After months in an El Paso detention center, a rare win for African immigrants seeking asylum on the southern border.

Amidu Fredrick Sinayor

WASHINGTON — A federal immigration court Wednesday agreed to grant asylum to Amidu Fredrick Sinayor, a gay Ghanaian who has sat in an El Paso detention center since February, capping a harrowing months-long trek through some of the most dangerous parts of Central America and Mexico.

Sinayor is one of dozens of Africans from Ghana, Somalia, Ethiopia, and other countries in Africa, who have fled to the United States, making their way to the southern border from South America, a deadly trip that can take months of walking to complete.

"He's ecstatic. He doesn't know what to do," said Nancy Oretskin, an attorney with the Southwest Asylum and Migration Institute who represented Sinayor. "I'm ecstatic. We won, and you know it's hard to win these cases."

A spokesperson for the Department of Justice, which operates the administrative court, declined to comment on the ruling.

Sinyaor left Ghana after repeated attacks by anti-LGBT gangs which, according to local officials, have been sanctioned by the country's political and religious leaders.

The vast majority of asylum cases in El Paso are denied: Between 2007 and 2012, judges in El Paso rejected more than 87% of requests, according to data collected by the University of Syracuse's Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse.

Perhaps significantly, Sinayor appeared before an immigration judge from Miami whom the Obama administration had flown to El Paso to help address the massive backlog of asylum claims.

Despite securing his petition, Sinayor remains in detention, potentially for weeks as the government processes his asylum status. Additionally, the federal attorney could choose to appeal the case.

UPDATED: Dr. Kent Brantly has arrived in Atlanta’s Emory Universtiy Hospital. Nancy Writebol is expected there next week. The State Department is coordinating the patients’ evacuation from Liberia, where they contracted the disease.

AP Photo/Samaritan’s Purse

Kent Brantly and Nancy Writebo will be taken to Emory University Hospital in Atlanta, hospital officials said. The patients will be kept in an isolation chamber that was set up in collaboration with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

"Every precaution is being taken to move the patients safely and securely, to provide critical care en route on a non-commercial aircraft, and to maintain strict isolation upon arrival in the United States," the State Department said in a statement Friday.

Dr. Bruce Ribner, of Emory University Hospital, said during a news conference Friday, one patient "will arrive in the next several days, and then a second patient will be coming a few days after that."

Ribner said a "patient with the Ebola virus has never been treated in an institution in the United States," but he did not believe there was a great risk of secondary infection from the patients.

"We have two individuals who are critically ill, and we feel that we owe them the right to receive the best medical care," he said.

The hospital sent out the following on Thursday:

"Emory University Hospital has a specially built isolation unit set up in collaboration with the CDC to treat patients who are exposed to certain serious infectious diseases. It is physically separate from other patient areas and has unique equipment and infrastructure that provide an extraordinarily high level of clinical isolation. It is one of only four such facilities in the country.

Emory University Hospital physicians, nurses, and staff are highly trained in the specific and unique protocols and procedures necessary to treat and care for this type of patient. For this specially trained staff, these procedures are practiced on a regular basis throughout the year so we are fully prepared for this type of situation."

Nancy Writebol, one of two known American Ebola patients.

today.com

View Entire List ›

“It’s not particularly relevant whether a particular leader in Hamas ordered this abduction,” Obama says.

View Video ›

WASHINGTON — It's not likely the United States and the international community can broker a new ceasefire agreement in Gaza while an Israeli soldier captured Friday remains in captivity, President Obama said at a press conference today.

"It's going to be very hard to put a ceasefire back together again if Israelis and the international community can't feel confident that Hamas can follow through on a ceasefire commitment," Obama said. "It's not particularly relevant whether a particular leader in Hamas ordered this abduction. The point is, when they sign onto a ceasefire they're claiming to speak for all the Palestinian factions."

The president said the Israeli soldier should be released without condition as proof Hamas is serious about resolving the ongoing conflict.

"If we're able to get a ceasefire that preserves Israel's ability to defend itself, and gives it the capacity to have an assurance that they're not going to be constantly threatened by rocket fire in the future," Obama said, when asked later in the press conference about another ceasefire. "And, conversely, an agreement that recognizes the Palestinian need to be able to make a living and the average Palestinian's need to live a decent life."

"It's hard. It's going to be hard to get there," Obama said. "There's a lot of anger and there's a lot of despair, and that's a volatile mix."

“It’s clear from the IG report that some very poor judgment was shown.”

View Video ›

President Obama said Friday he stands by and has "full confidence" in CIA Director John Brennan, the day after an inspector general report revealed CIA personnel inappropriately accessed Senate staffers' computers.

I have full confidence in John Brennan. I think he has acknowledged and directly apologized to Sen. Feinstein that CIA personnel did not properly handle an investigation as to how certain documents that were not authorized to be released to the Senate staff got somehow into the hands of the Senate staff. And it's clear from the IG report that some very poor judgment was shown in terms of how that was handled. Keep in mind, though, that John Brennan was the person who called for the IG report. He's already stood up a task force to make sure that lessons are learned and that mistakes are resolved.

The IG report concluded that five CIA employees accessed computers used by Senate committee staffers working on a report about CIA rendition, detention, and interrogation (RDI) practices.

