“The war that these young men are fighting today is not only Ukraine’s war,” Petro Poroshenko told Congress. “It is Europe’s, and it is America’s war too.”

Kevin Lamarque / Reuters

KIEV, Ukraine — Speaking before a rare joint session of Congress on Thursday, Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko made an emotional appeal to the U.S. to support Kiev in its struggle against Russia, which he said was "a war of the free world — and for the free world."

Poroshenko, in Washington to ask U.S. President Barack Obama to provide Ukraine with weapons and other assistance for its troubled army fighting Moscow-backed separatists in the southeast, said the U.S. had a responsibility to support Ukraine's democratic aspirations against Russian aspiration.

"The war that these young men are fighting today is not only Ukraine's war," Poroshenko said. "It is Europe's, and it is America's war too."

At about the same time, the White House announced it would give Ukraine a further $46 million in non-lethal security aid and $7 million in humanitarian assistance, Reuters reported. The aid includes counter-mortar detection equipment to guard against artillery fire for the first time, as well as engineering equipment, surveillance equipment, body armor, and military vehicles.

"Blankets and night-vision goggles are important. But one cannot win a war with blankets," Poroshenko said. "Just like Israel, Ukraine has the right to defend her territory — and it will do so, with all the courage of her heart and dedication of her soul."

Poroshenko's speech contained several rhetorical flourishes that were clearly intended to appeal to an American audience and earned him several standing ovations, though they were at times lost in his heavy Slavic diction. He quoted Abraham Lincoln and John F. Kennedy. He repeatedly emphasized a link between the revolution in Kiev in February that ousted pro-Russian president Viktor Yanukovych and the American values of freedom and democracy, which he said had inspired it. He likened Vladimir Putin's Russia to a "a neo-Stalinist dictatorship" — a decisive break from his conciliatory rhetoric since the two leaders brokered a shaky cease-fire Sept. 5. He said the choice of whether to support Ukraine was a choice between "civilization or barbarism" that affected the whole world — an implicit rebuke of Obama's comments that "geopolitically, what happens in Ukraine doesn't pose a great threat to us," made to donors last week.

Whether that convinces a reluctant, skeptical, and distracted administration to back Kiev militarily, however, is another matter. The U.S. stopped short yet again of giving Ukraine the lethal weaponry it has long asked for, on the basis that no amount of supplies could help Kiev avert a full-blown attack from the vastly more advanced Russian military. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee is set to vote on a bill later on Thursday that would give Ukraine $350 million in lethal aid, though its chances of becoming law are seen as remote.

One conservative Republican even shouted out a proposal from a Democratic Senator.

Rep. Raul Labrador, R-Idaho, right

AP Photo/Susan Walsh

WASHINGTON — While it may be in an open secret that the majority of Congress would rather avoid a vote on authorizing force in the fight against ISIS, House conservatives said Thursday they were more than willing to take that vote.

At "Conversations with Conservatives," a monthly panel with more conservative lawmakers sponsored by Heritage, there was no shortage of criticism for President Obama's strategy to fight ISIS in Syria and Iraq; most of the members there had voted "no" on an amendment to arm and train Syrian rebels. But the conservative lawmakers clearly were supportive of repealing the 2001 authorized use of military force and bringing a new one up for a vote as soon as possible.

"If you can't make the argument for or against an AUMF and actually justify your vote you have absolutely no business being in Congress. It's the most important decision we make," said Rep. Raúl Labrador. "The last two weeks for me have been agonizing just on the small narrow question of if we should fund the rebels. Just that narrow question, I lost sleep over it. I thought about the implications to the American people but if I'm not willing to make those tough decisions then I should go back home and sleep soundly at night."

"It's shameful that anybody here in Congress decides they would rather leave it up to the president by himself to determine we should do something in that region of the world," he said.

South Carolina Rep. Mick Mulvaney even voiced his support for a proposal offered by Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine that would repeal the 2002 AUMF and replace it with one "that's tailored to this particular threat."

"The fact that we're sort of scabbing on a military effort in 2014 based on an authorization that was issued 13 years ago shows some poor decision making," Mulvaney said.

It's unclear if these members would ultimately vote for any proposal that would authorize the president to implement a strategy against ISIS but stressed that it was important for the vote to happen regardless.

"This is what the American people pay the congress to do," said Rep. Rob Woodall.

“Like any family, there are going to be some disagreements here and there. But that doesn’t break up the family.”

Getty Images Scott Olson

WASHINGTON — More than a month after Ferguson and the debate it sparked over the militarization of local police forces, an internal rift has grown between the nation's top labor federation and one of its own unions.

The International Union of Police Associations, a member of the AFL-CIO, has been largely quiet on the issue of police militarization. But in a couple of open letters the union has shown support for the program that provides police with military-grade weaponry. The AFL-CIO meanwhile has been a vocal supporter of police demilitarization and better oversight. The federation's president, Richard Trumka, even signed a letter to Congress calling for a "federal czar" to oversee police forces.

But despite their differences, IUPA has been reluctant to call out its federation, or even admit how different their views are. IUPA spokesman Rich Roberts told BuzzFeed News that Trumka has consulted with union president Sam Cabral, but wouldn't say the last time they spoke directly or what the conversation entailed. Roberts said Cabral was traveling and he'd been unable to reach him for comment.

"Like any family there are going to be some disagreements here and there, but that doesn't break up the family," Roberts said.

On Thursday, Roberts said the union's legislative director was scheduled to have multiple meetings with the White House and another with the Justice Department. Roberts did not confirm whether the meeting was about Ferguson, police militarization, or another topic. The Justice Department did not return a request for comment on the meetings.

AFL-CIO spokesman Josh Goldstein also said they've had conversations with the union about Michael Brown and the situation in Ferguson, but wouldn't comment further on "internal conversations."

In a letter published Aug. 21, Cabral wrote about the unfair criticism on police officers as a whole as a result of what happened in Ferguson — "[Police officers] are not responsible for the gangs, black on black crime or the infant mortality rate" — but also wrote about the need for police forces to have the equipment they need to combat violence they face on a regular basis.

"As for the militarization of police departments, I believe that law enforcement officers should have available to them all tools necessary to do their job and protect their community," he wrote.

