“Well, Lady Gaga said she is addicted to it and it is not harmless,” Republican Alabama Sen. Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III said at a Justice Department oversight hearing Wednesday. (Video via Think Progress ).

youtube.com

“A year of action.”

Local newspapers' front pages were almost unanimous in their pick for the message from the president's 2014 State of the Union address: Obama's declaration that he wanted this to be a "year of action."

"In the coming months, let's see where else we can make progress together. Let's make this a year of action," the president said. "That's what most Americans want — for all of us in this chamber to focus on their lives, their hopes, their aspirations. And what I believe unites the people of this nation, regardless of race or region or party, young or old, rich or poor, is the simple, profound belief in opportunity for all — the notion that if you work hard and take responsibility, you can get ahead."

Newspapers also picked up on Obama's pledge to initiate policy goals without legislation by bypassing Congress through executive orders. "Flexing" (as in muscles) and "solo" (as in going solo) were also popular headline terms.

Arizona

webmedia.newseum.org

Arkansas

webmedia.newseum.org

California

webmedia.newseum.org

View Entire List ›

Apparently everyone in Hollywood is a big fat liar!

In his latest episode of Lie Witness News, Jimmy Kimmel hit the streets of Hollywood to ask people what they thought of President Obama's State of the Union address. The only problem was it hadn't happened yet...

youtube.com / Via reddit.com

When asked what he thought of the President's speech, this guy got deep.

And this guy DEFINITELY noticed that John Boehner kept falling asleep.

When asked about Obama's weird tie, this guy barely hesitate before describing it in detail.

View Entire List ›

“I hate to say this, because these are my people — but I hate to say it, but it’s racial,” says a Republican congressman.

Jason Reed / Reuters

WASHINGTON — For more than a year House Republican leaders have insisted the chamber would act on new immigration laws. And for more than a year, Republicans have done virtually nothing on the issue — despite intense pressure from activists, business groups, and the nation's changing demographics.

And although there are a variety of reasons for inaction, one Republican lawmaker recently offered a frank acknowledgement that for many House Republicans, there's one issue at play that's not often discussed: race.

"Part of it, I think — and I hate to say this, because these are my people — but I hate to say it, but it's racial," said the Southern Republican lawmaker, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. "If you go to town halls people say things like, 'These people have different cultural customs than we do.' And that's code for race."

There are a range of policy reasons for opposing plans to liberalize immigration or to regularize undocumented immigrants in the country, ones revolving around law-and-order concerns and the labor market. But that perceived thread of xenophobia, occasionally expressed bluntly on the fringes of the Republican Party and on the talk radio airwaves, has driven many Hispanic voters away from a Republican leadership that courts them avidly. And some Republicans who back an immigration overhaul, including Sen. Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican and one of the Republican Party's most vocal champions of a pathway to citizenship, acknowledge that race remains a reality in the immigration debate.

"There will always be people [who have] different reasons for opposing the change. We have a history in this country of demagoguery when it comes [to immigration]. You know, 'Irish Need Not Apply.' There's nothing new going on today that's gone on before. This isn't the first time that there's been some ugliness around the issue of immigration," Graham said.

But Graham said despite that legacy, voters, including strong majorities of Republican primary voters, are lining up behind the idea of citizenship.

"Here's what I don't get: When you ask primary voters in a poll would support a pathway to citizenship where you have to learn English, pay a fine and go to the back of the line, it's 60% in South Carolina," Graham said. "Nationally, it's over 70% … it seems through polling, if nothing else, that the Republican Party gets it."

"There's some racist people, certainly," said Ana Navarro, a Republican strategist and advocate for immigration reform. "But I want to think it's a minority and that's not what's going to decide the immigration debate."

Graham agreed, but said he is puzzled by the resistance to moving on new immigration laws in the House.

"I don't know. I have no idea, I have no idea. I can't explain it. I think maybe it's a fear of a primary," Graham said when asked what makes his colleagues so hesitant on the issue.

With Republicans meeting in Cambridge, Md., this week to discuss, among other things, recommendations for a set of immigration policy bills, House Republicans' reluctance to touch the issue is a major facing Republicans.

"Part of it is the fact that most of our districts are more worried about a primary opponent instead of a general opponent. Immigration is a thing you get primaried over ... nobody is afraid of the pro-reform forces. They are afraid of the anti-reform forces," the operative said.

It's confusing for Republicans when in conservative states like South Carolina, Graham said, changes to immigration policy are met with much less public skepticism than perhaps many assume.

"We have a tourism economy where we need workers [and] we have an agricultural economy. I think … the employers in South Carolina make a compelling case that we need workers," Graham said.