The response to the disclosure has been very sharp. Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham, a hawk, is reportedly asking for Brennan to step down. Democratic Sens. Mark Udall and Martin Heinrich have also both called for Brennan's resignation.

The president says the word “torture” — twice — when talking about controversial CIA interrogations from the post-9/11 era.

View Video ›

WASHINGTON — President Obama said flatly Friday that the "enhanced interrogation techniques" used against prisoners by the CIA in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 were torture.

"We tortured some folks," Obama said at a White House press conference.

The president banned the CIA interrogation techniques immediately upon taking office in January 2009.

Obama campaigned against the techniques in 2008 and has condemned them in past speeches, even using the word torture in relation to them. But, while addressing the brewing scandal at the CIA over revelations that agents spied on Senate staffers investigating them, firmly reiterated one of his administration's strongest points of contrast with its Republican predecessor, which strongly defended the CIA interrogation tactics.

Obama's full answer on torture from Friday's press conference:

With respect to the larger point of the RDI report itself, even before I came into office I was very clear that in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 we did some things that were wrong. We did a whole lot of things that were right, but we tortured some folks. We did some things that were contrary to our values. I understand why that were contrary to our values.

I understand why it happened. I -- I think it -- it's important when we look back to recall how afraid people were after the twins towers fell and the Pentagon had been hit and the plane in Pennsylvania had fallen and people did not know whether more attacks were imminent, and there was enormous pressure on our law enforcement and our national security teams to try to deal with this. And, you know, it -- it -- it -- it is important for us not to feel too sanctimonious in retrospect about the tough job that those folks had. And a lot of those folks were working hard under enormous pressure and are real patriots.

But having said all that, we did some things that were wrong. And that's what that report reflects. And that's the reason why after I took office, one of the first things I did was to ban some of the extraordinary interrogation techniques that are the subject of that report. And my hope is, is that this report reminds us once again that, you know, the character of our country has to be measured in part not by what we do when things are easy but what we do when things are hard. And -- and -- and when we engaged in some of these enhanced interrogation techniques, techniques that I believe and any fair-minded person would believe were torture, we crossed a line. And -- and that needs to be -- that needs to be understood and accepted. And we have to as a country take responsibility for that so that hopefully we don't do it again in the future.

Border agent laundered $61,600 in Mexican drug money in 2012.

AP Photo/Eric Gay

WASHINGTON — A Customs and Border Protection agent pled guilty to federal money-laundering charges Friday.

Raimundo Borjas was originally arrested on money-laundering charges in March 2013; prosecutors upgraded the charges to money laundering in May.

According to Borjas' attorney Maria Davilla, Borjas pled guilty Friday morning to laundering $61,600 for an unknown person in Agua Prieta, a city in the Mexican state of Sonora that is controlled by the Sinaloa drug cartel.

Borjas' guilty plea comes just days after prosecutors dropped money-laundering charges against Lauro Tobias, who worked for CBP at the Lukeville Arizona Port of Entry. A federal task force spent thousands on plane tickets, boxing tickets, hotel rooms, and strip clubs in a failed sting of Tobias.

Davilla said Borjas will be sentenced Oct. 16.

“Clerk McQuigg intends to file a petition for a writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court.” A second marriage case, in addition to Utah, heads to the Supreme Court. [ Update: To add a third case to the mix, the Tulsa County clerk will be filing a Supreme Court petition in the Oklahoma marriage case.]

WASHINGTON — A Virginia county court clerk plans to ask the Supreme Court to hear the case challenging Virginia's ban on same-sex couples' marriages, her lawyers informed a federal appeals court Friday.

On July 28, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a trial court ruling that Virginia's ban violated the Constitution.

Prince William County Clerk of Circuit Court Michèle McQuigg — represented by a conservative legal organization, the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) — informed the 4th Circuit Court appeals that she "intends to file a petition for a writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court within the ninety days permitted."

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, meanwhile, said that she believes the court won't "duck[]" the issue if it comes back to the justices, telling the Associated Press, "If a case is properly before the court, they will take it."

Utah officials previously have said that they will be filing a certiorari petition with the Supreme Court seeking to defend their state's ban. In addition, there is an Oklahoma ban that has been struck down in part by a federal appeals court, and there are several other state bans struck down by trial courts. [Update: Late Friday local time, ADF also announced, as reported by The Oklahoman, that it would be filing a certiorari petition at the Supreme Court on behalf of Tulsa County clerk.]

Once a certiorari petition is filed by one party, it is possible that other parties could filed a petition for certiorari before judgment in order to give the justices more options to find the "perfect" case — but also so that the various lawsuits' lawyers and supporting organizations can claim the title of defending the case at the Supreme Court.

McQuigg, for her part, has been a party to the Virginia case, and her lawyer was one of the two attorneys defending the ban before the 4th Circuit Court of Appeal when it heard arguments over the ban in May.

As such, she asked the 4th Circuit to issue a stay of the mandate in the case — which would put the ruling in effect — pending the filing of the petition and, then, until the "Supreme Court's final disposition" of the case.

Not all of the parties consented to the stay request, so expect opposition to McQuigg's motion to be filed:

View Entire List ›

A little-watched speech is a big deal in criminal justice circles.

