blow sequestration has dealt to the National Institues of Health research funding -- an estimated $1.55 billion in cuts this fiscal year, according to the NIH website. “In the days and months ahead, all of us who care deeply about finding a cure for [epilepsy] and other diseases need to be very loud and passionate about the continued research funding that is necessary,” Clinton said, according to The Washington Post. “I do think there has to be a greater awareness on the part of the American people about what this will mean -- not just today or next week, but in years to come.” She continued, "I would certainly encourage a lot of citizen action to bring attention to the cuts in research funding and the consequences that that will cause." According to the Associated Press, the dinner was heavily attended by Obama dinners from the Chicago area. Clinton, who retired from her post at the State Department earlier this year, also spoke at a Clinton Global Initiative meeting in Chicago earlier Thursday. During her speech, Clinton urged action on economic inequality. "There are too many places in our own country where community institutions are crumbling, social and public health indicators are cratering and jobs are coming apart and communities face the consequences," she said.

Michael Gerson, Washington PostLet me stipulate that the IRS targeting of tea party groups is deeply disturbing and Eric Holder's Justice Department is politicized, swaggering and incompetent. Distrust of government is deep in the American DNA, and the Obama administration has often managed to justify it.But asserting that American intelligence agencies are part of a conspiracy that somehow includes a national gun registry, drone surveillance and Lois Lerner crosses a line. It is one thing to oppose the policies of the administration; it is another to call for resistance against a "regime" and a "police...

BOSTON -- Jurors in James "Whitey" Bulger's racketeering trial Thursday got a glimpse of the heavy firepower that prosecutors say helped him dominate organized crime, and they heard tales of alleged FBI corruption that hindered attempts to break up his gang. Retired Massachusetts State Police Col. Thomas Foley testified about dozens of weapons, including high-powered rifles and machine guns that he held in the witness stand, that prosecutors contend were part of the Winter Hill Gang's arsenal. A small number of firearms and ammo were found in the home of Mary Flemmi, the mother of Bulger's criminal partner Stephen Flemmi, Foley testified. But Flemmi's son led investigators to bigger caches in 2000. Weapons entered into evidence in #Bulger trial today: twitpic.com/cx17c6 twitpic.com/cx17c5 twitpic.com/cx17cf#wbz— Peter Wilson (@PetesWire) June 13, 2013 Masks presented as evidence in #Bulger trial today:twitpic.com/cx18ht twitpic.com/cx18hu #wbz— Peter Wilson (@PetesWire) June 13, 2013 Under cross-examination, however, Foley said none of the weapons came from Bulger's home or tested positive for his DNA. Foley spent most of the day on the witness stand and described attempts to take down the Winter Hill Gang. Bulger and his crew made millions by collecting "rent" or "tribute" from low-level crooks who wanted to deal drugs, pimp women or run gambling dens in their territory. Anyone who refused to pay off Bulger's gang could suffer violent consequences, Foley said. "It could range from being put of business to taking a beating," said Foley. "Or actually at times some people were killed." Bulger, 83, has pleaded not guilty to 32 charges, including 19 murders. He arrived in court wearing a gray, long-sleeved shirt and jeans. To build a case against the top of South Boston's criminal hierarchy, Foley said the state police tried to pick off bookmakers. "The best way to attack the organization would be through the bookmakers, which was a huge source or revenue for organized crime, and we would work our way up," Foley testified. Some of Foley's gang-busting efforts were thwarted by what he believed were leaks and interference from the FBI. "They put a higher price on protecting their informants than on public safety," he said. But in other ways, the police work bore fruit. Foley said that hit man John Martorano and Kevin Weeks, another Bulger associate, both began cooperating with authorities. Martorano's help enabled authorities to charge others with several murders, Foley said. Martorano is expected to testify against Bulger, saying he killed at Bulger's behest. Foley said Martorano years ago withheld information when offering partial cooperation. The defense got Foley to say that the Winter Hill Gang was a looser affiliation than in typical Mafia crime families. Foley said that at times, Martorano would independently commit a crime without seeking Bulger's approval -- something that would not be done in La Cosa Nostra. That distinction may be important, because proving the racketeering charges against Bulger essentially requires proving a criminal conspiracy. Earlier in the day, retired state police Detective Robert Long testified about 1980 police surveillance on Bulger, Flemmi and Mafia figures who conducted business at a North End garage. That spying mission was called "Operation Lobster." Some of the images showed Arthur "Bucky" Barrett in Bulger's presence at the garage. Bulger, along with Flemmi, allegedly tortured and killed Barrett to steal his take from a bank robbery worth millions. Two bookmakers are expected to testify as government witnesses on Friday.

