Statements sent to the Hill repeat tough positions on Iran.

Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif arrives for talks in Geneva this week.

Pool / Reuters

GENEVA — The State Department reiterated Iran's status as a state sponsor of terrorism and as a destabilizing force in the region and also stood by a May report stating that Iran had increased its terrorist activity in a list of responses sent to Capitol Hill last month after the first round of Iran nuclear negotiations.

A senior Senate aide provided BuzzFeed with a list of responses the State Department provided to questions for the record submitted by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on the topic of Iran. A second Senate aide confirmed the list, which arrived on Capitol Hill on Oct 30, two weeks after the first round of talks this fall. The below are the questions from the committee and the State Department's responses:

Question:

In the Department's Annual Country Reports on Terrorism released on May 30, 2013, the Department wrote: "Iran increased its terrorist-related activity, including attacks or attempted attacks in India, Thailand, Georgia, and Kenya. Iran provided financial, material, and logistical support for terrorist and militant groups in the Middle East and Central Asia. Iran used the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-Qods Force (IRGC-QF) and militant groups to implement foreign policy goals, provide cover for intelligence operations, and stir up instability in the Middle East. The IRGC-QF is the regime's primary mechanism for cultivating and supporting terrorists abroad." Does the Department still stand by this report?

Answer:

The Department stands by this report. Iran poses multiple challenges to the international community through its nuclear ambitions, its support for international terrorism, and destabilizing activities in the region. There have been no indications that Iran has ceased this activity.

Question:

Does the United States government remain concerned about Iranian financing of terrorism?

Answer:

Iran poses multiple challenges to the international community through its nuclear ambitions, its support for international terrorism, and its destabilizing activities in the region. Iran provides hundreds of millions of dollars to Hizballah annually and has long aligned itself with Syria – Hizballah's primary trainer and arms supplier. Iran also supports the Asad regime, providing not only funds and weapons, but also strategic guidance, technical assistance, and training, thus enabling the regime's continued repression and slaughter of tens of thousands of Syrians. Iranian money, training, and equipment are playing a significant role in keeping the Asad regime in power.

Question:

Does the United States continue to consider Iran to be a state sponsor of terrorism?

Answer:

The United States continues to consider Iran to be a state sponsor of terrorism.

Iran remains the world's foremost sponsor of terrorism which it often uses as a strategic tool of its foreign policy. Led by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) Qods Force (QF) and the Ministry of Intelligence and Security (MOIS), the Iran Threat Network (ITN) is comprised of an alliance of surrogates, proxies and partner such as Lebanese Hizballah, Palestinian and Shia Militant groups, and others. Iran provides funding, weapons, training, and safe haven to numerous terrorist groups--most notably in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Lebanon--posing a security concern to the international community. Iran also continues to interfere in the internal affairs of various countries in the region; it supports the Basher al-Asad regime in Syria and Houthi extremists in Yemen.

A spokesperson for the State Department did not immediately return a request for comment.

The list becomes public just as the U.S. negotiating team seeks to close an interim deal with Iran during a third round of talks, currently underway in Geneva. Secretary of State John Kerry plans to travel to Geneva to join the negotiations "to help narrow the differences and move closer to an agreement," which is being interpreted here as a sign of progress in the talks.

The talks are taking place against a backdrop of fierce skepticism in Washington as hawkish members of Congress push to add more Iran sanctions while negotiations are ongoing, a position that is meeting with equally intense opposition from the administration, which views additional sanctions as having the potential to scuttle any deal.

The California governor spoke to a crowd at the home of the Disney Studios chairman Thursday.

California Gov. Jerry Brown speaks at the Center for American Progress 10th Anniversary policy forum in Washington, October 24, 2013.

Yuri Gripas / Reuters

A who's who of Hollywood executives attended a fundraiser for California Gov. Jerry Brown at the Bel Air home of Walt Disney Studios chairman Alan Horn and his wife Cindy Thursday.

Attendees included actor Robert Downey, Jr., filmmaker Steven Spielberg, producer Hilary Armstrong, Motion Picture Association of America president and former Sen. Chris Dodd, record label founder David Geffen, chairman and CEO of Fox Filmed Entertainment Jim Gianopulos, actress Cody Horn, Dreamworks Animation CEO Jeffrey Katzenberg, chairman and CEO of Warner Bros. Barry Meyer, according to a source at the event.

Brown raised $2 million, the Los Angeles Times reported. He has not yet officially announced whether he will run for reelection.

"No good promise can happen without a dream," he told the crowd. Although his speech wasn't tailored specifically to a Hollywood audience, Brown voiced support for the entertainment industry as a job creator.

Tickets for the event started at $5,000. It was closed to the press. Attendees listened to Brown speak in a tent outside the Horn's home and were very appreciative of his work as governor, according to a source at the event.

Hollywood will be a significant cash source for Brown. Co-chairs of the event have already raised $17 million in two accounts, according to The Los Angeles Times. "He's earned the support of people from Hollywood to Humboldt because he's taken California out of the fiscal doldrums and put us back on track to once again create jobs, fund schools, and lead the nation," said Dan Newman, a spokesman for Brown.

Los Angeles leaders are currently working to stop film and television production from leaving the state, but to compete against other states and countries that offer tax incentives to lure production away, California must increase the amount of incentives. Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti said Brown is "skeptical" of such a raise, however. Brown did not specifically mention tax incentives during his remarks.

Brown has a 55% approval rating, the highest since he took office in 2011, according to a USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times poll. Republican Assemblyman Tim Donnelly has announced a plan to run in 2014, and Republican Neel Kashkari, a former investment-banking executive who oversaw the $700 billion TARP bailout under Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama, has said he is considering a run.

Twenty years ago, Marianne Williamson wrote the first book to be endorsed by Oprah; today, she’s running for Congress. Here’s a look at how a New Age guru opposed to money’s influence in politics plans to raise $2 million for a campaign.

Michael Tighe / courtesy Williamson campaign

Author Marianne Williamson told BuzzFeed that if everyone who read her books donates $5, she can be competitive in the race to represent California's 33rd Congressional District. She has sold more than 3 million books.

Williamson is the author of four New York Times No. 1 bestsellers, including 1993's A Return To Love: Reflections on the Principles of A Course in Miracles, which Oprah Winfrey has said is her favorite book. Williamson is running for Congress in one of the country's wealthiest districts, which represents towns like Bel-Air, Beverly Hills, Calabasas and Malibu. But first she needs to unseat Rep. Henry Waxman, a 38-year House veteran who's never won an election by less than 61%. In 2008, Waxman didn't even have an opponent.