Gary Cameron / Reuters / Reuters

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration took a "historic" step in changing the drug war Friday, activists said, when Attorney General Eric Holder said the rationale prosecutors often use to defend mandatory-minimum sentences was worthless.

"Some have suggested that these modest changes might somehow undermine the ability of law enforcement and prosecutors to induce cooperation from defendants in federal drug cases," Holder said in remarks before the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers conference in Philadelphia, according to prepared remarks posted to the Justice Department website.

"But the reality is that nothing could be further from the truth," Holder went on, citing his own past as a federal prosecutor.

"Like anyone who served as a prosecutor in the days before sentencing guidelines existed and mandatory minimums took effect, I know from experience that defendant cooperation depends on the certainty of swift and fair punishment, not on the disproportionate length of a mandatory-minimum sentence," Holder said.

For the first time, advocates of ending mandatory sentences for drug criminals say, Holder was attacking a central tenet of those who fight to preserve the lengthy mandatory sentences. Supporters say mandatory-minimum sentences help induce drug offenders into cooperating with prosecutors and, the theory goes, lead to the nabbing more drug offenders.

The speech was a big deal, said Families Against Mandatory Minimums.

"His statements today reflect what researchers have known awhile now: The certainty of punishment, not the severity, is what matters," said Mary Price, general counsel at FAMM. "That's why defendants plead guilty to crimes that don't carry mandatory minimums at the same or even higher rates as people charged with crimes that do carry mandatory minimums."

Price's spokesperson, Mike Riggs, was more direct.

"It's pretty damn historic," he said.

Opposition to reducing mandatory-minimum drug sentences, often led by law enforcement and prosecutors' groups, often centers around the fear that ending the practice of mandatory minimums — or reducing them significantly — will make it harder to turn drug offenders against networks of other drug offenders.

"Our success in the pursuit of drug organizations relies upon mandatory minimum sentences to induce lower-level dealers and conspirators to testify against the higher-level dealers," Eric Evenson, a former assistant U.S. Attorney, told a House panel examining mandatory minimums in May. "Without them, many, if not most, of these lower-level defendants would simply refuse to cooperate and testify."

Some Republican veterans of the early drug war in Congress have stood in the way of bipartisan attempts to reduce mandatory drug minimums led by a younger bipartisan coalition, citing the fears of advocates like Evenson.

The Holder speech comes after the attorney general dropped the Justice Department's official opposition to retroactively extending reduced sentencing to those already serving time.

In the Philadelphia speech, Holder said the shift away from long sentences to other means for fighting drug crime would continue.

"I want to be very clear: We will never stop being vigilant in our pursuit of justice and our determination to ensure that those who break the law are held rigorously to account," he said. "But years of intensive study — and decades of professional experience — have shown that we will never be able to prosecute and incarcerate our way to becoming a safer nation."

The execution of Joseph Wood took two hours to finish. There were conflicting reports that Wood was gasping for air as he died.

s3-ec.buzzfed.com

The documents show that Wood was given 750 mg each of Midazolam and Hydromorphone during the course of his execution. Wood began getting the drugs at 1:57 p.m. on July 23 and was declared dead at 3:49 p.m. A statement issued Friday by the Arizona Department of Corrections stated Wood "remained deeply sedated throughout the process, and did not endure pain."

The documents released Friday include lengthy lists of drugs given to Wood during the execution.

Arizona Department of Corrections

The revelation that it took 15 doses of the drugs also revises earlier reports that Wood was only given two doses.

View Entire List ›

The plant has a history of environmental problems.

Eric Miller / Reuters / Reuters

After negotiations stalled just before midnight on Friday, union-backed workers have been locked out of Honeywell's uranium processing plant in Metropolis, Ill.

And union representatives say if the past is any indication, the safety of those nearby could be at risk.

After the breakdown in talks, both sides agreed to head back to the bargaining table during the week of Aug. 18. Until then, the union workers will be out of a job.

Workers at the plant have been through something similar before. In 2010, workers were locked out for 14 months before a deal was reached.

But this time around, United Steelworkers spokesman John Smith said he thinks the union is in a slightly better position because the plant's management has gone through changes and aren't as experienced.

Honeywell said in a statement it was "disappointed" the union didn't allow its members to vote on the latest proposal and called its latest bargaining proposal "unrealistic" — which the company said included 5% pay increases, additional union jobs and for "restricting a current practice of using qualified contractors for capital improvements and certain maintenance."

In a letter sent to employees, Plant Manager Jim Pritchett said the deal they offered the union "matched those for 99 percent of Honeywell's salaried and union workforces in the U.S."

The union argues its main concern isn't as much about money as it is about job security.

"The union will remain willing to negotiate with the company and operate the facility until we can reach an agreement that is fair for our members and secures our future," spokesman John Smith wrote in a statement.

Meanwhile, Honeywell is keeping its plant operational with non-union salaried workers that have been trained and approved by the federal government.

But the union is concerned the workers they brought in don't have the proper experience to operate the facility safely.

"It's unfortunate that the company wishes to put the community at risk and customer expectations in jeopardy when we are willing to continue to operate the plant while we work to reach a fair and equitable agreement," USW Local 7-669 President Stephen Lech said in a statement.