A high-level panel appointed by United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki Moon released its recommendations last month for a global development agenda when the Millennium Development Goals expire at the end of 2015 and when approximately one billion people will still be living in extreme poverty. The panel recognized the tremendous achievement the world has made in lifting 600 million people out of extreme poverty but also warned of rising global inequality. Their number one priority going forward: Leave no one behind. This should sound familiar to Washington's "leave no child behind" agenda. Hopefully this one will be more successful. One key component of that "leave no one behind" agenda is jobs. One of the biggest drivers of inequality is a lack of jobs; but not just any jobs, just jobs, ones that come with appropriate wages, rights, protections such as healthcare and pensions, and opportunities for economic mobility. The "jobs" conversation in Washington, and around the world, often forgets to factor these in, the consequences of which are concerning. The International Labor Organization's (ILO) recently released Global Wage Report found that, since 1995, inequality between the highest and lowest wages has increased in nearly three quarters of the countries for which there is data. The United States is one of the advanced countries in which the gap between the highest and the lowest wages is largest. While we've heard this before, the gap is getting worse. This is not merely a blow to our American dream but a blow to our economy. The destabilizing effects of high levels of unemployment and poor working conditions inhibit the creation of socio-economically just societies, vibrant economies, and strong governments necessary to foster sustainable and inclusive economic growth. The ILO study finds that, in addition to the rising inequality among wage earners, average labor productivity in developing countries, from 1999 to 2011, increased twice as fast as their average wages. This means that labor's share of the Gross Domestic Product -- the broadest measure of economic output -- has shrunk considerably. Even in China, where wages increased substantially, they did not grow quickly enough to increase workers' share of national income. These trends do not bode well for the millions of workers across the globe, but they also adversely affect governments and businesses worldwide. A lack of good jobs and poor working conditions, and the resulting inequality, fosters social unrest, political instability and insecurity that can destabilize governments and create an uncertain business environment. Worker-based protests from Cairo, Egypt, to Foxconn in China, and garment factories in Bangladesh easily prove that point. Why companies aren't quick to fix this is confounding. The purchasing power of global consumers is being reduced at a time when the world's economy needs it most. This means, for example, that U.S. products and services will find fewer buyers abroad, and foreign goods and services will find fewer buyers in America. So how do we fix this problem? In New Delhi, India, in April, a "Just Jobs Index" was launched to identify and rank the countries that are providing the best employment opportunities, income and employment security, safety at work and healthy work conditions, and equality of treatment and opportunity. The top five performers in 2009, the latest year where the data were most available: Iceland, Netherlands, Norway, Australia and Denmark. These countries are prioritizing a sustainable work environment and a quality workforce. Other countries must follow suit. Countries need to make quality employment the cornerstone of their economic growth strategies. Globalization, and especially trade, must be in service of creating more and better jobs and providing workers with commensurate wages, benefits, rights and protections. Freedom of association and collective bargaining, furthermore, can help empower civil society to keep businesses and governments accountable in creating more equitable outcomes. Too often we are eager to promote global integration, especially international trade, while failing to protect a safe and sustainable future for workers. The new ILO report shows how poorly we're performing at fostering better living standards for workers. As Washington weighs the pros and cons of the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership and the U.S.-EU Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, this must be at the fore of the conversation. Shank, Ph.D. is the director of Foreign Policy at the Friends Committee on National Legislation. Dewan is director of Globalization and International Employment at the Center for American Progress.