Williamson has promised an idealistic campaign that focuses on ideas. She even refuses to call Waxman her "opponent," saying they're just two people applying for the same job. Her campaign literature features an American flag with doves instead of stars, with the small type below crediting the artist and noting, "Used by Permission." It's exactly how you'd imagine a spiritual guru would run a campaign.

"The first place democracy is broken isn't in Washington. The first place democracy is broken is in our hearts and minds," Williamson said. "There needs to be an intervention of sorts and it's the American people who have to do it."

But for the 61-year-old, this intervention is less about specifically unseating Waxman than it is about starting a conversation. And Waxman seems willing to chat.

"I'm gratified Ms. Williamson thinks I'm doing a good job and agrees with me on most issues," Waxman said in a statement. "And while some think it would make more sense for her to challenge a Republican and help us regain control of the House, I respect her right to run."

Williamson has a list of issues she rattles off when asked what she's focused on, including NSA surveillance, the use of drones in the United States and the incarceration rate, but her top priority is ending the influence of money in politics.

"The cancer that lies under the cancer is the undue influence of money," she said.
"You can look at all these issues and see they're all derivative of that one poison."

But she also needs $2.5 million to be competitive, she said.

At a campaign event at a Santa Monica middle school Nov. 20, Williamson spoke to a full auditorium that included self-described hippies, a female pro-choice Republican and a woman who was planning to protest President Obama's support of the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement during his trip to the state next week.

She said she receives mostly small donations of $100 or less; the maximum an individual can donate is $2,600.

Several Democratic political friends have said privately they support her candidacy, but aren't able to make any public gestures, she said. And after her speaking engagements, Williamson is sometimes approached to speak at Republican events by attendees impressed by her take on spirituality and morality. But Williamson, who is running as an independent, has described herself as a "lifelong Democrat" and has voted for Waxman herself. Her hope is for her campaign to win support from other independents, progressive Democrats, and moderate Republicans.

"We need more than the audacity of hope. This time we need the audacity of power," Williamson told the audience. "I think we're a generation that wants to have a revolution over white wine and brie."

Changes made under Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger in how California draws up its legislative boundaries and votes in primaries have made Williamson's candidacy possible, she said. She assured one audience member who worried about "splitting the vote" among progressive candidates that the state's open primary meant a Democratic vote for her wasn't a vote for a Republican challenger. "This is not a Ralph Nader candidacy," she said.

While her campaign will need serious cash to seriously contend for Waxman's seat, Williamson mostly focused on spreading her message while speaking in Santa Monica, asking attendees to plan house parties and use social media to talk about her campaign.

"We need to make you famous!" said one female attendee. If only people know what Williamson stands for, she said, they'll vote for her.

If that's all it takes, Williamson will have the election in the bag. Her Twitter followers outnumber Waxman's nearly 100 to 1.

But Twitter followers do not an election win, and some are skeptical of Williamson's chances. "I don't think it's going to amount to any kind of serious challenger," said Donna Bojarsky, a Los Angeles consultant.

Williamson knows her odds are long, but after a year of considering a candidacy, the author said she's at a point in her life where if she didn't try now, she knew she never would. "I'm not naive," she said. "I don't expect this to be easy."

Correction: An earlier version of this article misstated the year Henry Waxman ran unopposed.

Texas Senator John Cornyn suggests the late-night announcement from Geneva is a Wag The Dog moment, aimed at saving the President from the messy Obamacare rollout.

The Bushehr nuclear power plant, some 746 miles south of Tehran, in 2010.

Reuters

WASHINGTON — While Americans waited late Saturday night to hear the first details of a potential deal between an international alliance and Iran over nuclear weapons, Republican critics of the White House were already dismissing it as, at best, a bad deal with a sworn enemy — and at worst, a cynical attempt to change the subject from the Affordable Care Act.

View Entire List ›

So far, Republicans aren’t backing down from new, stronger sanctions on Iran — no matter what President Obama says.

Secretary of State John Kerry speaks in Geneva on Nov. 24.

Ruben Sprich / Reuters

The Obama administration won a hard-fought battle to reach an interim deal with Iran on Sunday in Geneva, but it will immediately face a new challenge in Washington: getting Congress to oblige.

Almost as soon as six world powers had reached an agreement on Iran's nuclear program, angry statements started flying off the Hill from hawkish senators who oppose what they view as a bad deal on Iran.

The six-month agreement with Iran will halt the regime's nuclear program in exchange for some sanctions relief — an estimated $6 to $7 billion — that will be carried out by the administration, without action by Congress.

President Obama was adamant in announcing the deal late Saturday that new sanctions are not an option.

"Now is not the time to move forward on new sanctions, because doing so would derail this promising first step, alienate us from our allies, and risk unraveling the coalition that enabled our sanctions to be enforced in the first place," President Obama said Saturday in a statement from Washington.

But Congressional Republicans gave no sign of stopping efforts to increase sanctions in the immediate aftermath of the deal's announcement.

Sen. Mark Kirk, the Illinois Republican who has spearheaded efforts for stronger sanctions recently and in the past, and been a vocal critic of the administration's Iran movement in recent months, criticized the deal late Saturday.

"I share the president's goal of finding a diplomatic solution to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability, but this deal appears to provide the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism with billions of dollars in exchange for cosmetic concessions that neither fully freeze nor significantly roll back its nuclear infrastructure," he said in a statement.

"I will continue working with my colleagues to craft bipartisan legislation that will impose tough new economic sanctions if Iran undermines this interim accord or if the dismantlement of Iran's nuclear infrastructure is not underway by the end of this six-month period," Kirk said.

Sen. Marco Rubio sharply criticized the deal, describing an "even more urgent need" for stronger sanctions, and calling the deal a "blow to our allies in the region" in a statement released late Saturday.

"By allowing the Iranian regime to retain a sizable nuclear infrastructure, this agreement makes a nuclear Iran more likely," he said in the statement. "There is now an even more urgent need for Congress to increase sanctions until Iran completely abandons its enrichment and reprocessing capabilities.

"This agreement shows other rogue states that wish to go nuclear that you can obfuscate, cheat, and lie for a decade, and eventually the United States will tire and drop key demands," he continued in the statement.

Some on the Hill are determined to push forward with sanctions even though the interim deal was attained.

Sanctions will be voted on when the Senate returns from recess next month, a senior Senate aide told BuzzFeed late Saturday. The president should expect bipartisan enforcement legislation on his desk before Christmas, according to the aide, who described the deal as a shift for Congress from bulldog to watchdog.