Unlike abortion, Obamacare, the deficit, or federal spending, there's no organized, well-funded opposition: There are no media campaigns of note or lobbying blitzes on Capitol Hill. In short, Republicans feel pressure without any formal outside group really applying it.

Instead, Republican lawmakers and operatives alike also said that while fiscal issues have been driven by large, national groups like the Club for Growth and Heritage Action, Republican reluctance to tackle immigration reform is much more a bottom-up phenomenon.

Opposition to any form of citizenship for the 11 million undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States has long been an article of faith for Republican voters, much like opposition to any changes to Social Security are for Democrats. Immigration is now a third-rail issue in the GOP.

Talk radio, particularly regional and small-market talkers, have also kept up the pressure, Republicans said, explaining that the airwaves back home are constantly filled with talk of "amnesty" that makes backing new laws difficult.

Those factors, combined with the brutal beating Republicans took during the 2007 immigration reform push, means many lawmakers — even those who weren't in Congress at the time — are leery of the issue.

"I think it is an issue that left a scar. Even though opposing organizations are not as organized, are not as vocal this time around, people [still] see it [as] … a political time bomb," Navarro said.

And then there are the pragmatic Republicans in Boehner's conference, who argue turning to immigration will distract from the party's focus on Obamacare and insist sticking to that is the better political play for the party in 2014.

That argument doesn't hold much sway with advocates for new immigration laws. "I understand the desire to not distract from Obamacare. But I'm a Republican who believes we can do both. We have the momentum now," said Brian Walsh, a Republican strategist who has worked with bipartisan immigration advocacy groups.

For Walsh and other similarly minded Republicans, the greatest frustration has been what they view as the outsized influence of the small cadre of Republicans in the House, talk radio hosts and activists who they say have paralyzed the party.

Republicans are "listening to a loud minority … [but] those who oppose this haven't been challenged to say, 'What's their plan?'" Walsh said.

"They've been able to get away with yelling about part one while ignoring part two" of the political equation, he added.

Congress needs to be bigger.

Meet former NFL Pro Bowler Jon Runyan. He is 6'7, 330 pounds.

Al Bello / Getty Images

Paul Spinelli / Getty Images

After all those seasons, Runyan decided to join a far less functional group of barbarians....

Jamie Squire / Getty Images

View Entire List ›

“It’s important we show the American people we’re not just the opposition party, we’re actually the alternative party,” John Boehner said.

Jonathan Ernst / Reuters / Reuters

CAMBRIDGE, Md. — House Republicans are trying to hit the reset button.

On Thursday, the start of their three-day retreat in Maryland, GOP leadership stressed that they were going to work this coming year to be the "alternative party" and work to shake the image that they're only interested in blocking the president's policies and saying "no."

"It's important we show the American people we're not just the opposition party, we're actually the alternative party," House Speaker John Boehner said. "Republicans have to do more to talk about the better solutions that we think we have that will help the American people grow their wages, have opportunities at a better job, and clearly have a better shot at the American dream."

Republicans are working to appear more open to compromise and avoid the kind of crises that have hurt them over the last few years.

"We believe, and I think the discussion at this retreat is going to be not just about opposing the policies this president has been about over the last several years … but it is to craft an alternative for the people of this country so that we can see an America that works for everybody," Majority Leader Eric Cantor said.

At the retreat, Republicans will huddle to come up with plans to deal with health care, the debt ceiling, and most notably, immigration. Leadership plans to unveil a set of immigration principles to members later on Thursday to a largely skeptical conference that remains deeply divided on the issue.

Asked why he felt it was important for the House to take up immigration now, Boehner was adamant that he and his team had been committed to dealing with the problem since shortly after the last election. Boehner and his team were sparse on the details on any proposal, only saying that they'd talk to members later in the afternoon but stressed that Republicans would likely focus on border security first.

"This problem's been around for at least the last 15 years, it's been turned into a political football. I think it's unfair," Boehner said.

"You can't begin the process of immigration reform without securing our borders and the ability to enforce our laws. Everyone in our conference understands that's the first step in terms of meaningful reform of this problem," he added.

In another effort to shake the reputation of the "do-nothing" House, Republicans sent a letter to the president on Thursday morning highlighting four areas from the State of the Union where they saw the possibility for bipartisan cooperation.

Boehner, Cantor, and Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy also expressed support for a fast-track trade agreement, known as the Trade Promotion Authority, supported by the president but largely opposed by Democrats. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid threw a large amount of cold water on the TPA proposal on Wednesday, saying, "Everyone would be well advised not to push this right now."

"The president at the State of the Union said he had a phone and a pen. I think the first call actually has to be to Harry Reid to talk about trade," said McCarthy. "He might want to have to get his own party in line."