This week, AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka gave a speech to Missouri labor leaders with a decidedly different tone. Focusing on race relations throughout America's history and how there is still work to be done on them today, Trumka said "the answer starts with candor, not firepower."

Roberts, the spokesman for the IUPA, told BuzzFeed News the need varies from department to department, but "when police officers encounter a potentially violent incident, they need as much protection as they can get."

Trumka noted the difficult jobs police face and the threats every day on the job entails, saying they should have what they need to protect those they serve. But the AFL-CIO president also said "we can't militarize police" and pointed to a history of law enforcement turning against their community.

"Let's not forget what our history teaches us, because it's always the employers who want the paramilitary forces, the National Guard, the Bayonettes, and the armored cars," Trumka said. "And the weapons always end up pointed at us."

Trumka did give a nod to one of IUPA's major talking when he called for people not to rush to judgement on Darren Wilson, the officer who shot Michael Brown, before all the facts come out.

Though Roberts, the spokesman for IUPA, said the union is no longer going to "engage in public discussion" about Ferguson or police militarization, he said that doesn't mean they aren't working on it behind closed doors.

Advocates fear South Africa might turn against an LGBT rights resolution at the UN that it sponsored three years ago.

The flag of the South African gay community sits next to a portrait of former South African President Nelson Mandela and other mementos in the Sandton area of Johannesburg, South Africa. December 7, 2013.

AP Photo/Tsvangirayi Mukwazhi

South Africa was once the essential nation to advancing LGBTI rights in international diplomacy. Now it has become a potential roadblock.

Back in 2011, South Africa sponsored a resolution before the United Nations Human Rights Council (HRC) that, for the first time, recognized LGBTI rights as human rights. Other nations, especially from Latin America, had been working to advance LGBTI rights in less high-profile ways for several years before, but South Africa's leadership was critical to taking the effort to the level of a formal resolution. Such a proposal had to have at least one prominent African backer, its supporters believed. Otherwise, it would play into the hands of LGBTI rights opponents in Africa and other parts of the world that had once been colonized who argue that homosexuality was a Western perversion brought by colonial powers.

An updated version of the resolution was tabled Thursday at a Human Rights Council meeting underway in Geneva. It was sponsored by Brazil, Colombia, Chile, and Uruguay. A vote is expected next week.

Not only is South Africa's name not on it, but some LGBTI rights supporters tell BuzzFeed News that South Africa's diplomats are behaving so strangely in negotiations that they worry the country could even turn against the resolution. A South African defection might not only help torpedo the proposal, it would also be a stunning symbolic reversal for a country that set the standard for protecting LGBTI rights. When South Africa adopted its first post-apartheid constitution in 1993, it became the world's first nation to protect LGBTI rights in its fundamental rights declaration. This came out of a commitment to fighting a broad range of oppression, and it commanded even greater moral authority because it was rooted in the experience of fighting white supremacy.

So some LGBTI rights supporters are looking at South Africa's reluctance to clearly support the new resolution as a fundamental betrayal.

"We currently have leadership that fails to represent the ethos of what the constitution says and the equality principles they have to uphold," said Mmapeseka Steve Letsike, a lesbian activist who chairs the South African National AIDS Council's Civil Society Forum. "We have leadership going out of this country putting their personal beliefs before its own people. We have leaders that fail to protect their own."

South Africa's pullback on LGBTI rights internationally comes as homophobia has become an increasingly common political tool across Africa, framed as a form of standing up to the West. Nigeria and Uganda both passed sweeping bills criminalizing LGBTI rights advocacy this winter, the governments of The Gambia and Chad both have pending proposals to stiffen laws against homosexuality, and LGBTI people are being targeted by police from Zimbabwe to Egypt to Senegal.

"Silence in the context of the African Bloc suggests a kind of complicity with the homophobic rhetoric," said Graeme Reid, a South African who directs Human Rights Watch's LGBT program. "It speaks of a kind of misplaced solidarity … not aligning with the [LGBTI] people who are the victims of human rights abuse, but with the perpetrators under the rhetoric of supporting our 'African brothers and sisters.'"

LGBTI rights supporters were also hopeful that some smaller African countries could be persuaded to abstain on the vote — a kind of soft yes — and one or two might even be convinced to back it. This could tip the balance if the vote is close. The 2011 resolution was a nail-biter, passing 23-19 with three abstentions. But that becomes very hard if South Africa can't counterbalance conservative continental heavyweights that might be lobbying the smaller countries.

"As soon as [South Africa] pulls back, it gives countries like Nigeria and Egypt room to bully and push the smaller countries," said an LGBTI rights advocate from another southern African country who asked to speak anonymously in order to avoid a backlash in negotiations. "We need South Africa to maintain the same position if not better" than in 2011.

LGBT rights protestors in Cape Town, May 19, 2012.

RODGER BOSCH/AFP / Getty Images

It's hard to see why this resolution is so important by reading the plain language — all it really does is order a bi-annual study of LGBTI rights by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. But there are only a few places where language referring to LGBTI rights exists in any international agreements. This small resolution is a way of giving U.N. staff authority to work on LGBTI issues and means that it will be a regular focus of discussion in Geneva. And it will be a precedent that can be used to broaden the inclusion of LGBTI rights in other human rights agreements.

Most LGBTI rights supporters came into the negotiations that began last week assuming that South Africa would be supportive even if it no longer wanted its name on the resolution. Regional coalitions are very important in the U.N., and other major powers within the Africa bloc, especially Nigeria and Egypt, have been at the forefront of pushing anti-LGBTI policies. South Africa had taken a lot of heat for the 2011 resolution, and many LGBTI supporters might have understood if officials chose not to take a public role in support this year.

But they've withheld their support even in private discussions, say sources familiar with the negotiations. The head of South Africa's Geneva delegation, Ambassador Abdul Samad Minty, took the unusual step of coming personally to an informal meeting on Wednesday, something usually left to staff. But he said virtually nothing in the meeting, said a source in the room, which showed other nations that South Africa isn't about to go to bat for the proposal.