"There's no question that members of Congress genuinely believe that Iran sanctions must be increased," a congressional aide told BuzzFeed Saturday. "Congress will move forward because Congress believes that, at the very least, after six months, if Iran doesn't do what we need them to do, Congress will drop the hammer."

"Definitely when six months comes up, the administration will have no leeway with Congress," the aide said.

The question is whether or not the various pieces of legislation being considered will actually be brought to a vote or whether leadership will smother such efforts.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Thursday he would support a vote on stronger sanctions after the Thanksgiving recess.

"The Senate must be prepared to move forward with a new bipartisan Iran sanctions bill when the Senate returns after Thanksgiving recess. And I am committed to do so," Reid said. "I believe we must do everything possible to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons capability."

How the agreement with Iran and the president's emphasis on the imposition of no new sanctions will affect Reid's position is unclear.

Stronger sanctions on Iran have been an ongoing point of contention the last few years between the Hill and the White House, perhaps most sharply bubbling over earlier this month following a disastrous meeting between the Senate Banking Committee and Secretary of State John Kerry.

The push for stronger sanctions has not been solely a Republican effort, either. In fact, support for stronger sanctions has been a rare point of bipartisan legislative action in the last few years. New Jersey Democrat and Senate Foreign Relations Chair Sen. Bob Menendez has been a vocal proponent of tougher sanctions.

The administration isn't giving any sign they will back down. In remarks made in Geneva after the deal was first announced, Kerry threatened a possible veto of new sanctions.

"Ultimately, if somehow we wound up not agreeing and Congress took action, the president has the possibility of a veto," he said.

Kerry said he is looking forward to "working together with Congress in order to achieve the goal that Congress embraced when it put these sanctions in place in the first place."

LINK: More details: World Powers Reach Nuclear Deal With Iran After Grueling Talks

Did he finally earn that Nobel?

T.J. Kirkpatrick-Pool / Getty Images

A little more than four years ago, the Norwegian Nobel Committee embarrassed President Barack Obama with an unearned Peace Prize.

The announcement praised him for having "created a new climate in international politics"; but the weather soon changed again. The committee also "has attached special importance to Obama's vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons," the announcement said.

Obama responded with a clever defensive maneuver: He traveled to Oslo to give a defense of war. But he has spent much of the following four years working — at times, an extremely high cost, in domestic politics and in other U.S. interests and relationships — to earn his prize on something more than "vision." He cut a new START treaty with Russia, cutting the two countries' nuclear arsenals after tense negotiations. He traded plans to tip the balance of power against Bashar al Assad in Syria for a chemical weapons clean-up. And in Geneva, he and Secretary of State John Kerry pushed harder and got further toward an interim agreement to stop Iran from making nuclear weapons than many thought possible.

Obama was elected as an anti-war figure, but his legacy has been split between winding down two wars and escalating America's campaign of drone strikes and paramilitary raids in a region ranging from Pakistan to Somalia. At the White House Saturday night, he made clear how he wants to be remembered:

"I have a profound responsibility to try to resolve our differences peacefully, rather than rush toward conflict," the president said.

Obama, who has shifted as much as most politicians on many issues, has been fairly consistent on this. He came of political age in the campus anti-nuclear movement of the 1980s, and made his political career with a then-meaningless decision in 2002 to oppose the Iraq war, has always seen issues of war, peace, and diplomacy differently than most of his peers. At a presidential campaign debate in South Carolina in 2007, he took a left-field question about sit-down meetings with the leaders of Iran, North Korea, and other hostile nations. Obama promised to sit down with those leaders in his first year, a gaffe so outrageous that his aides immediately tried to spin it away to reporters — before finding that the candidate's instinct had been right, and voters liked the idea.

But it was most of all the moment Obama almost went to war -- threatening to strike Syria after Assad's mass deployment of chemical weapons in August – that showed his discomfort with open conflict. It was never quite clear what the president wanted to achieve, or how. His decision to roll back the threat of strikes by taking the issue to Congress has been all but forgotten by the American people, but it has emboldened the regime of Bashar al-Assad and one of its main backers, Russia, who now see him as deeply weak.

Friendlier relations with Iran could remake the context of that conflict as well, if they open doors to cooperation beyond the nuclear issue. Now, it seems, Obama has spent his presidency marching towards those doors – burning many allies in his wake, from Israel to Saudi Arabia. Other former strategic U.S. interests have been all but ignored – Egypt as it descends into military dictatorship, Ukraine and Georgia as they fall back into Russia's orbit.

But presidents must have priorities and Obama has made his clear. Now he's earned the foreign policy legacy he campaigned on. And now perhaps the Norwegians can feel a bit more confident about their hasty reward.

U nuclear bro?

Secretary of State John Kerry recently passed some deal with Iran to prevent them from throwing a nuclear bomb around.

Pool / Reuters

During the process, he has been bro-ing out uncontrollably.

Pool / Reuters

All through the negotiations, Kerry kept asking Iran if they were mad.

Denis Balibouse / Reuters

Kerry had meetings with Russia and was all like:

Pool / Reuters

View Entire List ›

From states that ban same-sex couples from marrying to military chaplains to questions about a service academy’s hires and environment, the ease of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” repeal is giving way to dealing with the rough spots.

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel

Mark Wilson / Getty Images

WASHINGTON — Although the military's ban on out lesbian, gay and bisexual service ended without much fuss in 2011, the secondary issues of running a military that treats those service members and their partners equally has proven a more difficult task.

From states and countries that bar recognition of same-sex couples' marriages to military chaplains whose beliefs, they say, prevent them from including same-sex couples in couples' retreats, to treatment of LGB cadets at a military academy, the recent talk about "gays in the military" has focused more on the few problem areas that have arisen.

Particularly since June's Supreme Court decision ending the ban on the federal government recognizing married same-sex couples, the Pentagon is finding pockets of difficulty in advancing its new policy — enunciated by Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel in an August memo — that "[i]t is now the Department's policy to treat all married military personnel equally."

Several states — including Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma, South Carolina and Texas — remain unwilling to process military ID cards for same-sex spouses of National Guard members at state facilities, citing state constitutional bans on recognizing same-sex couples' marriages. This comes even after Hagel said at the end of October that all states "will be expected" to treat all married service members equally.

Although Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin has gotten the most attention for announcing that it will no longer process ID cards for any spouses — same-sex or opposite-sex — it is those states continuing to treat same-sex spouses differently after a Dec. 1 deadline for compliance that will be most likely to face a response from the Pentagon.