Only a big star like Joe Scarborough can get McDonalds to cook up a Big Mac during breakfast hours.

“Folks can make a lot more potentially with skilled manufacturing or the trades than they might with an art history degree,” the president said while speaking in Wisconsin Thursday to promote stronger job training programs.

View Video ›

The Lead ‘s Jake Tapper got meta with me at the biggest annual event on the political calendar.

You know these cable news live shots from Capitol Hill?

I always thought that they happened up here, but they don't.

Flickr: sivaprakash

The majority of them take place in two buildings called Cannon and Russell.

Via aoc.gov

This was the scene at Cannon. As you can see, things are very busy in there during the build-up to a big night like the State of the Union.

View Entire List ›

“The nature of the conduct at issue and the resultant harm compel this decision,” the attorney general says.

Handout . / Reuters / Reuters

WASHINGTON — The Justice Department Thursday announced that prosecutors will seek the death penalty in its case against Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, accused in the Boston Marathon bombing.

"After consideration of the relevant facts, the applicable regulations and the submissions made by the defendant's counsel, I have determined that the United States will seek the death penalty in this matter," Attorney General Eric Holder said in a statement. "The nature of the conduct at issue and the resultant harm compel this decision."

In the formal court filing announcing the government's "intent to seek the death penalty" against Tsarnaev, the lawyers in the U.S. Attorney's Office informed the court:

[T}he United States will seek the sentence of death for these offenses: Conspiracy to Use A Weapon of Mass Destruction Resulting in Death; Use of A Weapon of Mass Destruction Resulting in Death; Possession and Use of a Firearm During and in Relation to a Crime of Violence Resulting in Death; Conspiracy to Bomb a Place of Public Use Resulting in Death; Bombing of a Place of Public Use Resulting in Death; and Malicious Destruction of Property Resulting in Personal Injury and Death, all of which carry a possible sentence of death.

Among the aggravating factors justifying the government intends to argue justify the imposition of the death penalty are the "Heinous, Cruel and Depraved Manner of Committing the Offense" and the "Substantial Planning and Premeditation" involved, as well as "Betrayal of the United States," which the U.S. Attorney's Office describes as having occurred because Tsarnaev "received asylum from the United States; obtained citizenship and enjoyed the freedoms of a United States citizen; and then betrayed his allegiance to the United States by killing and maiming people in the United States."

Here's the court filing formally announcing the government's plans to seek the death penalty:

“We’re going to have a conversation this afternoon about the way forward on this issue,” said John Boehner. No direct answers from other members as to how the House should handle the looming deadline.

Jacob Fischler/BuzzFeed

CAMBRIDGE, Md. — While House Republicans may agree a clean increase to the nation's debt ceiling is a nonstarter, the conference remains scattered as to how to handle the looming debt limit fight, and several suggested Thursday that it should be President Obama and Senate Democrats who take the first step toward a compromise.

"The question has always been posed to the House, 'What is your plan on the debt limit?' I would pose the question to the other body in Congress called the Senate," Rep. Patrick McHenry said during a press conference here at Republicans' annual retreat. "We'd like to see their plan and I'd like to see if Harry Reid can assemble his Democrat majority to produce a plan, and we will be happy to receive it and consider it and start negotiations."

During the press conference, seven Republicans — Reps. Adam Kinzinger, Martha Roby, Aaron Schock, Jason Smith, Andy Barr, Marlin Stutzman, and McHenry — were asked yes or no, whether they supported passing a clean debt ceiling. None raised their hands or gave a direct answer as to how the House might deal with it.

"We all know how negotiations go … there's going to be a back-and-forth on how to get there," Kinzinger said. "I've been so surprised that the president is abdicating leadership and asks Congress to be the leaders of the American people. Our job is debate issues."

Schock punted the responsibility of coming up with a way to raise the debt ceiling back over to the White House.

"It's time for the president to show the leadership that he decried that President Bush lacked and show the American people and House Republicans his path to deal with the debt and then we can negotiate."

At an earlier press conference, Speaker John Boehner said he doesn't want to default but also wouldn't comment on exactly how he'd recommend raising the debt ceiling.

"We believe that defaulting on our debt is the wrong thing. We don't want to do that," Boehner said. "And so we're going to have a conversation this afternoon about the way forward on this issue."

Treasury secretary Jack Lew has said there is Feb. 7 deadline for raising the debt ceiling or the United States will default on its debt.

TransCanada recommended the contractor conducting State Department environmental review of the pipeline environmentalists have said is biased towards TransCanada. The company did not disclose that the two firms had worked together previously.

Richard Clement / Reuters

WASHINGTON — TransCanada, the company behind the Keystone Pipeline, never disclosed its previous work with a contractor the company later recommended for a key environment study, according to documents obtained by an environmental activist group.