The Truth-o-Meter says: Mostly True | Rep. Mike Rogers says 'it's expressly prohibited by law' for the government to read domestic email traffic So, is the NSA reading your email? News reports from the Guardian and the Washington Post in June raised questions about just what data the National Security Agency collects about Americans, and how it’s used. Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich., who chairs the House committee that oversees intelligence agencies, argues the data-collection programs are effective and operate under strict limits. "The National Security Agency does not listen to Americans' phone calls and it is not reading Americans' emails. None of these programs allow that," he told host George Stephanopoulos on ABC’s Sunday talk show This Week. ... >> More

Elizabeth MacDonald, FOX BusinessA growing number of key California cities are a lot worse off than previously thought, thanks to new changes coming in the way state and local governments must account for their pension costs.The pension changes from Moody’s, and separately the Governmental Accounting Standards Board, scheduled for this month, could result in Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Jose, Azusa and Inglewood joining fiscally troubled Stockton and San Bernardino, among others, as severe credit risks. It's all largely due to soaring employee retirement costs, according to new analysis based on the...

Gail Collins, New York TimesRight now you’re probably asking yourself: What would I do if I had $27 billion to toss around? Michael Bloomberg has to ask himself that question every day, people. He has a dual identity, like an action hero. By day, he’s the mayor of New York City. By night — well, actually, all the time, but stick with my metaphor — he unleashes his special power. If we lived in “The Avengers,” Bloomberg would be Money Man. The Incredible Hulk turns green; Bloomberg would just shower it. The crowds racing to catch the falling $100 bills...

Adam Levick, PJ MediaGlenn Greenwald is a former blogger at Salon.com and currently a columnist on civil liberties and U.S. national security issues for the Guardian. His political orientation embraces a brand of “anti-imperialism” — common within the UK far-left — informed by a palpable loathing of America, a nation characterized as a dangerous force in the world. Greenwald’s anti-Americanism is so intense that he once compared the U.S. overthrow of Saddam Hussein in Iraq to the Nazi conquest of Europe.As is the case with many Guardian-brand commentators,...

James Bovard, Wall Street JournalThe government-supported service organization AmeriCorps got a boost from President Obama in April, when he announced a new program to "connect more professional scientists and engineers to young students who might follow in their footsteps." According to a news release, the goal is to place hundreds of AmeriCorps members in nonprofits across the country to mobilize professionals in science, technology, engineering and math "to inspire young people to excel in STEM education."A lofty goal, to be sure, but not one AmeriCorps is likely to serve well. Judging by the...

Peter Morici, CNBCWall Street is cooking up another crisis-making shoddy loans and selling worthless securities to investors hungry for higher yields than CDs and government bonds offer.Dodd-Frank banking reforms imposed very costly regulations on mortgage and commercial lending. Regional banks, which have solid knowledge of smaller businesses, could not bear these costs and sold out to large Wall Street institutions. Now a handful of money center banks control more than half the deposits and lendable money.Although big banks have branches everywhere and are flush with funds, they don't know much about...

Ron Futrell, The Daily CallerI’ve seen many leftist comedians perform over the years. Usually they are fun and enjoyable, and they can even be entertaining. I enjoy listening to all sides. It was in this spirit that I joined friends to see Bill Maher perform at the Las Vegas Palms Casino Resort on Saturday night. I went in with low expectations. But I didn’t realize how low Maher would go.I have a special-needs son named Troy. He’s 27. Every day, I drop him off at Las Vegas’s Opportunity Village, a workplace for adults with special needs. Helping people with special needs is...