What that will be, though, is not yet clear. A defense official told BuzzFeed on Friday that Hagel had directed the head of the National Guard Bureau, Gen. Frank Grass, "to resolve this issue" with the state heads of the National Guard units. "We're not going to speculate on further options at this time. These are federal ID cards paid for with federal funding to provide federally-mandated benefits," the official stated. "These states' refusal to comply with federal policy not only hurts members of the National Guard but also active and reserve military members and retirees that are seeking an ID card for their same-sex spouse at National Guard facilities."

In California, another problem was highlighted this past week: the treatment of same-sex couples by chaplains, many of whom are Southern Baptist or Roman Catholic and are barred by their faith leaders from counseling to same-sex couples.

The American Military Partner Association announced on Nov. 20 that a married same-sex couple were denied participation in an Army marriage enrichment "Strong Bonds" program run by the chaplains at Fort Irwin in San Bernardino County. Although the military later stated that it would make "alternative arrangements" to provide the services to the couple, Shakera Leigh Halford, the wife of the service member, said, "Why can't we just be another couple at the retreat, like everyone else? Why do we have to have special arrangements?"

Most of the attention this past week, however, was focused on Colorado Springs, Colo., where the Air Force Academy is located. Questions about the academy's environment for lesbian, gay and bisexual cadets — including its employment of a person with a long history of involvement in anti-LGBT organizations — reached such a level that the academy held a conference call with reporters on Friday afternoon to address the issues.

The questions began on Nov. 19, when AmericaBlog's John Aravosis reported that Dr. Mike Rosebush — who has a long history of involvement with "ex-gay" counseling aiming to help people in "coming out of homosexuality" and involvement with Focus on the Family, NARTH (National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality) and Exodus International — oversaw "character and leadership coaching" at the academy.

The academy's public affairs office said Aravosis overstated Rosebush's role, stating that he is "Operations Research Analyst for the Academy's Center of Character and Leadership Development," that he took on that role in 2011 and was hired in 2009 as an analyst in the "Academy's Plans and Programs office." Even that, though, was not a junior-level office; its full name is the "Directorate of Strategic Plans and Programs, Requirements, Assessments and Analyses" and its purpose is to "support[] commanders by developing institutional policy, plans and assessment strategies to enhance mission success."

Air Force Academy Chapel

U.S. Air Force photo/Mike Kaplan

In a later statement, the academy's superintendent, Lt. Gen. Michelle Johnson, added that while Rosebush does not run the center, he does evaluate the academy's "character coaching" program and "help[s] ensure the quality of coaches who conduct the coaching of cadets."

The academy public affairs office also stated that Johnson and others in the leadership at the academy met with members of Spectrum, the academy's affinity group for LGBQ cadets. (Out trans cadets would not be eligible for military service under current military guidelines and were not a part of the academy's consideration of these issues.) The public affairs office stated that "the cadets expressed to Academy leaders that they are proud to be in the Air Force and do not feel like the Air Force Academy culture inhibits them in any way."

According to a report from The Huffington Post's Lila Shapiro, the claim prompted a closeted cadet to rail against the academy's "self serving press release today about how 'happy' all the gay cadets are here," saying, " it would be devastating for our cadet and future Air Force careers" if many closeted cadets came out at the Air Force Academy.

The developments prompted the Friday media call, which featured three out LGB cadets who are members of Spectrum; the active-duty service member who acts as the group's adviser, Air Force Capt. Michelle L. Reinstatler; and the academy's public affairs officers. No last names were given for the cadets — Carol, Stephanie and William — all of whom spoke well of the environment, at least among the non-cadet people at the academy — for LGBQ students.

After much back and forth, the cadets and Reinstatler did acknowledge, however, that two cadets at the earlier meeting with Johnson described issues, since addressed, that the cadets had with other cadets relating to their sexual orientation.

Although the academy's control of communications regarding the environment for cadets makes it difficult to assess the current atmosphere, the questions about Rosebush that started the week's coverage of issues there remain — and the academy thus far has supported him.

Academy superintendent Johnson stated in a release, "[T]here are no complaints against Dr. Rosebush since he arrived in 2009 and he has effectively performed the duties required by his position for the Academy." The same statement, though, suggested the academy could change course, adding that academy leaders "are reviewing the hiring process ultimately bringing Dr. Rosebush aboard in 2009."

The Human Rights Campaign and American Military Partner Association both weighed in with statements Friday announcing views that more must be done to address the concerns about Rosebush and the larger questions about the environment for LGBQ cadets. The AMPA called for "an independent and transparent investigation" into Rosebush's hiring and the broader climate question, while an HRC spokesman criticized the academy for "continuing to defend the hiring of conversion therapy advocate Dr. Mike Rosebush."

View Entire List ›

Presidents haven’t been giving turkeys a pass for as long as you might think.

The White House has been holding holiday ceremonies with turkeys since the 1940s under President Harry Truman. But Truman did NOT pardon this turkey — in fact, that turkey was more than likely destined for his kitchen table.

National Archives / Via washingtonpost.com

mmmmmmmmm

snowwhitesheart.tumblr.com

Eisenhower ate at least one turkey given to him. It wasn't even his, originally — it was given to Nixon, his vice president.

Eisenhower Presidential Library / Via books.google.com

Eisenhower Presidential Library

View Entire List ›

The interim deal reached with Iran over its nuclear program does not contain requirements about the Americans detained in the country.

View Video ›

WASHINGTON — The issue of the American citizens detained in Iran was raised by U.S. negotiators during the process of negotiating the deal on Iran's nuclear program, a senior White House official said on Monday.

"We raised two issues with the Iranians in our discussions with them," Deputy National security adviser Ben Rhodes said on CNN on Monday. "One is the nuclear program; the other is Americans detained in Iran."

"President Obama raised it with President Rouhani when they spoke," Rhodes said. "We raised it at a working level on the margins of the P5+1 talks. That includes this pastor. It also includes other Americans. For instance, we've been concerned about, of course, the whereabouts of Bob Levinson, who's been missing for a long time."

Rhodes called the detainees "another issue we raised regularly with the Iranians, and we have said to them it would be the right thing to do not just for legal purposes, but humanitarian purposes, to let these Americans come home."

The actual interim nuclear deal that world powers reached with Iran over the weekend does not include any stipulations on Iran's continued detention of Green Movement leaders nor its detention of American citizens, two omissions that have invited criticism from some conservative quarters.

A source close to the negotiations said that the issue of the detained Americans was likely brought up during secret U.S.-Iran talks led by deputy secretary of state Bill Burns, as well.