In 2012, TransCanada recommended four firms to the State Department to conduct the critical Environmental Impact Statement, a study measuring the pipeline's effect on soil, groundwater, and greenhouse gas emissions expected to have a major impact on the State Department's decision.

Those recommendations included the company ultimately selected: Environmental Resources Management (ERM), a large, multinational company that does environmental consulting. According to documents obtained by a Sierra Club Freedom of Information Act request and shared exclusively with BuzzFeed, TransCanada never told the State Department that the two companies had worked together previously.

Ties between ERM and TransCanada have been reported before, as has ERM's contention that it had no conflict with TransCanada. What the new documents show, environmental groups who reviewed them say, is that TransCanada recommended ERM as one of the firms that had no significant conflict when it came to evaluating the environmental impact of Keystone. The critics say they also show the State Department has gotten itself into the same trouble with contractor selection it did the last time it hired a consultant for Keystone, a process that led to criticism from the Inspector General's office. State denies that there was anything wrong with the process.

According to the documents, the State Department sought input from two places: federal agencies that deal with pipelines and TransCanada. The company was asked specifically to suggest the names of consultants that it hadn't worked with before or had only worked with in an "extremely limited capacity." TransCanada provided four names, one of which was ERM.

After a departmental evaluation process, three firms bid on the State project. Before selecting one of the three, government officials discussed "reference checks" and company qualifications, according to the FOIAed documents. Environmental Resources Management emerged as the winning bidder. The State Department documents noted that the determination that ERM had no prior conflict of interest with TransCanada was a result of "self-vetted" information from the company.

Since a draft version of the study, which sided with supporters of the pipeline, was released last year, ERM's previous work with TransCanada has been reported on by various outlets.

Mother Jones reported that the firm redacted the names of some executives from documents related to getting the State Department contract ERM released at the same time as the draft report. The report didn't recommend for or against building Keystone, but ERM's findings, especially when it came to greenhouse gas emissions, were seen as an endorsement of the pipeline by climate activists.

The redacted documents uncovered by Mother Jones revealed "ERM's second-in-command on the Keystone report, Andrew Bielakowski, had worked on three previous pipeline projects for TransCanada over seven years as an outside consultant." The magazine determined that "The State Department appears to be responsible for the attempt to mask the ERM-TransCanada connection."

Politico reported earlier this month that ERM once lobbied for a trade association including a TransCanada subsidiary. ERM is also "a member of several energy industry groups that have urged the government to support the project," according to further Politico reporting.

Supporters of the firm have noted that ERM has worked for some companies that opposed Keystone, like rail companies, and some that support it.

The State Department said there was nothing out of the ordinary in the ERM selection process.

"The Department of State employs rigorous conflict of interest procedures designed to ensure that contractors and subcontractors have no financial or other interest in the outcome of a project," a senior department official told BuzzFeed.

Environmentalists aren't convinced, however, and say these connections raise questions about the objectivity of the Keystone environmental study.

"It raises enormous questions about the objectivity of the State Department report," Ross Hammond, senior campaigner at Friends of the Earth, said. "It shows huge either incompetence at State for not verifying more or, you know, collusion. Either way, that doesn't make John Kerry's State Department look real good."

Ross says he finds it unbelievable that the State Department relied on TransCanada's word about conflicts and wasn't able to find ERM's ties to pro-Keystone groups on its own.

"TransCanada and ERM said they didn't have any ties, and that was apparently good enough for the State Department, which didn't bother to get on the internet and do a couple Google searches," he said.

This isn't the first time the State Department has faced questions about the consultant hired to review the environmental impact of the Keystone Pipeline. In 2011, members of Congress were critical when Cardno Entrix, a Houston-based firm, was hired by the State Department to conduct an environmental impact study. The New York Times reported Cardno Entrix listed TransCanada as "a 'major client' in its marketing material." The Times called the selection of Cardno Entrix "flouting the intent of a federal law meant to ensure an impartial environmental analysis of major projects."

A 2012 State Department Inspector General's report after the Cardno Entrix furor called for the department to "redesign" its procedures for selecting third-party environmental contractors. But, as Bloomberg BusinessWeek reported last year, "ERM appears to have as many conflicts of interest as Cardno Entrix ever did; it's as if the inspector general never established new protocols for avoiding or, at least, disclosing such conflicts."

For Hammond, the FOIA suggests Obama should scrap State's findings related to Keystone entirely.

"What we're saying to him is he already has all the evidence he needs to reject the pipeline and the State Department report is hopelessly compromised," he said. "If [Obama] doesn't want put everyone through another environmental review he can reject the pipeline based on what we already know."