The Metropolis plant has had environmental problems in the past, which some have blamed in part on replacement workers brought in during the 2010 lockout.

In March 2011, Honeywell had to pay a $11.8 million criminal fine for improperly storing hazardous waste. Also in 2011, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration fined the plant $119,000 for safety violations. In January of this year, the plant was was fined another $90,000 for "three dangerous releases of hydrogen fluoride."

BuzzFeed reached out to Metropolis Plant Manager Jim Pritchett on his office phone line, but he didn't respond.

The Metropolis plant enriches uranium hexaflouride, which can be used as nuclear energy.

Ten dead in Rafah.

Blood of wounded and dead Palestinians is seen on the ground after an Israeli air strike outside a United Nations-run school in Rafah in the southern Gaza Strip.

Ibraheem Abu Mustafa / Reuters

The U.S. State Department Sunday issued its harshest public criticism of Israel during the current Gaza conflict — or in recent memory — calling the air strike outside of a United Nations-run school in Rafah "disgraceful" after ten Palestinian civilians were killed.

Thousands of displaced Palestinians have used the school as a refuge.

"The suspicion that militants are operating nearby does not justify strikes that put at risk the lives of so many innocent civilians," spokeswoman Jen Psaki said in a statement emailed to reporters. "We call for a full and prompt investigation of this incident as well as the recent shelling of other UNRWA schools"

View Entire List ›

The president’s top immigration adviser has lived in D.C. long enough to see herself become the villain. The activists once elated to see her join the administration aren’t happy.

AP Photo/Charles Dharapak

WASHINGTON — When President Obama selected Cecilia Muñoz to be one of his top advisers in 2009, activists were elated: One of their own would be in Washington, driving major changes to U.S. immigration policy.

Five years later, that elation has hardened into something else — disappointment.

Sweeping change to immigration law is dead on Capitol Hill and the Obama administration has deported more than 2 million undocumented immigrants. Some activists are furious with what they see as the administration's slugged response to changing deportation policy, and hesitancy to expand the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, the program that allows some undocumented immigrants brought here as children to stay.

And they were livid when the White House, in response to the crisis at the border, expressed openness to amending a 2008 sex-trafficking law that would expedite the deportation of many of the unaccompanied minors from Central America, who have crossed the border in recent months. The quiet, implied White House argument is that action is needed on the border before the administration announces a series of executive actions aimed at slowing deportations, people involved in those talks have said. At the center of that effort is Cecilia Muñoz.

It's an old and painful Washington story: an accomplished outsider with deeply held beliefs ascends inside an administration — and then must defend it.

"She is in a very difficult position: a ferocious advocate who is loved by the field goes into the White House and becomes the point person for policies and strategies that have provoked a tremendous amount of anger and disappointment," said Frank Sharry, the executive director of America's Voice. "It's very easy to ask: Why hasn't she resigned in protest? But I trust that at every critical moment she has thought, I can do more on the inside."

Until her appointment, Muñoz, the daughter of Bolivian immigrants, served as the director of research and advocacy at the National Council of La Raza and was considered by grass-roots activists as one of their own. At the NCLR, she'd fought against deportations and aggressively pushed Congress to pass an overhaul of immigration law.

"When she went to the White House I remember going to a celebration. I was so happy, we all were," recalled former Rep. Charlie Gonzalez, who served in the House until 2012 and was an active member of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. "My dealings with the White House — as far as any issue the Congressional Hispanic Caucus may have had — all roads would lead to Cecilia."

Senior administration officials say Muñoz is still in regular contact with activists, and has been key to some of the most consequential decisions on immigration – a part of her portfolio as the director of the White House Domestic Policy council.

She's at practically every meeting with key constituencies on and off the Hill. She's the main liaison between the administration and the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, the group of Hispanic lawmakers that has pushed the White House to do more on executive actions.

Congressional lawmakers would not go on the record to talk about tension with Muñoz, but the main source of frustration that over the years she's fallen more in line, at least publicly, with the president's way of thinking at a time when many of their own members were willing to criticize Obama.

"I have never once heard her say anything behind closed doors that was different from what the administration was saying to the public," said one CHC member. The clearest example of the schism between Muñoz's past life as an activist and her current role perhaps came when the current NCLR president, Janet Murguía, called Obama the "deporter-in-chief." Some groups have focused their ire specifically on Muñoz: For instance, the Latino group Presente formed a petition to have Muñoz "set the record straight on deportations."

"Muñoz … is trading on her credibility in Latino communities and access to Latino media to disingenuously minimize expectations about what the Obama administration can do to provide relief for the millions living in fear of deportation," the group wrote.

"Our feeling is she has the president's ear," explained Presente's Managing Director Mariana Ruiz. "She is a very high-ranking Latino in his administration and we think she is not really representing most Latinos because most Latinos at this point are really interested in ending deportations ... and we just feel like she's not doing right by the majority of Latinos."

There are signs NCLR and its former top activist have patched things up since then. The White House — which did not make Muñoz available for an on-the-record conversation — suggested Murguía as a person to talk to about Muñoz's job performance. Murguía acknowledged that there's been tension between NCLR and Muñoz since she left, but broadly praised Muñoz and said repeatedly that anything the White House has done that NCLR likes in the past five years "has had Cecilia's fingerprints on it."