A day after the deal was reached, the FBI put out a new release on Levinson, who is now one of the longest-held Americans in history after being captured in Iran in 2007. His whereabouts are unknown. Pastor Saeed Abedini is also still imprisoned in Iran.

A spokesperson for the State Department declined to comment on the extent to which the imprisoned Americans figured into the talks.

A rare heckle from the crowd behind the president at a carefully staged event in San Francisco. A speech turns into a conversation.

View Video ›

WASHINGTON — At an immigration speech in San Francisco Monday, President Obama was confronted by a group of hecklers angry over his administration's record number of deportations since Obama took office.

Normally, when the president gets shouted down in the middle of a speech, the heckler — or hecklers — are removed from the room. But on Monday, Obama chose to turn to one of his critics, who was standing in the crowd behind him, and engage in conversation.

"You have the power to stop all deportations!" the heckler shouted.

"Actually, I don't," Obama said.

The president turned away from the camera in front of him and spoke to the man directly for a few moments after calling on security to let the heckler stay.

It was a rare high-profile glimpse into the criticisms Obama faces from the left on immigration. Some pro-reform groups have called on the White House to end deportations, which they say were stepped up in a fruitless attempt to woo conservatives to the immigration reform table. With momentum on a bill seemingly stalled, the pro-reform critics have called on Obama to scale back deportations and use his executive powers in other ways to enact as much reform to the immigration system as he can without Congress.

Some hawks are pushing hard for new sanctions, but right now, it looks like the Senate will give the administration some time on the Iran deal.

Pool / Reuters

WASHINGTON — Hawkish senators are still pushing for new sanctions on Iran after the interim nuclear deal reached this weekend, but new sanctions don't seem likely to become reality — at least for now.

Members ranging from House Majority Leader Eric Cantor to Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer have made clear they want Congress to move forward with new sanctions regardless of the deal. But even some of the most ardent in the pro-sanctions crowd appear prepared to give the administration some time to see if the deal works out before taking concrete steps to apply new sanctions.

On Monday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid appeared to pull back ever so slightly from his promise to bring a bill to the floor when the Senate returns next month.

"You know, what I said last week, I still feel the same way today," Reid said in an interview with NPR's Diane Rehm.

"[Sen.] Dianne Feinstein, for example, put out a strong statement today — she's chair of the Intelligence Committee — she supports the arrangement by the president and his team and, of course, John Kerry. Sen. McCain was cautiously optimistic," Reid pointed out.

"When we come back we will take a look at this to see if we need stronger sanctions … [we] will study this, [we] will hold hearings if necessary, and if we need work on this, if we need stronger sanctions, I am sure we will do that," he added.

Significantly, Reid's comments appear to have come after he consulted with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. "I have spoken to him about this — he being PM Netanyahu — of course they are concerned. That's why I have indicated that I will take a look at this when I get back, all aspects of it. But we all have to acknowledge that it's an important first step," Reid said.

While Reid is typically loathe to break with Obama, at least openly, he also has a strong relationship with Netanyahu, one source close to the leader said, and it appears he's trying to find a way forward that balances those two loyalties.

A senior administration official emphasized Monday on a call with reporters that the White House would not support new sanctions.

"We believe that any sanctions that are passed during negotiations would do several things that would be unhelpful," the official said.

The administration's message to Congress is "it's not going to be difficult to pass sanctions if and when it comes to that, so there's no urgency to get a piece of legislation out now," according to the official.

The official would not say if President Obama would veto new sanctions. "That's a hypothetical because a bill hasn't been passed," the official said.

Secretary of State John Kerry, in remarks early Sunday, said in the event of new sanctions, "the president has the possibility of a veto."

Although Reid's office declined to expound on his comments, a senior Democratic leadership aide said that despite Schumer's calls for more sanctions, that's unlikely to happen in the short term.

"My sense is people are going to wait to see if Iran does what it said it'll do," the aide said. "The deal is an important one, both for our national security and for the diplomatic process and my sense is people are anxious to be fully briefed and to be sure the agreement is working before jumping headlong into another round of sanction talk."

"The current global sanctions against Iran remain in place and have been crippling. There's a strong argument to be made that those sanctions helped push Iran to these talks and this agreement. What they do next will likely determine Senate action," this source added.

How long Reid can hold off from acting on sanctions, however, remains unclear. There appears to be a bipartisan majority in both chambers that would back expanding them, even if it means undercutting the administration's deal. And while the agreement gives the White House some temporary breathing room, if Iran appears to be reneging on the deal, pressure could quickly mount for congressional action.

Senate members who have been leading the charge for new sanctions are not likely to try to impose those sanctions immediately. Instead, new sanctions would likely be imposed in the event that Iran breaks the deal, or when the six-month interim deal is up. Congress' focus is shifting to enforcing the deal and forcing it into final deal status.

"With this agreement, the role of Congress will shift from bulldog to watchdog," one senior Senate aide told BuzzFeed. "What was to be a new sanctions bill to win Iranian concessions now becomes a Damocles to enforce this agreement and ensure it doesn't become a never-ending first step. The president should expect bipartisan enforcement legislation on his desk before Christmas."

Some senators are sticking to their guns on immediate new sanctions. "There is now an even more urgent need for Congress to increase sanctions until Iran completely abandons its enrichment and reprocessing capabilities," Sen. Marco Rubio said in a statement this weekend.

But others are allowing some leeway in appearing to support legislation that would impose new sanctions only under certain conditions.

"I will continue working with my colleagues to craft bipartisan legislation that will impose tough new economic sanctions if Iran undermines this interim accord or if the dismantlement of Iran's nuclear infrastructure is not underway by the end of this six-month period," Sen. Mark Kirk said in a statement after the deal was announced.

"I expect that the forthcoming sanctions legislation to be considered by the Senate will provide for a six-month window to reach a final agreement before imposing new sanctions on Iran, but will at the same time be immediately available should the talks falter or Iran fail to implement or breach the interim agreement," said Sen. Bob Menendez, another key pro-sanctions voice, in a statement over the weekend.

PCCC, the national progressive group, wants its members on the ground in Iowa and New Hampshire to make sure Clinton takes a stand on Elizabeth Warren’s signature issues. How PCCC will use Warren as their “North Star.”

Ruby Cramer / BuzzFeed

Two years from now, on the eve of the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary, it's possible that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton could be running for the nomination without a major opponent to her left.

But even if no serious Clinton challenger in the mold of progressive Sen. Elizabeth Warren emerges, a nonprofit group called the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, or PCCC, is prepared to take up the mantle.

