老澳门开奖结果

鈥淕od hates Trump.鈥�&苍产蝉辫;

鈥淚f my vagina could shoot bullets, it鈥檇 be less REGULATED.鈥�&苍产蝉辫;

鈥�Trump & GOP 鈥� Hands Off.鈥�

鈥淭丑颈蝉 pussy grabs back.鈥�

Last week, the Washington Post that the National Archives 鈥� the government body charged with documenting and preserving records 鈥� had doctored four protest signs in a photograph of the 2017 Women鈥檚 March. The photo was displayed as part of an exhibit, 鈥淩ightfully Hers: American Women and the Vote.鈥� The signs had the slogans referenced above. The words crossed out were blurred. 

Doctoring the photo was nothing less than Orwellian. Instead of documenting history, the National Archives had altered history to mask criticism of the president and erase our bodies. We鈥檙e demanding answers.

The photo the National Archives doctored was of a protest about the country鈥檚, and the president鈥檚, treatment of women. The National Archives decided our protest was too controversial, and therefore unmentionable.

The signs used the word 鈥減ussy鈥� because the president himself notoriously said it. But when we talk about our own bodies, all too often we are shamed, punished, or outright banned from speaking. Just a few years ago, Lisa Brown, a Michigan legislator, was found to have violated the legislature鈥檚 when, during a heated abortion debate, she said, 鈥淚鈥檓 flattered that you鈥檙e all so interested in my vagina, but 鈥榥o鈥� means 鈥榥o.鈥欌�� 聽Instagram photos of breastfeeding until 2014. Ads for have faced resistance in recent years because they speak of vaginas or periods.

The hypocrisy of altering a photograph to avoid controversy of the president鈥檚 own making rightly put the agency at the center of a political storm.

The National Archives initially defended its action, saying it blurred references to the president鈥檚 name and our bodies 鈥渟o as not to engage in current political controversy鈥� and to avoid content that might be inappropriate for young visitors. The agency was honest about its aims 鈥� to change history to suit its own, more comfortable, narrative.

Faced with an outpouring of criticism, the agency later apologized in a statement, saying it was a 鈥渕istake鈥� to alter the images. But a mistake is tripping and spilling coffee on the photo. Blurring signs critical of Trump or referencing women鈥檚 bodies is a deliberate act 鈥� an apology alone won鈥檛 cut it.

In a Freedom of Information Act request filed today, we鈥檙e demanding the National Archives release all records answering for how this happened, who ordered the decision to alter the photo, and what guidelines they used to inform the decision. Perhaps most importantly, the agency needs to tell the public what other photos, if any, have been altered.

As the National Archives astutely observes in its , 鈥淧ublic access to government records strengthens democracy by allowing Americans to claim their rights of citizenship, hold their government accountable, and understand their history so they can participate more effectively in their government.鈥�

Controversy is central to a robust democracy. If we begin to let the government rewrite history to make it more comfortable or less controversial, we set ourselves on a destructive path.

The National Archives has compromised the public鈥檚 trust that it will faithfully execute its thankless yet critical task of documenting and preserving history. As a first step to restoring that trust, the National Archives must be fully transparent and make public all records concerning its troubling decision to rewrite history. We can鈥檛 鈥� and won鈥檛 鈥� rest until it does.