Murguía said she saw DACA — Obama's executive action halting deportations against most DREAMers — as a product of Muñoz's influence. Murguía said Muñoz has helped increase the number of Latino voices in the president's near orbit as well.

"When it comes to the cabinet, and the fact that there is now three cabinet members who are Hispanic in the Obama administration, I know that internally that's been something that Cecelia's been involved in," Murguía said. "[She] has worked closely internally in making sure that diversity and inclusion are represented in the president's cabinet."

Murguía harkened back to her six-year stint in the Clinton administration (she served as a top adviser to the president from 1994–2000, an era when many Democratic activists were frustrated with the White House) to say she understands the different pressures and responsibilities of a White House staffer versus an activist working outside the system.

"In government, you have a responsibility to govern and to implement and execute the laws, and to also find as much consensus as is possible so you can build as much support as possible towards your goals," she said. "When you're in a different role, out here on the outside, you're primary objective is to have your perspective represented in any sort of outcome."

"You have more latitude when you're on the advocacy side to do that," Murguía added. "Sometimes you don't have all that latitude on the inside. You want to get an outcome, you want to get a win. … It's a real pressure cooker in that way."

The shift from outside agitator to inside bureaucratic lever-puller is a tough one, and there probably has never been an activist group that felt the government was moving fast enough on an issue that mattered to their constituency. While Muñoz's résumé has made her both embodiment of immigration activists' hope about the Obama administration as well as their frustrations with its accomplishments, activists are aware that working inside the system is very different than poking at it from the outside.

"I have incredible respect for anybody who works in government, local, state, federal. Whether they're answering the phone or advising the president. You know, the folks in government are making real decisions, they're facing real pressure," said Ali Noorani, executive director of the National Immigration Forum. "And, frankly, those of us on the outside, the most important decision I'm going to make is whether or not to send a press release."

And Muñoz's defenders on Capitol Hill say it's unfair to compare her work at the NCLR to the White House and they still consider her a deeply principled advocate for immigrants.

"I think she's carried her principles with her. Her constituency is different obviously. At NCLR it was the board and the members, as a Latino advocacy organization. At the White House her constituency is the president, the administration and the American people," said Rep. Joaquín Castro, a Texas Democrat that has known Muñoz for years. "I think she's stuck to her principles but being part of an administration you're also going to be part of a negotiation that goes on because you are part of a larger team. Part of your job is to make the case for the positions that the administration agrees to take on."

The NCLR's Murguía, like other activists, pointed to the White House's promised slate of executive actions on immigration, set to drop later this month, as Muñoz's moment to prove the frustrating years were worth it. If the still-secret executive actions are as robust as they're hoping they will be, the activists say, they'll have Muñoz to thank for it.

"We've been disappointed with the pace of progress on immigration reform and with the record rate of deportations, there's no question," she said. "But I will point this out, because it's important to note that right now because of the potential for administrative action on this issue, Cecilia is poised to be a big part of something potentially historic and I think that they're looking pretty skillful these days on this and her future contributions may be much more important than what happened so far."

“Obama and Netanyahu are like little kids who have been paired together by their science teacher, but who still want to try and jab and hurt each other as much as possible.”

An Israeli soldier rides an armored personnel carrier near Gaza.

Baz Ratner / Reuters

Distrust and resentment between the U.S. and Israeli leadership have reached an all-time high, even as the military and intelligence branches of the two countries continue to enjoy a close rapport, according to Israeli officials.

The disconnect has led to moments like this weekend, when the U.S. Senate approved $225 million in emergency funds for Israel's Iron Dome Missile interceptor, then, less than 24 hours later, the State Department issued its harshest condemnation of Israel's actions in Gaza in years.

But many observers feel that strong words from the Obama administration will not translate into change on the ground. "The U.S. can't do more than talk," boasted one Israeli diplomat, currently in Jerusalem but formerly posted in the United States. "The money and aid is pretty much written into U.S. law."

The deteriorating relationship between Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and President Barack Obama has been well-documented, and dates back to 2009, when both entered office. The two men just "don't get along," according to both Israeli and U.S. officials who have watched the two men over recent years. Shared security arrangements between Israel and the U.S. continue because of mutual interests in the region, but diplomacy on the Israeli-Palestinian peace process and Iran nuclear talks, amid other topics, has stalled as a result of the faltering relationship between the two leaders.

The relationship is dysfunctional at best, said the Israeli diplomat, who was speaking on condition of anonymity, and has recently manifested in both the U.S. and Israel not taking an active role in cease-fire talks led by Cairo to try and end nearly a month of intense fighting between Israel and Hamas. Over the last month U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry has repeatedly visited the region and spoken with Israeli and Palestinian leaders to try and reach a deal. But not only was Kerry rebuffed, his efforts were lambasted in the Israeli press. Writing in Maariv, popular Israeli columnist Ben Caspit called Kerry "an ongoing embarrassment, with the characteristics of a snowball. The further he rolls, the greater the embarrassment."

"If Israel and Hamas do come to a cease-fire agreement, it will not be because of the United States," said Israel's Channel Ten Arab world reporter, Zvi Yehezkeli.