Co-founder Adam Green says plans are already in the works to pressure Clinton from the left on Wall Street reform and Social Security, sending PCCC members to storm her early town hall meetings and using Warren — the Massachusetts freshman senator who is increasingly held up as the hero of the party's left wing — as the guiding force of their movement.

"Elizabeth Warren is the North Star of where our party should be going and is going," Green said in a phone interview, citing Warren's work on student loans, her introduction of a new Glass-Steagall Act earlier this year, and a speech she delivered last week that advocated for the expansion of Social Security.

"Even without running, Warren will change the conversation around Hillary Clinton's candidacy," Green said. "We want to make it a prerequisite that Clinton take a stance on Social Security, on Glass-Steagall. I don't see a scenario where there's not chatter about Elizabeth Warren, and where Hillary Clinton is not forced to articulate her positions on those issues."

If Clinton doesn't, said Green, PCCC members will attend her town hall meetings and "ask the same questions over and over again until they get an answer."

"We are in the initial stages of talking about a deep organizing strategy that will make sure everyone running for president has to say whether they support Warren's positions on issues like Social Security," he added.

Earlier this month, while in New Hampshire for a finance meeting, Green and PCCC's leadership met with union leaders in the state to talk about establishing an infrastructure "with actual people on the ground" in advance of the primary.

Clinton, who left the State Department in February, has steadily been making her way back into the political sphere, weighing in earlier this year on the debates over military involvement in Syria and and the surveillance policies of the National Security Agency. The likely presidential frontrunner, Green pointed out, has yet to clarify her position on cutting Social Security benefits.

PCCC gave the audience at the New Hampshire Democratic Party's Jefferson-Jackson Dinner a preview of its plans that same weekend, when they passed around stickers that read, "I'm from the Elizabeth Warren wing of the Democratic Party." Although Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley, the marquee speaker at the dinner, was supposed to be the focus of the event, many attendees sported the Warren bumper stickers proudly on their suit jackets and dresses.

The group is now selling that same slogan on T-shirts, hoodies, magnets, and even baby onesies — for "our boldest progressives who aren't quite old enough to vote."

PCCC, a political action committee founded in 2009 by Green and two others, has taken up a wide array of causes in the last four years — not always successfully — and often finds itself at odds with, and to the left of, the current White House.

Earlier this year, the group launched a failed effort to recruit Brian Schweitzer, former governor of Montana, to run for the state's open U.S. Senate seat. PCCC also set up a legal defense fund for Edward Snowden, the man who fled the United States after leaking information about the government's surveillance program to The Guardian.

More recently, though, PCCC has focused the fight to expand Social Security, and its main champion in Washington — Elizabeth Warren.

Warren, who has only been in the Senate for about 10 months, has long been the subject of 2016 speculation. An article in the New Republic this month, headlined, "Hillary's Nightmare," gave rise to even more noise about Warren's possible candidacy. The senator, though, has said she has no plans to run for president, and some of her biggest financial backers have signaled as much to the progressive donor world in recent weeks.

Green, though, says getting Warren to run isn't his goal. "This is not a draft movement," he said. "It's using Elizabeth Warren's agenda as the standard that Democratic candidates will be held to — a bold economic populist agenda."

"We want to make sure every Democratic candidate who visits New Hampshire is forced to take a stance on these issues," Green said.

Three federal judges — including 9th Circuit Chief Judge Alex Kozinski — say it is discrimination for the federal government not to treat domestic partners like spouses, at least in states where they cannot marry, for purposes of receiving federal benefits.

Kevork Djansezian / Getty Images

WASHINGTON — An administrative panel of three federal judges ordered Monday that Margaret Fonberg be given back pay to offset discrimination she faced when her domestic partner was denied federal health insurance.

The order of the administrative panel of the9h Circuit is not a court ruling directly applicable to other cases. It is notable, however, for the federal judges' conclusion that treating same-sex couples in a domestic partnership in a state where they cannot marry differently than married same-sex couples is unconstitutional.

"To quote Joe Biden 'This is a big fucking deal!'" Fonberg wrote to BuzzFeed late Monday. "I'm ... beyond thrilled with the decision."

The reasoning is a sharp contrast from the Justice Department and other federal executive agencies in the wake of the June ruling of the Supreme Court in United States v. Windsor that the federal ban on recognizing same-sex couples' marriages in the Defense of Marriage Act was unconstitutional. It also runs counter to the reasoning of the LGBT advocates in New Jersey, who argued successfully that marriage itself was required for same-sex couples to be treated equally there because the federal government does not treat civil unions as equal to marriages.

Fonberg, a former clerk in the federal courts in Oregon, had a registered domestic partnership under Oregon law with her same-sex partner, and she sought to enroll her partner in the federal health insurance program in 2009 but was denied. At that time, DOMA prevented the federal government from recognizing same-sex couples' marriages — although administrative decisions at the time from judges within the 9th Circuit questioned that proposition, a decision later echoed by the Supreme Court.

Since the Supreme Court decision striking down DOMA's ban on recognizing same-sex couples' marriages, however, the Office of Personnel Management — with which the 9th Circuit judges had clashed on the earlier decisions — "has taken the position that employees in same-sex relationships such as 'a civil union or other forms of domestic partnership other than marriage' are not entitled to federal health insurance benefits for their partners," as noted in the panel's decision.

On Monday, though, the executive committee of the Judicial Council of the 9th Circuit — a three-judge panel including the 9th Circuit's chief judge, Alex Kozinski — ruled on Fonberg's request, a part of the administrative process that federal court employees within the 9th Circuit use to challenge employment or benefits decisions (referred to as the Employee Dispute Resolution Plan [EDR Plan]).

The judges took a different position than OPM, which resolves similar employment issues with other federal employees. The judges found the treatment of Fonberg and her domestic partner to be impermissible on two grounds:

First, they are treated differently from opposite-sex partners who are allowed to marry and thereby gain spousal benefits under federal law. This is plainly discrimination based on sexual orientation, which the District of Oregon's EDR Plan prohibits. They are also treated unequally vis-à-vis same-sex couples in other states in the circuit, who may marry and thus gain benefits under Windsor. This violates the principle that federal employees must not be treated unequally in the entitlements and benefits of federal employment based on the vagaries of state law. Here, Oregon law suffers from precisely the same deficiency that the Supreme Court identified in Windsor with respect to the Defense of Marriage Act. Both these forms of discrimination are prohibited under the Oregon EDR Plan.

As such, the judges put back in place an earlier ruling that would allow Fonberg to receive back pay to offset the lost benefits that she experienced.