This posture follows a move by South Africa's ruling African National Congress party to block a parliamentary motion to condemn anti-LGBTI legislation enacted by Uganda in February (which has since been struck down by the court). It also comes after a vote by South Africa during the June HRC session that stunned LGBTI rights supporters: South Africa joined with conservative nations on a procedural vote to exclude a sentence stating "various forms of the family exist" in an Egyptian-led resolution on the "Protection of the Family." The resolution passed without this language, and LGBTI rights supporters were concerned that the language could be used as precedent for excluding families from protections under international law if they are not led by a heterosexual couple.

"In the room they're being a little bit weird," said a diplomat from a Western country working on the resolution, referring to South Africa's behavior in the negotiations. But this isn't entirely new. "They've been behaving weird for two or three years on this," the diplomat said.

The diplomat attributed that more to a change in personnel than an intentional shift in policy: Jerry Matjila, who was South Africa's ambassador to the Human Rights Council when work began on the 2011 resolution, has since returned to Pretoria to take a senior post in the Department of International Relations and Co-operation. His replacement, Ambassador Minty, lacks his personal commitment to the issue, say sources who have worked with the delegation.

South Africa's Geneva mission and the Department of International Relations and Co-operation in Pretoria did not respond to requests for comment.

But some South African activists see this dilution of South Africa's commitment to LGBTI rights internationally as part of a larger trend in the country's leadership. The late Nelson Mandela and other leaders of the African National Congress embraced LGBTI rights as part of a commitment to fighting a broad range of oppression as they brought South Africa out of apartheid — Matjila is seen as part of that school. But that commitment is not as strong among the younger generation of leaders, most notably President Jacob Zuma, who called same-sex marriage "a disgrace to the nation and to God" around the time the unions won legal recognition in the country.

The shift doesn't mean South Africa has done a 180 on LGBTI rights. Rather, it's led to a kind of schizophrenia that is frustrating to LGBTI rights supporters. The lack of support for this resolution is all the more confusing because it comes at a time that there is a new commitment from the government to fighting anti-LGBTI hate crimes inside the country, spurred by a series of horrific rapes and murders of black lesbians.

"Domestically, there is a sense of a real commitment and energy and political will," said Human Rights Watch's Graeme Reid. But the international stance is incoherent — the Latin Americans only introduced the resolution at the last minute because South Africa wouldn't let go of its ownership of the issue until just before the Human Rights Council session began earlier this month.

"There is an air of uncertainty about their position because they have been dragging their feet on this for the last three years, not moving on the resolution and not dropping it," Reid said.

The resolution's supporters are optimistic that they will have the votes to pass the resolution if it gets an up or down vote next week, and no one who spoke to BuzzFeed News for this story said they thought it was possible that South Africa would vote against the resolution on the final vote. It could abstain on a final vote, a possibility that some of the resolution's supporters fear is more likely as the negotiations wear on. Or it could vote for a procedural motion that would kill the resolution by denying an up or down vote — exactly what it did to keep the inclusive language out of the Protection of the Family resolution in June.

"It would be unacceptable, incomprehensible, and almost unconscionable for a relatively new democracy like South Africa to support shutting down debate at the UN's human rights body [to affirm a principle] that's in its own constitution," said Marianne Møllman, program director of the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission, in an interview from Geneva.

View Entire List ›

Don’t worry though, they gave it 110%.

CNN made a mistake with their "poll of polls" on whether Scotland should be an independent country.

View Video ›

CNN

Oh dear.

CNN

But they rectified it when they showed the graphic an hour later.

View Video ›

CNN

Don't worry, nobody noticed.

CNN

View Entire List ›

NSA: It’s secret.

Balefire9/Balefire9

A large government contracting firm that appears to be doing or seeking business with the National Security Agency employs the spouse of one of the most powerful officials at the agency, according to corporate records, press releases, and company websites. But the NSA has declined to address whether there is a potential conflict of interest or to disclose any information about contracts or the official's financial holdings.

The spouse, for years, has also had an intelligence technology company incorporated at the couple's suburban residence in Maryland.

The NSA official, Teresa H. Shea, is director of the Signals Intelligence Directorate, which means she oversees electronic eavesdropping for intelligence purposes. She's held that crucial position since 2010. SIGINT, as it is called, is the bread and butter of NSA espionage operations, and it includes intercepting and decoding phone calls, whether cellular or landline; radio communications; and internet traffic. Shea's directorate was involved in the controversial domestic surveillance program, much of which was revealed by Edward Snowden.

As for Shea's husband, James, he is currently a vice president at DRS Signal Solutions, part of DRS Technologies, a major American defense contracting company owned by the Italian defense giant Finmeccanica. On his LinkedIn page, he boasts of his "core focus" in "SIGINT systems," and cites his employer, DRS, for its work in "signals intelligence, cyber, and commercial test and measurement applications."

According to Maryland state records, James Shea is also the current resident agent of a company called Telic Networks, which he founded in 2007. The firm is registered at the couple's home in Ellicott City, Maryland. On his LinkedIn page, Shea states that he was president of Telic until 2010. Telic's rudimentary website describes its expertise in SIGINT, maintaining that the firm's personnel have a history of developing innovative hardware and software solutions for difficult SIGINT and ELINT [electronic intelligence] problems." Telic's incorporation records say it is a "government and commercial contracting and consulting" company.

SIGINT is an exclusive club because it is a very sensitive form of intelligence. As one former intelligence official, who spoke to BuzzFeed News on condition of anonymity, explained, Shea's directorate "has the national authority" for signals intelligence conducted by the United States government.

It is impossible to determine what work DRS, which employs James Shea, might do for the agency that his wife helps run or how much federal money is at stake. Unlike most other federal agencies, the NSA isn't required to disclose its contracts, and both DRS and the NSA declined to answer questions about whether the company contracts with the agency.

Still, there's strong evidence that DRS either works with the NSA or is bidding to do so. According to its own website, DRS is seeking 15 workers for a potential SIGINT-related contract at Fort Meade, Maryland, which is the headquarters of the NSA. "Contingent on contract award," the listing says, DRS will need engineers, managers, and administrators for "providing SIGINT technical expertise" and "support in areas of SIGINT technical fields."

"Obviously, that's for the NSA," said James Bamford, an author and expert on the agency, when told of the DRS job listings.