U.S. officials in Egypt confirmed to BuzzFeed that an American diplomat dispatched to Cairo to take part in cease-fire talks left on Monday morning, before Palestinian factions could hammer out a joint position on their demands for a truce. And despite pressure from both Egypt and the U.S., Israel has refused to send a representative to those talks.

"The administration is frustrated with Israel, Israel is frustrated with the administration, and that creates an atmosphere where it's hard to reach a resolution on any front," said Gershon Baskin, co-chairman of the think tank the Israel/Palestine Center for Research and Information. Baskin was deeply involved in negotiations between Israel and the Gaza Strip following the war in 2008.

The Israeli diplomat said that while contacts were ongoing between the military heads of both countries, diplomacy has been strained to the breaking point due to a number of leaks. Last week, an alleged leak to Israel's Channel Ten news sought to paint Obama as bullying Netanyahu on peace talks, while failing to see Israel's security needs.

"Obama and Netanyahu, they're like little kids who have been paired together by their science teacher, but who still want to try and jab and hurt each other as much as possible," said the Israeli diplomat. "They know it might hurt their grades, but they can't help themselves."

The diplomat went on to call the behavior by Netanyahu "irresponsible and short-sighted" to Israel's long-term interests. Netanyahu, who has always boasted that he has close ties to the Republican party, enjoys almost unprecedented support in Congress. In 2011 when Netanyahu gave a speech to a joint meeting of Congress he received no fewer than 29 standing ovations.

Along Pinkas, an Israeli diplomat who last served as counsel-general to the United States, said there have been numerous cracks and dents to the U.S.-Israel relationship over the last six years.

"Does it mean Congress is less supportive? No. But it means that Netanyahu has turned support for Israel into a political issue in the U.S.," said Pinkas. "The U.S. feels confident enough to condemn Israel every once and a while."

Pinkas said that the condemnations and the personal distrust between Netanyahu and Obama do not, however, affect the basic strength of the relationship.

As Israel’s offensive in Gaza ends its 28th day, cease-fire efforts have intensified.

Smoke rises in the Gaza Strip after an Israeli strike Monday.

Baz Ratner / Reuters

Egyptian officials said they had "strong indications" that a planned cease-fire proposal set to start Tuesday at 8 a.m. local time (0500 GMT) would go forward as planned, with the agreement of both Israel and the Palestinian factions.

Palestinian officials in Cairo confirmed to BuzzFeed that they had agreed to the deal, which would see a 72-hour cease-fire commence beginning Tuesday morning. Israeli officials said they were sending their delegation to Cairo Tuesday morning, and would not have an answer on the deal until their own team had viewed the details of the agreement.

"We believe the Egyptians saw our demands as reasonable and relayed that information back to the relevant parties," said one Palestinian member of the delegation, who spoke to BuzzFeed by phone from Cairo on condition of anonymity, as the talks are ongoing. "This is the agreement we should all move forward on."

Ziad al-Nakhaleh, deputy head of the Paestinian Islamic Jihad group, said in a TV interview that he expects a ceasefire agreement to be announced "in the coming hours."

Various Palestinian factions gathered in Cairo over the weekend to discuss details of the cease-fire agreement. Their demands include lifting the blockade on the Gaza Strip by loosening restrictions on the Erez and Kerem Shalom crossings with Israel and the Rafah crossing with Egypt. The factions also asked for U.N. and international assistance in rebuilding the damage caused by the nearly month-long offensive in Gaza.

Israel has demanded that Gaza become "demilitarized," though it is unclear how they would force Hamas, and other Palestinian factions in Gaza, to give up their armed wings.

Egyptian officials have attempted to negotiate several ceasefire deals since Israel and Gaza began the most recent round of violence 28 days ago. Palestinian groups, however, accused Egypt of purposefully keeping the Islamist Hamas movement that governs the Gaza Strip out of the loop.

"Egypt understands Israel's position vis-à-vis Hamas," said the Israeli diplomatic correspondent for Channel 2 news, Udi Segel.

On Monday afternoon, when Israel's unilateral and partially imposed cease-fire in Gaza ended, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu vowed to continue the campaign against Hamas militants despite growing world demands for a lasting truce.

Netanyahu said the Israeli army had nearly completed its goal of detecting and destroying dozens of attack tunnels under the Israel-Gaza border, but he said Israeli forces would continue to fight until there is "a prolonged period of quiet and security" for Israeli citizens.

Nearly 1,900 Palestinians have been killed in Gaza, most of them civilians according to Gaza's Health Ministry. Sixty-four Israeli soldiers have died, as well as three Israeli civilians.

Opponents did not get enough signatures to force a vote. “The petition is simply invalid.”

Houston Mayor Annise Parker on Nov. 5, 2013.

AP Photo/Pat Sullivan

Houston Mayor Annise Parker and City Attorney David Feldman announced Monday that opponents of the city's new equal rights ordinance, or HERO, failed to submit enough valid signatures for their petition to force a voter referendum on the measure. Feldman also said that much of the petition was too problematic to be considered.

"With respect to the referendum petition filed to repeal the 'HERO' ordinance, there are simply too many documents with irregularities and problems to overlook," Feldman said. "The petition is simply invalid. There is no other conclusion."