Back before the Supreme Court struck down DOMA, Kozinski, in another administrative decision, faced off against OPM — which held at the time that DOMA prevented it from providing health insurance benefits to same-sex spouses of federal employees — in a challenge brought by another federal court employee, Karen Golinski. When OPM refused to give Golisnki's wife health insurance, the Judicial Council of the 9th Circuit authorized Golinski to file a lawsuit to receive the benefits from OPM.

Because Monday's order simply provides Fonberg with back pay to offset the lost benefits — something the judiciary can implement without support from OPM — the decision in Fonberg's challenge is not likely to immediately present any ongoing litigation.

It does, however, provide Kozinski's weighty voice to buttress arguments that will be made in court cases seeking equal treatment for domestic partnerships or civil unions, particularly where marriage equality is not an option.

Read the administrative order:

Democrats have never really liked insurers and Republicans are wary of the industry’s work with the administration. Both need insurers to succeed.

Jonathan Bachman / Reuters / Reuters

WASHINGTON — Insurance companies find themselves back in a familiar position on Capitol Hill these days: the villain.

Amidst the problem-plagued roll out of the Affordable Care Act insurers, who perhaps have the most to gain (or lose) from Obamacare, have few friends on either side of the aisle.

This isn't new exactly. Democrats have never liked the insurance industry, and trashed it as greedy and harmful throughout the lead up to the Affordable Care Act's passage. Republicans, traditionally an industry ally, have grown increasingly wary of insurers, who they regard as a key player in the administration's effort to get Obamacare passed in the first place.

The last few years have created strange bedfellows, however. Democrats in some ways are forced to count on insurers to help make the Affordable Care Act work. But bad blood is back on Capitol Hill.

"There is a sense among Democrats that well, you financed a whole bunch of ads against us in 2010 and what we're guilty of is helping to create 30 million new customers for you. So shoot me," said Democratic Rep. Gerry Connolly.

Connolly was referring to an $86 million effort on the part of America's Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), the trade group for the industry, who gave the money to the Chamber of Commerce to actively lobby against health care reform.

"They demanded an individual mandate or they weren't even going to talk," he said. "So guess what? It has an individual mandate and they funded ads through the Chamber of Commerce that accused the administration and the Democrats who voted for it of socialism. Now that's a bit much."

One source of revived animosity: The Obama administration's recent decision to present an administrative "fix" to millions of cancelled insurance policies. The fix left insurers irate — they accused the president of turning the industry into "political flak jackets" for the administration's troubles.

But Republican sympathies for insurers' complaints are hard to find.

"Be careful what you ask for," shrugged Republican Rep. John Shimkus.

In general, Republicans still have more goodwill for the industry than do Democrats. Despite their newfound mistrust, Republicans need a healthy private insurance market if they ever want to repeal the law. The GOP is also the beneficiary of more of their campaign dollars. AHIP gave $273,000 to Republicans, over $158,000 to Democrats in 2012.

Even some of the industry's supporters have introduced legislation that insurers oppose, however. Republican Sen. Marco Rubio recently introduced a bill to repeal Obamacare's "risk corridors" — money that would be spent to boost insurers if they lose money in the exchanges. Rubio argued his legislation had more to do with undoing Obamacare than hurting insurance companies.

"I'm not anti-insurance company. Insurance companies are important and a vibrant private insurance industry is important for the future of health insurance in America," Rubio said. "I don't think taxpayers should be bailing them out. It takes a taxpayer bailout to save Obamacare, that alone tells you it's not worth saving."

A House Republican, who did not want to give his name because of potential industry contributions to his campaign, said that insurance companies weren't helping themselves with the GOP when "it appears they are trying to help the Obama administration with implementation of the law."

Despite Republican protests, it's hard to find any glowing statements from AHIP about the health care law. In fact, in March 2010 — when the bill passed — the statement from the trade organization was harsh.

"This legislation will drive up health care costs by adding billions in new health care taxes and encouraging people to wait until they are sick before getting insurance," said AHIP president Karen Ignagni.

Industry officials dispute the idea that they have to choose between wanting health care reform to work and disagreeing with the way it was done.

"So many people in this town think you need to pick sides. We can work with the administration and try to get this up and running and get people enrolled because we're a business and we have an interest to do that," said one industry source. "We can also raise concerns and defend our industry…those are not mutually exclusive things. We want a marketplace that works so we can get people enrolled because we have a business to run."

Some of the law's staunchest opponents, however, see the health care launch issues as solely Obama's problem. And they reason that Democrats' continuing spat with insurers was nothing more than a way to pass on that blame.

"I think the president put them in a bad spot. I think quite most people understand that his cancelation announcement was nothing more than a political announcement," said conservative Rep. Tim Huelskamp. "I think they'll ignore him and he'll blame them that they didn't reduce premiums as he demanded they do."

Democrats' reluctance to attack insurers in the recent past has been a point of consternation for some.

Democratic pollster Celinda Lake said earlier this month it would be in Democrats' best interests to start to hammer insurance companies for the cancellations.

"I don't understand why we aren't far more aggressive," she said.

It hasn't been all bad news for the industry: There have been several efforts on the Hill to get rid of some parts of the law insurers hate most. For example, a bipartisan bill to repeal the law's health insurance tax reached 218 co-sponsors, enough to ensure passage in the House.

But with deadlines fast approaching to get Healthcare.gov up and running — the heightened tensions between Congress and industry seem unlikely to ease soon.

"Most reasonable people on the Hill understand the situation that we are in. We have concerns; we've had issues all along. All the issues that we raised are now coming to light," the industry source said.

Seriously, though, look.

During President Obama's speech on immigration Monday in San Francisco, he was interrupted by a heckler.

Jim Gensheimer/Bay Area News Group / MCT

The heckler was 24-year-old Ju Hong of South Korea.

Jim Gensheimer/Bay Area News Group / MCT

He was upset over Obama's record on deportation. According to the Department of Homeland Security, the Obama administration has deported more immigrants annually than the George W. Bush administration.

Jason Reed / Reuters

Everyone else in the crowd was upset he was interrupting the president, though.

Jim Gensheimer/Bay Area News Group / MCT

View Entire List ›

The justices will hear arguments in the new year in two cases challenging whether religious freedoms extend to corporations or corporate owners.

Jonathan Ernst / Reuters / Reuters

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court announced Tuesday that it will be hearing a pair of cases from businesses challenging the government mandate that companies' insurance policies include coverage for contraception.

The cases, brought by Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood, feature similar questions about the rights of for-profit corporations or their owners to sue under laws aimed at protecting religious freedom but present lower-court decisions that reached differing conclusions.