Because the NSA controls SIGINT, the agency is the biggest potential customer for any company in the business. DRS sees itself as a major player in the field: Just last week it held its "37th annual DRS SIGINT Technology Expo," which the company bills as "a leading annual event for professionals in the Signals Intelligence community."

NSA spokeswoman Vanee Vines did not answer specific written questions about Teresa Shea, DRS, or Telic, and she did not respond to a request to interview Shea. Instead, she emailed a statement to BuzzFeed News in which she said that "the agency takes Federal ethics laws quite seriously, and has implemented a robust financial disclosure program to ensure that the agency not only complies with the regulations, but also aids employees in identifying possible conflicts of interest before they become a problem." She wrote, "The agency and our employees work together to identify and mitigate potential conflicts and to remedy any actual conflicts that may arise."

As for DRS, it also declined to comment on any business it might have with the NSA — but an email strongly suggests the company communicates closely with the agency. "I understand you have a statement from the NSA," wrote company spokesman Michael Mount, "and based on that we do not have anything additional to add."

Telic Networks has a telephone number listed on its website, and on Monday, James Shea answered the phone. "Jim Shea!" he said. But after he was told what the call was about, he said, "I'm in the middle of a meeting right now. I'll try giving you a call later." He didn't answer subsequent calls.

In spite of her power, Teresa Shea's name might be an arcane bureaucratic tidbit, were it not for the fact that Snowden exposed the NSA's domestic surveillance program. Called "bulk metadata analysis" in the technical jargon of the agency, the program collects data on Americans, including the phone numbers dialed and the length of time of every phone call. The metadata program does not routinely record actual conversations, but a huge amount of information can be learned by knowing when and with whom a person communicates.

After the NSA's practice was disclosed, Shea, as SIGINT director, defended the procedure in court declarations, insisting that the agency "stores and analyzes this information under carefully controlled circumstances."

The former intelligence official says the potential ethical issue involving Shea and her husband seems fairly clear. Even if Teresa Shea's husband isn't directly involved in bidding for contracts, he says, "the perception of abuse is still there. Even if she's recusing herself she's still running SIGINT, she's approved the program."

In June, to learn more about if there was a potential for a perceived or actual conflict of interest, BuzzFeed News filed a Freedom of Information Act request for Teresa Shea's public financial disclosure forms from the NSA. Those forms might reveal what the SIGINT director's relationship is with the SIGINT company incorporated at her home. Earlier this summer the NSA turned down the request, citing a 1959 law that protects agency information from disclosure.

Scott Amey, the general counsel of the nonprofit Project on Government Oversight, objected to such blanket secrecy: "We don't know how many contracts DRS has, whether they have contracts, what they are for. We're kind of in the dark, and that's not how we want our government to operate."

Campaign staffers will represent Davis at LGBT pride events this weekend instead.

AP Photo/The McAllen Monitor, Gabe Hernandez

Texas state Sen. Wendy Davis, the Democratic nominee for governor and a vocal supporter of LGBT rights, doesn't plan on attending upcoming LGBT pride celebrations, her campaign told BuzzFeed News.

Lone Star Q first reported on Monday that Davis' campaign had been mum on whether the candidate would make her first appearance at a pride event this weekend, or later at another event in October.

When pressed on the matter Thursday, Davis campaign communications director Zac Petkanas issued a statement boasting about the candidate's track record on LGBT equality, but said Davis would not be attending or participating in the pride events.

"While Senator Davis unfortunately cannot participate herself in this year's parades, her campaign staff is very proud to be representing her in the Pride events throughout the weekend," Petkanas said. "Senator Davis is a long-standing supporter and ally of the LGBT community. From co-authoring a nondiscrimination work ordinance while on the Fort Worth City Council that was later used as a blue print for all nondiscrimination ordinances across Texas to supporting same-sex marriage, Wendy Davis will be a governor who fights for all hardworking Texans regardless of who they are and who they love."

Austin's annual pride celebration will take place this Saturday, and Dallas will hold its own pride on Sept. 21. Fort Worth's pride parade will take place Oct. 4.

The Human Rights Campaign, a national LGBT rights group, endorsed Davis for Texas governor in January.

In 2010, then democratic gubernatorial candidate Bill White marched in the Dallas pride parade, according to WFAA.

From three previous Democratic campaigns.

Facebook- Burke for Wisconsin / Via Facebook: burkeforwisconsin

Large portions of Wisconsin Democratic gubernatorial candidate Mary Burke's jobs plan for Wisconsin appear to be copied directly from the plans of three Democratic candidates who ran for governor in previous election cycles.

Burke's economic plan "Invest for Success" copies nearly-verbatim sections from the jobs plans of Ward Cammack, who ran for Tennessee governor in 2009 before withdrawing from the race, a 2008 plan from Delaware Gov. Jack Markell, now-Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe's plan from his failed-2009 bid, and John Gregg who ran for governor of Indiana in 2012 and lost to Mike Pence.

Gregg's plan is no longer online but BuzzFeed News accessed the text through an archiving service, while Cammack's plan is available here.

Markell's plan can be seen online here.

McAuliffe's plan is likewise no longer online but BuzzFeed News has seen the text through an archiving service as well.

A spokesman for the Burke campaign told BuzzFeed News an "expert" named Eric Schnurer who also worked on the other campaigns as responsible for the similar text, a case of self-plagiarism.

Schnur is not listed as an advisor to the campaign nor or his ideas attributed to previous campaigns in Burke's plan.

The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel reported Friday that Schnurer had been fired.

Here's Cammack:

Requiring our land-grant institutions to make supporting small farms a priority. These institutions can provide a wide range of support to small farmers to help them to improve farm profitability. Research and new technologies have played a significant role to increase yields and reduce costs throughout the agricultural system. Many of these advances can be targeted to help small farmers who could and benefit greatly from having site-specific information to increase yields, and therefore, improve economic performance. We can make new advances in technology – GPS systems to guide farm machinery and reduce overlap, early pest detection, identification of soil nutrient deficiencies, detection of plant stress, use of yield monitoring equipment – all advances that can significantly help the small farmer.