The Truth-o-Meter says: True | Mark Udall says ordinary Americans' business records caught up in surveillance net While most Americans seem ready to support intelligence agencies casting a wide net against terrorists, they have some concerns about the scope of domestic surveillance. Congress began hearings on the surveillance of phone calls and Internet traffic that became public last week. On June 9, 2013, ABC’s This Week with George Stephanopoulos aired footage of comments from Sen. Mark Udall, D-Colo. In a floor speech roughly two years ago, Udall urged his colleagues to narrow the reach of the USA Patriot Act, one of the key legal tools that allow the United States to gather intelligence. ... >> More

State Sen. R. Clayton 'Clay' Davis, excellently portrayed by actor Isiah Whitlock Jr. on "The Wire," was a corrupt and conniving man with a catchphrase that consisted of one word/slur pronounced over an exaggerated amount of time. This word, this fantastic word, can be played on repeat thanks to a simple red button on a simple webpage. (Whether you should press this button at work will depend on your office, of course.) Click the red button, hear Clay Davis say, "Shiiiit," hit the button again, hear Clay Davis say, "Shiiiit," etc. The site comes with a counter. You can keep track of how many times you've hear Clay Davis say, "Shiiiit." Ours is already at a pretty high number. If this wonderful and simple page isn't enough for you, there's also a Clay Davis saying "Shiiiit" app. It has pretty good reviews. Based on this very NSFW audio compilation, hopefully Bunk will get his own app and button, too. (H/T Baltimore City Paper.)

A few years ago I was watching a boxing match on television that featured a black fighter whom I'll call "Sam Smith," squaring off against a white fighter whom I'll call " Joe Jones." Although I've long since forgotten the boxers' names, their weight class, and who won the fight, I do remember wishing I had a 10-pound barbell to throw at the TV screen. Typically, boxers wear trunks that are readily distinguishable from each other. For whatever reason, that wasn't the case in this match; both fighters were wearing shiny black trunks. Smith's trunks had a narrow, light blue vertical stripe, and Jones' trunks featured a wide, dark blue stripe -- almost a Navy blue, making it nearly impossible to see against the dark field. During the bout, the announcer said, "If you're just joining us, Smith is wearing black trunks with a light blue stripe, and Jones is wearing black trunks with a dark blue stripe." Those were his exact words. Presumably, because he feared being reprimanded by his superiors or being reviled by the public, he couldn't bring himself to identify Smith and Jones by their skin color. Switching venues, let's imagine a group of men (all serious boxing fans) watching the same fight in somebody's living room -- drinking V-8 juice, eating hummus, and boisterously cheering for one fighter or the other. A late arrival (a fellow who doesn't follow the sport) joins the group and casually asks who's fighting. One of the men quickly responds, "Sam Smith and Joe Jones." If this late arrival were to ask who was who, no one would dream of answering, "Smith is wearing black trunks with a light blue stripe, and Jones is wearing black trunks with a dark blue stripe." Nobody would say that. Instead, they would answer with either, "Smith is the black guy," or "Jones is the white guy." The announcer's reluctance to acknowledge a boxer's race is a perfect example of political correctness taken to an absurd extreme. Which brings us to the Washington Redskins of the NFL, which is a whole other deal. Anyone who thinks this is a case of "PC going awry" is missing the point. For decades, there have been protests by Native Americans arguing that "Redskins" is pejorative and anachronistic term, one that has no place in a professional sports league, particularly for a team located in the nation's capital. The protests have been greeted with everything from genteel excuses to lip service to outright hostility. Even people who believe that Native Americans may have a legitimate beef, tend to dismiss their complaints as quibbling, or "making a mountain out of a molehill." You hear people say, "Don't these tribes have enough to worry about? They gotta protest trivial stuff like this?" But the latest round of protests got the attention of the U.S. Congress. In early May, the Congressional Native American Caucus, led by co-chair Betty McCollum (D-Minn.), wrote a letter to NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell, imploring him to do what should have been done decades ago -- force Washington ownership to change its team name. The term "Redskins" is derogatory, racist, and offensive. There are a hundred other names they can choose from. Pick one. On June 5, Roger Goodell issued his answer. His disrespectful reply was, more or less, "No way, Tonto." Goodell, son of the late Charles Goodell, a former conservative Republican senator from New York, made it very clear that he had no intention of raising the ire of NFL team owners. After all, because the NFL commissioner serves at the pleasure of the owners, he can be replaced with relative ease. They voted him in, they can vote him out. And being the NFL commissioner is one very cushy, well-compensated job. In 2011, Goodell earned $29.5 million, most of it in performance bonuses. Once again Native Americans are rebuffed, and once again they're rebuffed by wealthy white men. These protesters weren't asking for money or land or special privileges. They were simply requesting not to be humiliated on the national stage. But because Roger Goodell would rather piss off some powerless Indians than rile his masters, their request was denied. Well done, Roger. Another bonus awaits. David Macaray, an LA playwright and author ("It's Never Been Easy: Essays on Modern Labor" 2nd edition), was a former union rep.