Feldman said that out of the tens of thousands of signatures submitted, about 15,200 were found to be valid — short of the 17,269 signatures required to bring the matter before voters in November. Opponents, organized by the No Unequal Rights coalition, claimed they had at least 30,000 valid signatures when they submitted the petitions to city officials July 3.

Parker said she anticipates the petitioners will now take the matter to court, and for that reason, she said she's suspended the implementation of the ordinance, "not indefinitely, but to allow for these issues to work their way out." With that, Parker said she is confident a court will agree with the city's signature verification process.

"Passage of the Houston Equal Rights Ordinance is important to the city of Houston," she said. "Clearly the majority of Houstonians were not interested in a repeal process."

The HERO, which includes protections for LGBT people against discrimination in housing, employment, and public accommodations, was spearheaded by Parker for months and was finally approved by the Houston City Council on May 28 in an 11-6 vote.

The ordinance broadly bans discrimination in the city — on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity — as well as on the basis of sex, race, ethnicity, national origin, age, familial status, marital status, military states, religion, disability, genetic information, or pregnancy, according to the measure's language.

Last Friday, Feldman told the Houston Chronicle that many of the petition's over 5,000 pages of signatures were invalid and that the final tally of valid signatures would likely come close minimum requirement because many of the petition's circulators were not qualified to vote in Houston.

Earlier last week, an anonymous online campaign published the petitions, including the names and addresses of people who signed it to oppose the HERO, on its website, HeroPetition.com.

Prior to the ordinance's passage in May, Parker's office said Houston was the only major city in the U.S. that did not offer such protections for LGBT people.

The Obama administration pivots off another natural disaster to make its case that climate change is real and Americans are already suffering because of it.

Max Whittaker / Reuters

WASHINGTON — Americans living in fear of — and dealing with the aftermath from — deadly wildfires are suffering the effects of climate change, the Obama administration said Tuesday in the newest iteration of the White House push to discuss climate change as a clear and present danger rather than a future threat.

It's a strategy top White House officials said last week is changing some Republican minds on climate change, albeit not any of the ones who cast votes on legislation in Congress.

The latest iteration of the messaging strategy focuses on wildfire season. On Tuesday, the White House plans to launch a digital campaign that ties the wildfire threat directly to climate change and urges Americans to pressure Washington to take legislative action. Administration officials gave BuzzFeed an early look at the campaign Monday.

Top White House adviser John Podesta penned an email for the White House list scheduled for Tuesday morning that ties the ongoing wildfire emergency in California to climate change.

"In the western United States, changes in our climate are fueling wildfire seasons that are longer and more intense, putting people, communities, and businesses at risk," reads the email. "As we're seeing right now, wildfires unquestionably have devastating impacts on the lives of many Americans."

President Obama's Science Adviser, Dr. John Holdren, stars in a new White House video meant to illustrate the connection between climate change and wildfires. In the video, Holdren says that while "no single wildfire can be said to have been caused by climate change," shifting environmental conditions make them more frequent and harder to combat.

Holdren has become the face of the new White House climate efforts, deflecting climate change critics' contention in a January video that the Polar Vortex disproved climate change. Holdren was also the face on the administration's May Climate Assessment, which found ongoing impacts of climate change across the country.

The latest White House video:

“I’m gonna have much greater faith in the loyalty of an American citizen than someone who is a citizen of a foreign nation.”

View Video ›

Republican Rep. Mo Brooks of Alabama says DREAMers should not be allowed to join our military because they're possibly disloyal to the United States and would have access to weapons of mass destruction like nuclear weapons.

"We are hired to represent American citizens," Brooks said in an interview with the Will Anderson Radio Show last month. "I don't want American citizens having to compete with illegal aliens for jobs in our military. Particularly when you take into account that, what does our military do: It defends our country."

Brooks was speaking about the ENLIST Act, a proposal by Republican Rep. Jeff Denham of California that would allow undocumented immigrants brought to the country as children to gain permanent residence, and eventually citizenship, in the United States for serving in our military.

Brooks said the loyalty of DREAMers serving in the U.S. military would have to be questioned.

"These individuals have to be absolutely 100% loyal and trustworthy, as best as we can make them, 'cause they're gonna have access to all sorts of military weaponry — even to the point of having access to weapons of mass destruction like our nuclear arsenal. And I'm gonna have much greater faith in the loyalty of an American citizen than someone who is a citizen of a foreign nation."

Brooks has found himself in hot water in recent days forclaiming multiple times that the Democratic Party is waging a "war on whites."

"This is a part of the war on whites that's being launched by the Democratic Party. And the way in which they're launching this war is by claiming that whites hate everybody else," Brooks said to radio host Laura Ingraham. "It's a part of the strategy that Barack Obama implemented in 2008, continued in 2012, where he divides us all on race, on sex, greed, envy, class warfare, all those kinds of things. Well that's not true. Okay?"

“Did you know the first person who died in Iraq was undocumented?” “He lied to get into the military. Will you admit that? Will you admit that they he lied to get into the military?”