The companies have challenged the regulations put in place by Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius under the Affordable Care Act that mandate contraception coverage be included in certain companies' employee health insurance plans.

In the Conestoga Wood case, the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals held that "for-profit, secular corporations cannot engage in religious exercise," preventing the court from considering whether the contraception mandate violated either the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause or the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, however, decided otherwise, concluding that Hobby Lobby and a related company "are entitled to bring claims under RFRA."

The Justice Department asked the Supreme Court to hear and reverse the decision in the Hobby Lobby case, and Conestoga Wood asked the court to hear and reverse the decision in its case.

The court accepted both cases and announced it will hear a total of one hour of oral arguments when it hears the cases together, likely in March 2014. A decision will be expected by June 2014.

Update: White House Press Secretary Jay Carney issued the following statement regarding the Hobby Lobby case:

The health care law puts women and families in control of their health care by covering vital preventive care, like cancer screenings and birth control, free of charge. Earlier this year, the Obama Administration asked the Supreme Court to consider a legal challenge to the health care law's requirement that for-profit corporations include birth control coverage in insurance available to their employees. We believe this requirement is lawful and essential to women's health and are confident the Supreme Court will agree.

We do not comment on specifics of a case pending before the Court. As a general matter, our policy is designed to ensure that health care decisions are made between a woman and her doctor. The President believes that no one, including the government or for-profit corporations, should be able to dictate those decisions to women. The Administration has already acted to ensure no church or similar religious institution will be forced to provide contraception coverage and has made a commonsense accommodation for non-profit religious organizations that object to contraception on religious grounds. These steps protect both women's health and religious beliefs, and seek to ensure that women and families--not their bosses or corporate CEOs--can make personal health decisions based on their needs and their budgets.

They really never learn.

Last year BuzzFeed reported on how congressional staffers had been editing members' Wikipedia pages.

Via buzzfeed.com

House offices all share the same IP address.

Via en.wikipedia.org

Here are the details for the IP:

whatismyipaddress.com

This makes it quite easy to find when people who work in Congress airbrush Wikipedia pages. BuzzFeed found 13 new examples since the first post.

reactiongifs.com

View Entire List ›

Ireland’s new ambassador is actively meeting with House Republicans to try to sway them on immigration reform. “For many of them, they have been surprised. They think of this as a Hispanic issue.”

WASHINGTON — Ireland's new ambassador to the United States is throwing her nation's weight behind calls for American comprehensive immigration reform.

Anne Anderson, who began her term as ambassador in September, argues changes to the immigration system are needed to reflect "the historical and contemporary relationship" between the two nations.

She has the backing of the Irish parliament and head of government, Taoiseach Enda Kenny — and she's "spent a considerable amount of that time talking to [House Republicans] about" immigration reform, Anderson said in an interview with BuzzFeed.

Indeed, Anderson has been holding regular meetings with Republican lawmakers, and the embassy is working with a coalition of Irish-American cultural, business, and civic organizations to organize the estimated 40 million Americans who trace at least part of their ethnic heritage to Ireland.

And while Anderson acknowledged the path to reform is difficult, she argued bringing a non-Latino face to the debate is helping win over some House Republicans.

"For many of them, they have been surprised. They think of this as a Hispanic issue, which is not surprising given the numbers," Anderson said. "There is increasingly a deeper understanding of the complexities of this issue, and that it's not just one community," Anderson explained.

Anderson's emphasis on immigration comes as Irish-American business and civic organizations have increasingly become involved in the push for a comprehensive reform to the nation's immigration rules.

Part of the push comes in response to "the situation of the Irish undocumented here." While the estimated 50,000 to 75,000 undocumented Irish make up a relatively small percentage of the estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants in the United States, "in a country the size of Ireland … that makes quite an impact," Anderson said.

But the Irish government is also concerned with the relative difficulty its citizens have in obtaining green cards: Between 2000 and 2012, only 15,000 of the total 10 million green cards issued to immigrants went to the Irish.

"The other side of the coin is the extreme difficulty for Irish people to come work here … [which] has fueled the undocumented problem," Anderson said, adding that "the extent to which the Irish have improved this country … and helped to build this country, that's just a tiny, tiny, tiny percentage."

Unlike past emigration waves out of Ireland that were often made by low-skilled workers, many Irish who are leaving come from the nation's high-tech sector. "They're the kind of people who can make a contribution. Now they're going other places," Anderson warned.

President Obama spoke Tuesday at DreamWorks Animation, the studio headed by one of his top donors. Meanwhile in California, a debate is brewing over the state’s entertainment tax incentives.

Jason Reed / Reuters

President Obama praised the entertainment industry and its economic importance Tuesday in California as lawmakers in the state debate critical tax incentives to keep production local.

"In a global race for jobs and industries, the thing we do better than anybody else is creativity," President Obama said during the visit to DreamWorks Animation studios in Glendale, Calif. "There's still no better place to make movies and television and music than right here in the United States."

Obama said Tuesday entertainment was "one of America's biggest exports" and "part of American diplomacy." He compared its role in the southern California economy to the auto industry in the Midwest and technology in northern California.

"Every time someone buys movie tickets or DVDs or distribution rights to a film, some of that money goes back into the local economy," he said.

Although the president didn't address entertainment tax incentives Tuesday, they're currently the subject of an ongoing debate in California.

Southern California leaders are currently working to convince state leaders to increase tax incentives to keep film production from leaving the state. Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti signed a law in October waiving television pilots from certain city fees and said he plans to make the case in Sacramento to increase the state's incentives.

California currently has a $100 million tax incentive program to compete with other states with similar programs to lure production away. New York, for example, has a $400 million tax incentive program.

Garcetti said California Gov. Jerry Brown is "skeptical" of raising the incentive limit. Brown was in Los Angeles for a fundraiser Thursday where he spoke about the importance of the entertainment industry, but he did not specifically mention tax incentives.

The motion picture industry contributes $30 billion to the California economy, according to the California Film Commission, and 80% of entertainment companies are small businesses that employ fewer than 10 people.

During his visit to DreamWorks, Obama toured the animation studios, and was at one point rendered as an animated character.

DreamWorks Animation CEO Jeffrey Katzenberg was one of the president's most significant fundraisers in his two presidential campaigns, giving or raising $30 million toward the president's reelection. The White House said Monday Katzenberg's political activity had "no bearing on our decision to visit there."

Obama toured DreamWorks and they turned him into an animated monster.

And he also watched a lady dance around:

View Entire List ›