And here's Burke:

These institutions can provide a wide range of support to a new generation of small farmers to help them to improve productivity and profitability. Research and new technologies have played a significant role to increase yields and reduce costs throughout the agricultural system. New technologies – like GPS systems to guide farm machinery and reduce overlap, early pest detection, identification of soil nutrient deficiencies, detection of plant stress, use of yield monitoring equipment – can significantly help farmers be more productive.

Here's Cammack:

Expanding intern programs to provide help to small farmers and also give students direct agricultural education and experience.

And here's Burke:

Expanding intern programs to provide help to small farmers and also give students direct agricultural education and experience.

Here's Cammack:

Helping farmers with succession planning by developing new programs that match new farmers with those retiring who have no successors interested in continuing the family farm.

And here's Burke:

Developing new programs that match new farmers with those retiring who have no successors interested in continuing the family farm.

Here's Cammack:

Supporting the development of public-private partnerships by working to match small farmers with business professionals to help farmers improve management, develop new markets plans and improve use of risk management tools and risk reduction strategies.

And here's Burke:

Supporting the development of public- private partnerships by working to match small farmers with business professionals to help farmers improve management, develop new markets plans and improve use of risk management tools and risk- reduction strategies.

Here's Gregg:

At the same time, small-and medium-sized businesses have been hiring new employees at a faster rate than large companies since the beginning of the economic recovery in 2009.

And here's Burke:

And in the short-term, small-and medium-sized businesses have been hiring new employees at a faster rate than large companies since the beginning of the economic recovery in 2009.

Here's Gregg:

Successful entrepreneurship requires a good idea and strong work ethic. But it also requires money to finance its development, and technical and management skills to prosper. In today's economic climate, many small business owners – especially first-time entrepreneurs — find it almost impossible to borrow the money they need to start or grow their business. . As Governor, I will create a Hoosier Capital Access Partners....

And here's Burke:

Successful entrepreneurship requires a good idea and a strong work ethic. But it also requires capital to finance its development, and technical and management skills to prosper. In today's economic climate, many small business owners especially first-time entrepreneurs – find it almost impossible to borrow the money they need to start or grow their business in Wisconsin. In spite of our world-class institutions of higher learning and research, some promising ventures to come out of Wisconsin seek greener pastures where they can find startup funding.

Here's Gregg:

The Small Business Innovation Research program is a highly competitive program that funds small businesses from all over the U.S. in conducting Research and Development (R&D) with the highest potential for commercialization. Through a competitive awards-based program, SBIR enables small businesses to advance their technological potential and to profit from its commercialization.

And here's Burke:

The Small Business Innovation Research program funds small businesses that undertake R&D on innovative technologies with high potential for commercialization. Through a highly competitive award program, SBIR selects small companies, often startups, to receive funding to propel their innovations into viable, profitable ventures.

Here's Gregg:

That means bringing greater speed and certainty to permitting decisions without gutting environmental and public safety protections;

(This same language is likewise found 2010 Democratic gubernatorial candidate Alex Sink's plan.)

And here's Burke:

Administration will bring greater speed and certainty to government permitting decisions without sacrificing environmental and public safety protections.

Here's Gregg:

These are the steps I'll take as Governor:

• Establish a "Reshoring" Incentive. After decades of "offshoring" – the practice of moving American manufacturing to countries abroad in search of cheaper labor companies are beginning to realize that moving much of their manufacturing and supply operations away from their U.S. consumer base has hurt their ability to meet their customers' expectations. A recent survey of 287 manufacturing companies doing business internationally found that the majority of the respondents (61 percent) were currently considering "reshoring" – or shifting their manufacturing operations closer to their U.S. customers to provide better service, cut costs, and speed growth. Nearly half (49 percent) of the respondents reported facing issues with delivery time, operational planning, maintaining low inventories and competitive total cost, and general flexibility, as a result of offshoring their manufacturing and supply operations – and 46 percent have experienced product quality concerns. At the same time, soaring energy and transportation costs are also encouraging businesses to think about bringing production back home.

And here's Burke:

"Offshoring" (or "outsourcing") American manufacturing jobs to other localities where labor is cheaper has been the dismal trend for over thirty years. But today, many companies are beginning to realize that moving their manufacturing and supply operations overseas has hurt their ability to serve their customers. A recent survey of manufacturers with operations abroad found that well over half (61%) were considering "reshoring" – or "in-sourcing" – their manufacturing operations back to the U.S. to be closer to their customers, to provide better service, and to cut transportation costs. Nearly half of these manufacturers (49%) reported that overseas they experienced problems with delivery time, operations, planning, flexibility, and total cost – and 46% experienced quality control issues. Rising energy and fuel costs are also encouraging businesses to bring production home. But there is no lack of competition to attract these companies.

Here's Gregg:

Launching a GO Man Action

Team, a committee of economic development professionals that serves as a single point of contact for businesses considering locating or expanding in Indiana. The team will work with Indiana companies, out-of-state, and international businesses, on projects involving significant investment and job creation opportunities. ഠഠ Consolidating financial assistance for manufacturers. GO Man will streamline access to
financial assistance for manufacturing companies from state and other sources, with the ability to offer loans, loan guarantees, and equity financing, and make referrals to appropriate private investment groups, that are customized to the specific needs of companies seeking to relocate operations to Indiana, or grow their existing production capacity. Working with large Indiana manufacturers to identify their important out-of-state suppliers who could be relocated to the state lowering costs and increasing efficiency for our existing companies, and bringing new jobs to Indiana.

And here's Burke:

As Governor, I will launch a Wisconsin IN- Sourcing Initiative (WIN) that will specialize in recruiting (and retaining) manufacturers back from abroad by:

a. Launching a WIN Team, a committee of economic development professionals that serves as a single point of contact for businesses considering locating or expanding in Wisconsin. The team will work with manufacturing businesses – especially those with international production sites – to introduce them to the many advantages that Wisconsin can offer to meet their specific business needs.

b. Streamlining access to financial assistance for manufacturers.