TransCanada did not respond to a request for comment.

Read the State Department documents:

No special path to citizenship, but the draft principles state that the undocumented should eventually be able live here “legally and without fear.” Support for the DREAMers.

U.S. House Speaker John Boehner.

Yuri Gripas / Reuters

CAMBRIDGE, Md. — House Republicans introduced a set of immigration principles to their conference this afternoon that states there will be no "special path" to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, but addresses the possibility of legal status.

The principles also include support for citizenship and legal status for children "who were brought to this country as children through no fault of their own."

Immigration lawyer David Leopold posted the set of principles on his website, and a Republican Capitol Hill source confirmed the principles to BuzzFeed.

The principles stress that House Republicans remain opposed to a comprehensive immigration reform bill, like the one passed last year in the Senate. The principles states that there will be no "special path" to citizenship but people living in the country illegally will be able to do so "without fear."

"There will be no special path to citizenship for individuals who broke our nation's immigration laws – that would be unfair to those immigrants who have played by the rules and harmful to promoting the rule of law. Rather, these persons could live legally and without fear in the U.S., but only if they were willing to admit their culpability, pass rigorous background checks, pay significant fines and back taxes, develop proficiency in English and American civics, and be able to support themselves and their families (without access to public benefits)."

A majority of the Republican conference remains opposed to providing a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, but House Speaker John Boehner said earlier on Thursday that it's time for Congress to deal with the issue.

"This problem's been around for at least the last 15 years, it's been turned into a political football I think it's unfair," he said.

The GOP principles also state that border security must come first.

The timing of when, or even if Republicans will vote on immigration legislation is unclear.

Whether Congress will actually successfully take action on new immigration legislation — and when — remains unclear. Boehner pointed Thursday a significant difference in priorities between parties in the House.

"These standards are as far as we are willing to go," Boehner said Thursday, according to a source in the room. "Nancy Pelosi said yesterday that for her caucus, it is a special path to citizenship or nothing. If Democrats insist on that, then we are not going to get anywhere this year."

"Having said that, I believe these standards represent a fair, principled way for us to solve this issue, beginning with securing our borders and enforcing our laws," Boehner said.

The principles released Thursday are also a draft. Boehner told members Thursday, according to the source, "If you have good ideas for improving these standards, we want to hear it. The rest of the leaders and I want your feedback."

NRCC chairman Greg Walden predicted any vote wouldn't come for quite a few months.

"My hunch is it doesn't come up tomorrow. It's probably months out, I don't know. But the point would be most of the primaries would've faded by then, anyway. By the time you get to June, most of them are behind you," he told reporters Thursday.

New York Sen. Chuck Schumer was the first Democrat out with a statement on the principles.

"While these standards are certainly not everything we would agree with, they leave a real possibility that Democrats and Republicans, in both the House and Senate, can in some way come together and pass immigration reform that both sides can accept," Schumer said. "It is a long, hard road but the door is open."

Read the full text:

The former assistant U.S. Treasury secretary thinks he can unseat California Gov. Jerry Brown. “Clearly Gov. Brown is a very powerful incumbent, but there are so many examples nationally of where very powerful incumbents lose,” Kashkari said.

Rachel Rothenberg / BuzzFeed

LOS ANGELES — The man who oversaw the $700 billion bank bailout in 2009 is hoping to persuade California voters that the intensely unpopular policy looks better in retrospect.

Neel Kashkari, the former assistant U.S. Treasury secretary who directed the federal government's $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program for banks following the economic crisis, is running for governor of California as a moderate Republican to challenge Gov. Jerry Brown.

Kashkari's shot at the nomination comes largely because Brown is widely considered a shoo-in. Although he has not yet officially announced his candidacy, no other Democrats have stepped forward to challenge him, and his campaign has raised $17 million. Former Lt. Gov. Abel Maldonado dropped out of the race two weeks ago, leaving Kashkari to contend with Tim Donnelly, an assemblyman who was featured in a 2007 Colbert Report clip about building a fence on the Mexico border with the Minutemen.

"I look at California schools ranked 46, jobs ranked 46, No. 1 in poverty. Someone has to fight to turn it around and I don't see a bench," he said. "I don't see a long line of people running to Sacramento to make major changes in the state, and so I said, look, if a guy like me — 40 years old, a lot of energy, experience in public policy — if a guy like me is not willing to try and turn it around, how's the government going to get better?"

The lack of depth on the Republican bench could have something to do with Brown's popularity. A January Public Policy Institute of California poll found 60% of likely voters approve of the job the governor is doing, and according toThe Los Angeles Times, former Republican Gov. Pete Wilson is "skeptical" of Republicans' chances of unseating Brown.