Florida Republican Party Chairman Lenny Curry says he's so eager to see Democratic candidate for governor Nan Rich get her message out that he'll check with his staff about renting a room where she can make a speech at a GOP meeting. Curry has been using Rich as a cudgel to bash the state Democratic Party and its chairwoman, Allison Tant, who won't provide Rich a speaking spot at this weekend's state party Jefferson-Jackson fundraising dinner. Tant said she doesn't want to open the floor to candidates so the program won't run on too long. The GOP is even paying for robocalls to Democrats saying they should call the state Democratic Party and "Tell them to free Nan Rich and let her speak." Democrats say Curry is simply trying to stoke divisiveness in their party by calling attention to a candidate he thinks would be easier for Republican Gov. Rick Scott to beat in 2014 than, say, former Gov. Charlie Crist. So far, Rich is the only declared Democratic candidate. Curry brought the subject up in a conference call with reporters Wednesday. Asked why he's so concerned about Rich, he said, "I'm perplexed ... she is a respected liberal Democrat that has been a state senator." Does that mean he'd be willing to let Rich speak at a state Republican Party meeting? "Our rules prohibit us from extending invitations to non-Republicans," he demurred. "If my rules didn't prohibit it, I'd be happy to." Then he added that he'd consider renting a room for her to appear at the next state GOP gathering. "You've given me an idea," he said. "When I get off this call I'm going to talk to my people about that." As he boosts Rich, Curry doesn't mention that there are three Republicans with current, active campaigns against Scott in the Republican primary. Asked whether they'd get speaking slots at the next GOP dinner, GOP spokeswoman Susan Hepworth replied by email, "There will probably be an event late fall but the planning has not even begun yet." She wouldn't say how much the GOP is spending on the robocalls, but said they went to 18,000 consistent Democratic voters. "While our parties may not agree on most issues, we do agree on honoring those in our party who represent its core values," says the robocall, which is clearly identified as coming from the Republican Party. It says Rich "a high-level Democrat and she should be highlighted." At least some Democrats agree. Rich is less well-known than potential candidates Crist or Alex Sink of Tampa, but has been making inroads among the Democratic base, particularly women and liberals. Democratic officials confirm they've had calls from party activists saying she should get a speaking slot. But Rich isn't all that crazy about getting support from Curry. "Lenny Curry looks for any opportunity to attack the Democratic Party," she said by email. "I doubt if Mr. Curry's enthusiasm for me will continue when I am the Democratic nominee for governor." wmarch@tampatrib.com (813) 259-7761 ___ (c)2013 the Tampa Tribune (Tampa, Fla.) Visit the Tampa Tribune (Tampa, Fla.) at www.tampatrib.com Distributed by MCT Information Services