The WIN Team will consolidate all available financial assistance for manufacturing companies from state and other sources, with the ability to offer loans, loan guarantees, and equity financing, and to make referrals to appropriate private investment groups to finance the relocation or expansion of operations to Wisconsin.

c. Working with manufacturers to identify their important suppliers who could also be relocated to the state – this will have the added benefit of making our state more attractive to manufacturers and also lowering costs and increasing efficiency for our existing companies – bringing even more new jobs to Wisconsin.

View Entire List ›

Another disturbance is planned Friday at the DNC Women’s Leadership Forum where Clinton will speak, making it the third time in a week that DREAMers will make their presence felt at one of her events.

Jassiel Perez / United We Dream; Ethan Miller / Getty Images

On the rope line at an event in Iowa last Sunday, three undocumented activists waited to ask Hillary Clinton about the delay of executive actions on immigration. Clinton flashed the group a thumbs up. But when the activists pressed her on the question, Clinton said, "I think we have to elect more Democrats," then kept moving.

Two days later, at a benefit in New York featuring Clinton, about six immigration activists interrupted the event, chanting "Undocumented, Unafraid!" Security removed the protesters. Afterward, Clinton took photos with fans and ignored questions from a reporter about the incident.

A group of activists have another confrontation planned for Friday morning.

The cadre of so-called DREAMers — undocumented youth brought to the country as children — will protest outside the Women's Leadership Forum, an event hosted by the Democratic National Committee, where Clinton is booked to speak.

The encounter was organized by the group, United We Dream. It will be the third time in one week that Clinton has had to deal with disruptions from activists on immigration.

High-profile DREAMer activists and immigration groups say there is no coordinated campaign against Clinton. But the activists who plan these actions identified the former secretary of state, who is expected to run for president again, as a central target of run-ins like the ones in Iowa and New York.

Clinton, they said, can expect continued questions at her public appearances about President Obama's delay until after the midterm elections of expected executive actions that would ease deportations — an announcement that riled the activist community earlier this month.

"One of the targets in the long run is going to be Hillary," said Erika Andiola, a national activist among DREAMers who filmed the confrontation in Iowa last weekend. Andiola posted the video on YouTube, and news outlets picked up the story hours later.

"She's Hillary Clinton, not just any old person," said Julieta Garibay, a United We Dream leader. "Right now for us, anyone who is standing in the way of justice for our families is against us. We wouldn't call her the primary target, but with the voice she has, we're frustrated with anyone who says there should be a delay or that there shouldn't be action."

Andiola, who runs the Arizona-based Dream Action Coalition, said plans to confront Clinton and other lawmakers over immigration are loosely organized, passed on by word of mouth inside the tight network of activists and undocumented youth.

What exactly the activists want to hear from Clinton is somewhat unclear: They said they don't expect deep policy comments from Clinton immigration at these events. But, the activists said, they do want more than the paltry lines she gave in between autographs last weekend in Iowa.

"We want to hear, 'I support DREAMers, I support families,'" said Cesar Vargas, who heads Dream Action Coalition with Andiola.

A Clinton spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment on the DREAMers.

But Adrienne Elrod, a spokesperson for Correct the Record, the research project aimed at defending Clinton, highlighted the former senator's past efforts on immigration and what she described as a lifetime endeavor to "help families and our nation's immigrants be able to earn and live the American Dream."

"In the Senate, she co-sponsored the DREAM Act on several occasions, consistently voted in favor of comprehensive immigration reform and introduced legislation to reunite families separated by the immigration system," Elrod said.

Clinton has been approached by activists on this issue before. In April, at a Clinton Foundation event in Manhattan, a 19-year-old attendee named Nova Bajamonti stood to ask Clinton a question, and tearfully announced "for the first time publicly" that she was an undocumented immigrant. Bajamonti told the story of how she left Croatia for the United States, but was unable to obtain a green card.

Clinton praised Bajamonti as "incredibly brave" and suggested she look into DACA, the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program that allows young people brought to the U.S. as children to obtain legal status.

"I hope you will do that, and if you can't, come talk to us afterward, and we will help you figure that out," Clinton said.

As soon as the event ended, Clinton Foundation staffers found Bajamonti, who was already under DACA at the time. Less than a week later, Bajamonti said this week, the Clinton Foundation connected her with an immigration lawyer to help provide and process her DACA renewal application free of charge.

Vargas and Andiola, along with a 23-year-old undocumented activist named Monica Reyes, also confronted Sen. Bernie Sanders, another Democrat interested in running for president, who appeared at a different event in Iowa last Sunday. The Vermont senator criticized Obama on executive actions — a comment that earned praise from Reyes and other activists.

Andiola and Vargas are also eyeing the governor of Maryland, Martin O'Malley, who has a state record on immigration they love and is considering a run for president.

Their encounter with Clinton in Iowa provoked one Maryland activist to connect Andiola and Vargas with O'Malley, suggesting they find a time to meet, the two activists said.

"O'Malley has clashed with the administration," Vargas said. "He's one of the candidates not taking Latinos for granted."

Clinton, while on tour to promote her new memoir, said in an interview that the unaccompanied children at the border "should be sent back" to their families. The remark caused Fusion's Jorge Ramos, in another interview, to ask Clinton if she had a "Latino problem."

While she walked back her initial comments saying the children should be shown love and only some should be sent back, the questions now put Clinton in a tough spot politically: Dodging young activists on video looks bad, but the prospect of Obama's executive actions, which Democrats in key Senate races opposed before the election, is controversial with some. And while Clinton has critiqued the president on foreign policy since leaving the State Department, she has largely avoided domestic issues.

At the DNC women's forum on Friday, the DREAMers have no plans to infiltrate the event, but will make their presence felt outside the Marriott Marquis hotel. Clinton will be joined by Obama, Vice President Biden, and the chair of the DNC, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

Vargas said it's Clinton they'll be watching.

"We want her to show she can be a president. Presidents take leadership when others won't."

Arrests come as part of a growing campaign targeting Hillary Clinton.

Jacob Fischler/BuzzFeed

WASHINGTON — Eight DREAMer activists were arrested outside a Democratic National Committee event by D.C. police Friday afternoon as part of a protest of President Obama's decision to delay changing deportation policies until after the November election.

The arrests came as former Secretary of State and presumptive presidential candidate Hillary Clinton was speaking at the DNC's Women's Leadership Forum, and marks the third time DREAMers have been arrested at events featuring Clinton.