But Kashkari looks to other underdogs for hope that he can unseat the longest-sitting governor in California history.

"Clearly Gov. Brown is a very powerful incumbent, but there are so many examples nationally of where very powerful incumbents lose," he said, citing George W. Bush's victory over Texas Gov. Ann Richards in 1994.

"Ann Richards was a wildly popular Democratic governor of Texas," he said. "People loved her, she was a really funny lady and everyone thought she was unbeatable. And then here was this young man named George W. Bush who had never held elected office before and said, 'I think I can beat her,' and then beat her."

"There are definitely Republicans who feel like California is lost and California is a permanent Democratic state and there's no point competing here," he said. "I don't believe that at all. Things can change quickly and if you have the right leader who has the right message and right ideas, I think you can bring a lot of people together rather quickly."

But before Kashkari takes on Brown, he needs to be among the top two vote-getters in June's open primary.

California's open-primary system, passed by voters in 2010, does away with traditional party primaries where Democrats and Republicans run against members of their own party to advance to the general election. Instead, all candidates vie for the top two slots, regardless of party.

"We're all vying for No. 2," he said.

The president says marijuana is a public health problem and changing the DEA “schedule” — or the government’s legal classification of the drug — is a job for Congress. But actually, the attorney general can change a drug’s schedule.

In an interview with CNN's Jake Tapper that aired Friday, President Obama said changing the marijuana's "schedule" was a "job for Congress."

View Video ›

The Drug Enforcement Administration currently listed five schedules of drugs. A drug's schedule is its rank of "acceptable medical use and the drug’s abuse or dependency potential." The higher the ranking, the more dangerous the drug, the DEA says.

DEA

The ranking of drugs was set in 1970 by the Controlled Substances Act signed into law by President Richard Nixon. Here's where marijuana is listed.

Controlled Substance Act

Via buzzfeed.com

View Entire List ›

THE KIND WHO WOULD WORK WITH A SOCIALIST PRESIDENT?!?!?

Stands for: Republican In Name Only.

Immigration activists believe “vague” House Republican principles on prospective reform don’t go far enough, while DREAMers and others suggest a wait-and-see approach.

J.M. Eddins Jr. / MCT

Immigration activists and organizations acknowledged Thursday the importance of the long-awaited House Republican "principles" on immigration policy, but warned that the document contains vague language and the potential for what they say would be the creation of second-class citizens.

The "principles," released Thursday afternoon, outline a loose framework of positions on key immigration issues like the question of citizenship for undocumented immigrants living in the United States. Although the principles support a pathway for undocumented immigrants brought to the country as children, the principles rule out a "special path to citizenship" for others.

Many advocates for an overhaul of current immigration laws called the language vague and saw warning signs about the kind of legislation the principles could produce.

"The Latino community and more broadly, voters across the political spectrum, agree that a fair path to citizenship is the right solution," Ben Monterroso, the executive director of Mi Familia Vota, a national non-profit civic organization said. "The debate should not be about legalization or citizenship, but legalization as a step on the path to citizenship."

According to the principles, DREAMers would be eligible for a pathway to citizenship, though the question of if it would be a "special" or accelerated path is ignored. Other undocumented immigrants could receive legalization if certain conditions are met, but "there will be no special path to citizenship for individuals who broke our nation's immigration laws."

Further, "these persons could live legally and without fear in the U.S., but only if they were willing to admit their culpability, pass rigorous background checks, pay significant fines and back taxes, develop proficiency in English and American civics, and be able to support themselves and their families (without access to public benefits)."

Frank Sharry, a longtime advocate for America's Voice and veteran of the immigration battles in recent years, told BuzzFeed the principles are a good start, but the vague language is a concern.

"It's encouraging that the principles add up to a comprehensive solution even as they promise to proceed in a piecemeal fashion," Sharry said. "It's encouraging that it addresses DREAMers and the rest of the 11 million. But what do they mean by no special path? That could include a de facto restriction on citizenship for many millions."

Still Sharry and other advocates note that the key in the language of the principles may be that there is no "special" path to citizenship. "Perhaps that's what they want Republicans to hear — that no special path, means no path at all." He said widening existing citizenship channels so that they are accessible to undocumented immigrants on the same basis as others, could ultimately lead to citizenship for half of the 11 million.

He said one example of what could be done is getting rid of the "three and 10-year bars" instituted in the 1990s as punishment for people who overstayed their visas. He gave the hypothetical example of a mixed-status family from El Salvador where the father is a citizen but previously overstayed his visa, an undocumented mother, a noncitizen child, and two U.S. citizen children. Under current law, the father would have to leave the country for ten years before being able to return. "So what I'm saying is there may not be a special path to citizenship but there shouldn't be a special disadvantage to being undocumented," he said.