Former President Bill Clinton offered a stinging critique of President Barack Obama's inaction in Syria during a closed-press event this week, Politico reported, arguing that Obama's hesitance to get involved in the lengthy conflict could end up making him look like a "total fool" and a "wuss." While only 15 percent of Americans said they'd back military action in Syria, according to a recent poll, Clinton spoke Tuesday during a question-and-answer session alongside Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and suggested that such support among the American public or Congress shouldn't have any bearing on Obama's decision. Clinton warned that it would be unwise to opt against action because “there was a poll in the morning paper that said 80 percent of you were against it." "[Y]ou’d look like a total wuss,” he continued. “And you would be. I don’t mean that a leader should go out of his way or her way to do the unpopular thing, I simply mean when people are telling you ‘no’ in these situations, very often what they’re doing is flashing a giant yellow light and saying, ‘For God’s sakes, be careful, tell us what you’re doing, think this through, be careful.” Clinton went on to say that a poll showing a lack of support wouldn't provide cover for Obama if things got worse down the road. The president would just be left looking "like a total fool," he said. McCain, for his part, has been perhaps the most persistent and outspoken proponent of U.S. intervention in Syria. The senator visited the wartorn nation last month to meet with rebel leaders. He's since made aggressive calls for the U.S. to provide the rebels with heavy weaponry to aid in their battle against Syrian President Bashar Assad. A report from the UN released Thursday found that nearly 93,000 people have been confirmed killed in the Syrian conflict since 2011. McCain quickly tweeted a link to the story. In their joint appearance Tuesday, Clinton said he agreed with McCain's insistence that the U.S. get involved in the fight, saying he didn't "think Syria is necessarily Iraq or Afghanistan." While Clinton said he understood that many were likely hesitant, due to frequent reports showing a complex and messy situation, he suggested that Obama couldn't view the conflict this way. “Sometimes it’s just best to get caught trying, as long as you don’t overcommit -- like, as long as you don’t make an improvident commitment,” he said. (Click over to Politico for more exclusive comments from Clinton at the closed-press event.)

It's hard to imagine a more grim anniversary marker for the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre in Newtown, the town where I grew up. Yet nearly six months later, here we are again. Just days ago, we witnessed a shooting spree in the California beachside community of Santa Monica, where the gunman, who killed five people, is reported to have used an assault rifle similar to the AR-15 used at Sandy Hook Elementary School. He also carried thousands of ammunition rounds. This was only the most recent in an all-too-long history of mass shootings in America involving high-capacity ammunition magazines. These horrific events have now become an almost expected and at times almost unnoticed part of the news cycle. (The Santa Monica shooting, which started in the home of the shooter's father, spread to a public street, continued with an attack on one of the city's Big Blue Buses, and ended at a community college, rendered little more than a media ripple). We've also become all too accustomed to the daily thrum of gun murders, suicides, and fatal unintentional shootings that take place across the country. The NRA and its "corporate partners" in the gun industry have opposed and blocked even the smallest steps forward to regulate firearms and curb our national epidemic of gun violence. Unlike all other consumer products -- from motor vehicles to children's toys -- guns are not regulated by the federal government for health and safety. This kind of obstruction has consequences for real people: families left bereft, communities devastated. Just a few days ago, Newtown was shaken once again after a phoned-in threat to Hawley School (my old elementary school) placed the community's schools on lockdown. As one mother, with children in both Sandy Hook Elementary School and Newtown High School, told a reporter, "It's a horrible, evil thing to do to this community. It's pure evil to put the staff and children through this, it's just awful. I'm very very shaken up, and quite stunned. I think [the] entire community is. It's just too raw." But even if our political leaders still refuse to take action, the families in Newtown aren't going to give up after six months--their voices are only getting stronger. Neither are the grieving families in countless other communities touched by gun violence. And despite the shameful lack of progress at the federal level, state governments are not sitting still. In the past six months, several states have passed gun violence prevention legislation that will save lives and help prevent future shootings. Some of the states that have passed, or are currently considering strong gun violence legislation, include: Connecticut enacted a strong package of laws, including: the strongest state assault weapons ban on the books; a ban on armor-piercing ammunition; a ban on high-capacity ammunition magazines; and background checks for all gun purchases. A new law in New York State strengthened its ban on assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines and required background checks for all gun and ammunition sales, as well as other measures. Colorado put a new law in place that limits ammunition magazine capacity to 15 rounds and requires universal background checks for all gun sales. California, which already has some of the strongest laws in the country, is moving forward with a legislative package that passed the state Senate at the end of May, and is now awaiting action in the Assembly. The bill requires that all semiautomatic rifles have non-detachable ammunition magazines with a capacity of 10 rounds or less, requires background checks for ammunition sales, and expands the prohibited categories for gun possession (for example, those with multiple drug/alcohol convictions within a three-year period). It also closes the "bullet button" loophole that now allows gun manufacturers to circumvent the state's assault weapons ban by exploiting a definitional weakness in the law. Action in these and other states represents genuine progress over the past six months. Certainly, aspects of some of the state laws could have been even stronger, and distressingly, some states have actually gone in the opposite direction: weakening their gun laws. And there's no substitute for comprehensive, effective federal legislation that applies to the entire nation. But in these states, legislators and governors have taken courageous action to help protect all of us from gun violence, often at significant political risk. They should be commended and their stories told. Policymakers at the local, state, and federal levels should follow their example -- before the next national tragedy.