Clinton has largely avoided the controversy over deportations, and has thus far refused to engage activists, even when they get within ear shot.

Friday's protest was no different: while police were arresting protestors outside, Clinton was making her pitch to Democratic activists to reengage in the political process before election day, urging them to get out and vote come November, particularly for Democratic women on the ballot.

Recently, Obama announced he would delay signing any executive actions relating to immigration and deportations until after the midterm elections. The move was a political calculation to try and protect vulenerable Senate Democrats and ultimately, the party's control of the upper chamber.

Police, after covering the faces of activists for safety, cut through PVC pipes to unlink protesters from one another.

Jacob Fischler/BuzzFeed

After the PVC pipes were cut, protesters were put into plastic handcuffs and loaded into police vans.

Jacob Fischler/BuzzFeed

View Entire List ›

Pro football is Washington’s multi-million dollar National Fundraising League. That’s not going to change no matter what happens.

Dale Zanine/Usa Today Sports

WASHINGTON — From big checks written by team owners and players to high-profile events at stadiums and even during games, the National Football League plays in tight formation with America's political fundraising operatives.

That's not likely to change, despite the flood of bad news for the league, ranging from accusations of racism, homophobia and domestic and child abuse.

"No absolutely not," emailed one Republican fundraiser when asked if it was time to advise candidates against taking checks that could in someway be traced back to the NFL.

"I probably wouldn't recommend them to take a contribution from Ray Rice, but it takes a LOT for a candidate to turn down money :)," the fundraiser wrote.

The Sunlight Foundation's Political Party Time team — a watchdog group that tracks political fundraising events — crunched the numbers for BuzzFeed News and found the NFL and fundraising for both parties are deeply intertwined.

New York Jets owner Woody Johnson has hosted 12 parties for Republican candidates since 2011, many of them for Mitt Romney. Next month, he's hosting an RNC fundraiser at his home featuring party chair Reince Priebus. Meanwhile, New York Giants owner Steve Tisch has used his influence to help Democrats, chairing a fundraiser for New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker in California last year.

The list goes on. In 2012, Jacksonville Jaguars owner Shahid Khan chaired a fundraiser for Elizabeth Warren featuring Madeline Albright. Eli Manning hosted an NFL watch party fundraiser at his home for Hoboken, New Jersey's Democratic Mayor Dawn Zimmer in 2013.

NFL facilities are also big draws. Michelle Obama hosted a 2102 fundraiser for her husband's campaign at Lucas Oil Stadium, home of the Indianapolis Colts. Pro-football games are regularly the home to political fundraising. Sunlight's data — which the watchdog stresses is not comprehensive — found 32 events at NFL stadiums and games, including fundraisers for Paul Ryan's PAC at Lambeau Field and a fundraiser for Florida Republican Rep. Tom Rooney in 2011 at Heinz Field in Pittsburgh.

Far and away the most popular NFL facility for political fundraising is FedEx Field in Maryland, home turf for Washington's pro-football team — which has been accused of racism by Native Americans because of the team's name.

Politicians, lobbyists and other big-money types often use Washington home games to host high-dollar fundraising. Sunlight says their data shows FedEx Field is part of the DC money machine's regular rotation.

"In the world of political fundraising, there are lots of cocktail hours and receptions, so hosting a party at a football game is one way a politician can kind of stand out from the more conventional stuff," said Jenn Topper, Sunlight spokesperson. "People on Capitol Hill use the NFL as a fundraising ploy, but not a whole lot more than they use a baseball game or Taylor Swift concerts."

The NFL has its own PAC, too. The group chaired DC fundraisers for Utah Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch in both 2012 and 2013. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks all the recipients of NFL cash, 52% of donations from the league to to Democrats and 48% go to Republicans. The NFL's PAC has donated more than $1.3 million to federal candidates since 2010, according to the CRP data.

Still, the league's image, once one of the best in professional sports, has taken a major beating, starting with the negative reaction some coaches and players had to the drafting of the first openly gay player last spring, to the ongoing controversy over Washington's name and a host of domestic violence and child abuse complaints against marquee players. The NFL's top brass have been playing defense since the first kickoff, and politicians, even those who've benefited from the league's political activities, are starting to join the growing chorus of critics.

Booker said Friday it might be time to revoke the NFL's nonprofit status, and New York Democratic Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand has threatened congressional hearings looking into domestic violence allegations against former Ravens player Ray Rice.

But the bad news isn't likely to stop the close relationship between political fundraising and the NFL, observers said.

"It is the best fundraiser you can ever throw because it can't miss," said Ford O'Connell, a Washington-based Republican strategist. "The NFL has such wide appeal across party lines. What is female viewership even with this nonsense? It's up 40%. Football is so ubiquitous in American life it's hard to see how [a fundraiser] would be a hindrance unless you took money from one of these players."

Not all fundraisers are saying raising money by associating a candidate with the NFL is a a great move these days.

"I would advise any federal candidate at this time not to seek out NFL dollars since as a candidate you do not want someone else's image issues affecting you at the ballot box with potential voters," said Amanda Kornegay a DC-based fundraising consultant who raises money for Republicans. "Also, by taking money from the NFL a campaign or candidate might give themselves an added headache for a Republican in a tight race, due to the 'perceived' GOP war on women."

But most fundraisers and political observers said the NFL will likely remain closely tied to political fundraising no matter what scandal hits the league. Asked about how the league scandals might affect the cashflow, they mostly didn't want to talk about it.

"I'm not comfortable answering that question on or off the record," one top Democratic fundraiser said.

The justices could — and would have good reasons to — ask for the administration’s top Supreme Court lawyer to weigh in on the same-sex marriage cases.

Gary Cameron / Reuters

WASHINGTON — When it comes to the question of whether the Supreme Court should take up a marriage equality case — and, if so, which one or ones it should take — the person arguably with the most powerful voice at the high court, outside of the justices themselves, has remained silent on the issue.

Marriage equality is currently in the "cert stage." More than 30 briefs have been filed with the Supreme Court in the seven petitions seeking certiorari — review by the justices — out of the five states, and they are now awaiting attention on September 29. The briefs offer views on whether the justices should take the case and, if so, which case or cases would be the best one to take.