But Cesar Vargas, co-director of the DREAM Action Coalition and National Activists for the DREAM Act, called the pushback from longtime advocates premature.

"From our perspective, they're already trying to criticize a ghost," he said, of the principles that don't represent existing legislation yet. Vargas, who went to law school and wants to become a lawyer, said the principles leave room for a glimmer of hope. "The reality is until we have legislation we won't know how people would go through citizenship channels. If Republicans get it right on the legalization component and clear existing channels, many could become citizens in six to nine years."

For some DREAMers like Reyna Montoya, 23, of Arizona, who saw her father detained for nine months, the principles were not a surprise. She noted that the principles do not say there won't be citizenship ever, but she echoed activists who say what they need now is "relief from deportations."

Others were more hopeful. Eliseo Medina, a high-profile activist for nearly half a century, called the principles "vague" but saw positives. "The key point that I read is Republicans have begun to accept the principle of legalization. It's not where we think it needs to be to fix the problem, but I'm looking forward to the conversation. The best way to fix something is to face the issue instead of denying the problem even exists," he said.

David Leopold, former president of the American Immigration Lawyer's Association, questioned whether "we really want a permanent subclass of people in the US who cannot swear allegiance to our nation" but saw it a positive step as well.

"I am however very encouraged that the GOP is finally recognizing that the nation needs immigration reform, that we cannot continue to tear apart American families because of a broken immigration system," he said.

Still, frustration with the Republican principles document went beyond traditional advocacy organizations. The PICO national network, a faith-based organization, said it was "expressing the deep disappointment of thousands of faith leaders" who met with their members of congress 450 times in 2013 on immigration.

"This is not how Republicans establish trust with Latino voters," said PICO director Eddie Carmona. "Today the House Republicans showed that they aren't listening to their constituents who are saying loud and clear that undocumented immigrants who are their family members, neighbors and fellow parishioners need both immediate relief from deportation and a permanent solution to their unresolved status."

"As people of faith, we are standing firmly behind a pathway to citizenship because no one deserves second-class status," he continued. "Our faith teaches us that every person has unique dignity and worth. Citizenship is the only solution that is consistent with the values of our faith and our country."

Voto Latino, which mobilizes Latino voters, cited a recent Fox News poll that shows 68 percent of Americans support a pathway to citizenship for the undocumented. "What we will never support is the creation of a permanent second class of Americans who don't have a voice in shaping their country's future — Americans without the right to vote or the means to petition their government," their statement read.

Vargas didn't want to join the rush to criticize basic principles that even House Speaker John Boehner privately said were a preliminary draft, but he did find two things concerning.

The principles state: "We must enact reform that ensures that a president cannot unilaterally stop immigration enforcement." Vargas said Republicans have told him they don't trust Obama or future Republican presidents to enforce immigration law but worries about what the language means because "prosecutorial discretion has been key" for activists. He also said while the principles outline citizenship for DREAMers, he hopes any potential legislation hews closely to bipartisan Senate legislation that had no capped age for who is and is not a DREAMer that was brought to the country as a child.

Sharry maintained that there are "not big differences in our movement, there is remarkable unity. Instead, he said Republicans must decide how seriously they will advance on new laws after unveiling their guiding principles.

"The question is do Republicans want to go forward and make history or move backward and become history?"

LINK: House GOP Leadership: No “Special Path” To Citizenship For Undocumented Immigrants, But Potential Legal Status

LINK: Democrats And Longtime Immigration Advocates To DREAMers: Not So Fast On Dropping Citizenship

View Entire List ›

Several negative comments were posted ahead of Obama’s Google+ Hangout Friday. By the time things got underway, the comments were gone and the comments section was turned off entirely. Google says the White House did not shut the comments section down.

Via youtube.com

WASHINGTON — Google inadvertently turned on the comments section on President Obama's Google+ hangout before the event was set to begin Friday, a company official said.

The comment section was quickly disabled, but not before it devolved into a stream of nasty comments and spam common to any other corner of the internet. Though there was some speculation online that the White House ordered the comment section to be closed down, Google says it was a company decision. When Google reps noticed what was being posted in the lead-up to Obama's Google+ hangout, they shuttered the comment section.

"It was our fault, not the White House telling us to take them down or anything else," said Google spokesperson Samantha Smith.

"Google took down the comments after pushing to the livestream because of spam and profanity," she added.

The comments were never supposed to be on in the first place, said Smith. She added that it was inadvertently flipped on when the Google+ hangout was pushed live.