The internet has never been a perfect tool for advancing democracy and human rights. Despite the most optimistic techno-utopian projections, the internet has yet to set us free and rid the world of dictators. Critics have been right to warn us of the dangers of a single-minded approach -- we should be careful not to overlook the deep historical, economic, and cultural factors that shape the world we live in today. At the same time, it is true that the internet has revolutionized the way we are able to connect with each other. We are no longer limited to our culture and geography, we can now unite around shared interests and values. As the internet has grown in usage and importance in our daily lives, so too has the difficulty of keeping it "free" from censorship and control. This struggle was important enough to 29-year-old former Booz Allen employee Edward Snowden for him to give up his life, career, and freedom to leak a historic amount of classified information about the shocking size and depth of the American surveillance state. The fallout is just beginning - and as of now, there are far more questions than answers. One thing has become clear though: the credibility of the idea that the internet can be a positive, freedom-promoting global force is facing its largest challenge to date. And it comes directly from one of its most outspoken supporters: the US government. Simply put, the US government has failed in its role as the "caretaker" of the internet. Although this was never an official designation, America controls much of the infrastructure, and many of the most popular services online are provided by a handful of American companies. The world is starting to sober up to the fact that much of what they've done online in the last decade is now catalogued in a top-secret facility somewhere in the United States. Reasonable minds can disagree over the necessity of these programs and how to strike the proper balance between security and privacy. These matters aside, what has been the most disturbing part of this entire scandal has to do with the lack of accountability and oversight. Not only were the American people kept in the dark - they were lied to by intelligence officials, misled about possible constitutional violations, and potentially undermined by the very courts that were supposed to protect their rights. The government has used peculiar interpretations of laws - that they are not even willing to discuss - to defend an invasive collection of personal data beyond anything even the most paranoid among us would have thought was possible. And while President Obama "welcomes the debate" over an issue he has worked hard to keep secret, we are now starting to see the usual Washington tactics of political spin, feverish scapegoating, and patriotic grandstanding in lieu of a real discussion. We should all be extremely concerned about the colossal surveillance infrastructure that is being built in the name of our safety. In trying to reassure the public, our leaders have told us that these programs are not meant to target us, but instead, foreigners who may pose a threat to our security. But this is merely a decision on how the data is being used today - we are getting into very dangerous territory by hoping for the best intentions of whoever is in power in the future. American history holds many lessons for us here: circumstances can change, the perception of who is a threat can vary with whoever is in office, and we cannot predict what our political situation will look like decades, or even years, from now. In the court of global public opinion, America may have tarnished its moral authority to question the surveillance practices of other nations - whether it be Russia on monitoring journalists, or China on conducting cyber espionage. Declarations by the State Department that were once statements of principle now ring hollow and hypocritical to some. No nation can rival the American surveillance state, but they no longer need support to build their own massive systems of espionage and oppression. The costs of surveillance and data storage technologies are plummeting -- these will no longer be prohibitive factors. Diplomatic pressures and legal barriers that had also once served as major deterrents will soon fade away. The goal has been to promote internet freedom around the world, but we may have also potentially created a blueprint for how authoritarian governments can store, track, and mine their citizens' digital lives. - This article originally appeared on Forbes - Disruption and Democracy