Iowa Republican congressman Steve King was confronted by two DREAMers and national immigration reform activists Erika Andiola and Cesar Vargas, Monday.

youtube.com

Andiola introduced herself to King, who has advocated getting rid of President Obama's policy of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), which gave work permits and removed the threat of deportation from undocumented youth who were brought to the country as children. She gave him her DACA card for him to rip up if he wanted to.

After she introduced herself, Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, who was sitting at the table with King having lunch, took one last big bite of his sandwich and walked away.

King disputed Andiola's notion that he spread rhetoric against DREAMers, grabbing her hand and saying, "You're very good at English, you know what I'm saying."

"It was very forceful, I wanted to keep my cool," Andiola told BuzzFeed of when King grabbed her. "We didn't want to look like the crazy ones, as soon as he grabbed my hand it was very hard and forceful. I felt intimidated but I didn't want to show that because that's what he wanted to do."

King said what he has talked about is drug smugglers, which ignores the time he said for every valedictorian, "there's another 100 out there who weigh 130 pounds — and they've got calves the size of cantaloupes because they're hauling 75 pounds of marijuana across the desert."

After King said he was troubled a great deal because they have such disrespect for the laws of the country, Vargas said, "I want to be able to serve my country as a military man," which led to one of the most heated exchanges on the video:

"You want to enter into the military even though you're unlawfully present in the United States."

"Did you know the first person who died in Iraq was undocumented? He didn't care whether he was a U.S. citizen, he didn't care whether he was from our country. He fought and died for his country."

He lied to get into the military. Will you admit that? Will you admit that they he lied to get into the military?

As Andiola saw the back and forth escalating, she interjected, telling King she wanted to make sure he knew "that we're going to be here in this country, we're going to be fighting really hard for our parents, we're going to be fighting really hard for our own lives. We're going to keep succeeding in this country and we really hope that you find it in your heart to be able to stop attacking us," she said.

But King only wanted to ask her if she came from a lawless country.

"You came from a lawless country, do not import lawlessness into this country," he said.

For Andiola, whose mother fled Mexico because she was in an abusive relationship, it was finally too much.

"I came from a country," she began, her voice cracking, "that every time my mom would get beat up by my dad the police would never do anything."

That's when an onlooker yelled, "Go home, you need to go home."

Andiola said the entire exchange underscores that some Republicans will not change their views, but President Obama can help undocumented immigrants by making substantial administrative changes, which he said he will announce at the end of the summer.

"What Obama has to do is stop using Republicans as an excuse and do something as soon as possible," she said. "If DREAMers are bold enough to confront Steve King then Obama needs to confront them."

“My problem with what my party is trying to do to sue is it will cost the taxpayers between two and three million dollars. Use the Constitution, that’s what it is there for.”

View Video ›

Republican Rep. Walter Jones thinks Speaker John Boehner's lawsuit is a waste of taxpayer money — he says the impeachment of President Obama would be a better option.

"I am one that believes sincerely that the Constitution says that when a president, be it a Republican or a Democrat exceeds his authority and you can't stop the president from exceeding his authority, then we do have what's called impeachment," Jones said on the Talk of the Town radio program Monday. "Thank Alexander Hamilton. He felt that the Congress need to use this process to get the attention of a president. And if the president had lost the public trust then move forward in that area. We recently had a vote to go to federal courts. I did not vote for that. I was one of five."

Jones was indeed one five members of the Republican-controlled House who voted against a resolution last week authorizing Boehner to sue Obama; the suit will claim Obama abused his powers by bypassing Congress in delaying the employer mandate in the Affordable Care Act.

The resolution, which passed 225-201, was also opposed by Republican Reps. Paul Broun, Scott Garrett, Thomas Massie, and Steve Stockman.

"My problem with what my party is trying to do to sue is it will cost the taxpayers between two and three million dollars," Jones concluded. "Use the Constitution, that's what it is there for."

But Rep. Bill Flores thinks it would be a bad idea because it would fail in the Senate and hurt the House politically.

View Video ›

Texas Republican Rep. Bill Flores thinks that "a fair number of people" in the House of Representatives would be willing to vote to impeach President Obama, but that such a vote would be meaningless because it would fail in the Senate and hurt House Republicans politically.

"If you were to ask many folks in the House is the president violated the law and will he be worthy of impeachment, I think a fair number of people would say yes," Flores said in a telephone town hall on July 30. "Well then you say, 'OK, what do you do?' Well, then you turn back to the Constitution. You look at Article 1, Section 2, Clause 5 and there is says the House of Representatives will have the sole power of impeachment. You say okay, so, what happens then?"

Flores said the process of two-thirds of the Senate having to vote at a trial to impeach the president in order to remove the president from office would most likely fail.

"I think all of use would agree there's no way you get two-thirds of the Senate," Flores said.

"So what would happen if you did that and you failed? Well, first of all you haven't accomplished anything because you're not gonna change the president's behavior if he hasn't been convicted," Flores said. "In all likelihood the media would side with the president and would help him turn his situation around just like the situation that happened with Bill Clinton back in the '90s."

Flores then concludes such an exercise would hurt the Congress because of the low chance of success in the Senate.

"I think it would hurt the Congress to engage in that type of activity unless you have a high likelihood you're gonna be successful," he said. "I think in this case it's pretty obvious we can't be."