The Google+ hangout was billed as a "virtual road trip across the country," and as with previous hangouts Obama has participated in, it included questions from users across the country. An archived version is here.

The Blaze's Steve Krakauer captured some of the comments on the livesream's YouTube page before Google shut the section down:

Sierra Club, Rainforest Action Network and CREDO are hitting the streets. “We’re in the 3rd Quarter,” Sierra Club rep says, “and we’re essentially in a tie.”

Yuri Gripas / Reuters / Reuters

WASHINGTON — Environmental activists are preparing a massive new anti-Keystone protest movement in the wake of a State Department environmental impact study on the pipeline project released Friday that the environmentalists argue is flawed.

At a press conference Friday, a coalition of environmental and progressive groups including Sierra Club, the Rainforest Action Network and CREDO Action will announce their plans for both a large-scale rally near the site of the State Department's upcoming future public hearing on the Keystone Environmental Impact Study as well as a series of "grassroots" protests across the country, a Sierra Club official said.

"Next period of time is going to be really focused for us on showing the intensity of opposition among the american people," said Sierra Club spokesperson Kate Colarulli.

CREDO, a San Francisco-based progressive organizing group, has repeatedly promised to unleash an army of tens of thousands of activists to commit acts of civil disobedience across the country if Keystone goes ahead. Becky Bond, CREDO executive director, said the group is not ready to pull that trigger quite yet, but will be an active participant in the upcoming protests.

"Over 76,000 people have pledged to get arrested if necessary to stop the president from approving this pipeline. And over 100 events have already been planned and are ready to go should they be necessary," she said. "We think these numbers will double -- both of people taking the pledge and of events, if [Secretary of State John] Kerry advises the president to approve this pipeline."

"But this won't happen today," she said. "That is a couple of months down the line."

Colarulli said Friday's Environmental Impact Study — which environmentalists have charged is the result of a State Department process hobbled by conflicts of interest, a charge State vehemently denies — is essentially a game reset on a fight environmental activists have been waging against the oil industry and its allies for years.

"We're in the third quarter," she said. "And we're essentially in a tie."

"The fourth quarter is going to be all about discussion of national interests," she added. "That's where we have a home-court advantage."

“[W]e have nothing new on this,” a senior advisor says.

Molly Riley, File / AP

WASHINGTON — A senior adviser to Labor Secretary Tom Perez refused Friday to answer a longstanding question about whether the department is protecting transgender employees of federal contractors from discrimination.

In April 2012, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ruled that Title VII's sex discrimination ban includes gender identity-based discrimination against transgender people. Under the policies of the Labor Department's Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP), it was expected that office would enforce an executive order that bans federal contractors from discriminating on the basis of sex, among other factors, to include a ban on gender identity-based discrimination.

For the past 20 months, however, Labor Department officials — including former Secretary Hilda Solis and OFCCP Director Patricia Shiu — have refused to say whether the department is including transgender workers in its enforcement of the existing executive order.

On Friday, Labor Department spokesman Carl Fillichio told BuzzFeed that Perez would not speak with BuzzFeed about a series of questions relating to LGBT rights, including a question about Executive Order 11246, at this time. Asked if the department would instead provide answers in writing to the questions, previously submitted to Fillichio, he responded Friday afternoon, "Thanks. [W]ill decline that too, as we have nothing new on this."

Beginning on May 4, 2012, Metro Weekly reported:

Since April 27, Metro Weekly has been asking the Department of Labor to detail the implications for OFCCP of the Apr. 20 EEOC decision and has not received any information from Labor as of this report.

In July 2012, BuzzFeed reported:

Further conversations with Labor Department officials ... resulted in no response as to whether the federal contract compliance office was, for example, advising federal contractors — like the three major contractors awarded new contracts recently — that they could be violating Executive Order 11246 if they discriminate against an employee based on gender identity, which would be the case if the executive order is interpreted in alignment with the EEOC's ruling in [Mia] Macy's case.

More than a year later, a month after Perez took over as secretary of the Labor Department, BuzzFeed reported in August 2013:

The Labor Department, however, has issued no public guidance about the issue, and officials have refused repeated requests for comment on the issue. ... As recently as Tuesday afternoon, however, Labor Department representatives could not immediately provide an answer about whether its enforcement of the executive order includes anti-transgender discrimination and did not respond with an answer, as a spokesman said would be provided. ... As recently as last week, though, a department spokeswoman, Laura McGinnis, told BuzzFeed, "I don't have anything on that, I'm afraid, but I'll let you know if anything changes."

Most recently, in December 2012, BuzzFeed reported:

Patricia Shiu, the director of the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, would not say Wednesday whether her office includes transgender workers in its enforcement of Executive Order 11246, which bans federal contractors from discriminating in employment.