Missing from the mix, thus far, is any filing from the United States government, in the form of an amicus curiae, or friend of the court, brief from the Solicitor General of the United States.

The solicitor general's view — as the government's top appellate lawyer in the Justice Department — is given great weight by the court, so much so that the role often is referred to as the "tenth justice." A 2010 article by Margaret Meriwether Cordray and Richard Cordray noted that, over the prior nine-year period, when the solicitor general weighed in at the cert stage, the Supreme Court followed his or her recommendation whether to take a case approximately 75% of the time.

Generally, although there are exceptions, the solicitor general doesn't weigh in on cases where the United States isn't a party until asked to do so by the court. This practice, where the court "calls for the views of the Solicitor General," could be the result of the September 29 conference where the justices will be considering those seven cert petitions.

The Supreme Court has good reasons for asking the solicitor general, Donald Verrilli Jr., what the view of the United States is on this issue. When the Supreme Court last heard a case challenging a state's marriage ban — California's Proposition 8 — the solicitor general weighed in as amicus curiae at the "merits stage," or, once the Supreme Court had already decided to take the case.

Asking the solicitor general for his view of the petitions pending before the court makes sense because the administration not only filed an amicus brief in the Prop 8 case, but it also asked for and was given time to argue the issue before the justices when they heard the case in March 2013. The solicitor general's office was the only party who argued in both the Prop 8 case and the case heard the next day challenging the Defense of Marriage Act. As such, the court is well aware that the administration is deeply interested in these issues.

In fact, one of the main reasons the administration filed the brief in the Prop 8 case, according to its own stated interest in the case, remains unsettled. "The President and Attorney General have determined that classifications based on sexual orientation should be subject to heightened scrutiny for equal protection purposes," Verrilli wrote in that brief. With that question left unresolved in either the Prop 8 or DOMA decisions, the United States' interest in that question presumably remains.

Additionally, asking for the administration's views at the cert stage would enable the court to determine where the administration stands on issues it had left unanswered in the Prop 8 case. The unusual argument advanced by the solicitor general's office — which was met with little support from justices on either side of the ideological spectrum — was that Prop 8 should be found unconstitutional because California had chosen to extend almost all of the benefits of marriage to same-sex couples without extending the name of "marriage" to them. This so-called "eight-state solution" would have allowed the justices — had they not dismissed the case on the technical basis that the proponents of Prop 8 who appealed the trial court decision did not have standing to do so — to strike down Prop 8 in a way that only would have directly impacted bans in eight states and avoided a decision striking down marriage bans across the country.

At oral arguments, Chief Justice John Roberts asked Verrilli directly, "[I]s it the position of the United States that same-sex marriage is not required throughout the country?" Agreeing, Verrilli said, "[W]e are not taking the position that it is required throughout the country. We think that that ought to be left open for a future adjudication in other States that don't have the situation California has."

Now, with several petitions before the court from states that do not "have the situation California has," it could be helpful to the justices to understand what path the administration will be recommending at this point. This is particularly so because Attorney General Eric Holder suggested earlier this summer that the administration will be weighing in again should the issue come before the court. In an interview in July, Holder told ABC News, "If a case comes before the Supreme Court, we will file something consistent with what we have done that will be in support of same-sex marriage." He added that he believes "a lot of these measures" will fail if heightened scrutiny is given to sexual orientation claims as recommended by the administration. It would benefit the justices, particularly if deciding which of the cases before it to take, to understand what the administration's position is on the distinction between those cases.

Finally, and pragmatically, asking for the solicitor general's views of the petitions pending before the justices would give the justices some breathing room. Earlier this week, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg signaled that at least she is eager to see the outcome of the marriage appeals heard in the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals — specifically, whether the court will create a "circuit split" by upholding any of the bans in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, or Tennessee — before deciding whether to take one of the pending cases. If the court hasn't reached its decision by September 29, asking for the solicitor general's view of the pending petitions would show the justices are attentive to the issues without needing actually to decide what to do with the petitions.

The court needn't act on the petitions, so they could decide not to decide and just put off the decision for the future. Nonetheless, there is a price to holding the petitions — for the same-sex couples in the states where cases are pending. As Derek Kitchen — one of the plaintiffs in the case against Utah's ban — told BuzzFeed News back in April, "[W]e have a number of friends that are currently being harmed by the state's actions." As the petitions stack up at the Supreme Court — particularly, with stays in place because of the Supreme Court — the attention will soon turn to the justices if people begin to perceive them as the entity holding marriage equality at bay. And, while the justices are somewhat removed from the political pressures of public opinion, they are not immune to it.

Asking for — and getting — the administration's view on the pending petitions could be just the — thus far missing — step the court needs to give it the time to put the pieces in place that it has decided it needs before it takes on a marriage equality case.

“As I’m sure you can imagine, we’re not going to get into a back and forth with ISIL every time they release a new piece of propaganda,” one U.S. official said.

YouTube

WASHINGTON — ISIS released a 55-minute long propaganda movie on Friday that a U.S. official said is "clearly aimed" at people outside the Middle East.

The English-language video, titled "Flames of War," features high-quality imagery alongside professional-style editing, and is narrated by someone with an American-sounding voice. The highly dramatized video opens up with footage of explosions from the Middle East and quotes from former president George W. Bush.

But a U.S. counterterrorism official says the video is actually a sign of ISIS's decline.

"The video is clearly aimed at English speakers from outside the Middle East since ISIL is losing some traction in the Middle East," a U.S. counterterrorism official told BuzzFeed News in an email. "Arab Muslim countries are unifying against ISIL, the Syrian opposition has been fighting ISIL for over two years, and the Iraqis too are uniting against them."

This week, Congress authorized funding for a program that will train and equip Syrian rebels in the Middle East to help them fight ISIS. Though the U.S. has ramped up airstrikes against the militants, Obama has said American troops that have been sent to the region "do not and will not have a combat mission" there.

When reached for comment, a National Security Council spokesperson said it wouldn't weigh in on the new video.

"As I'm sure you can imagine, we're not going to get into a back and forth with ISIL every time they release a new piece of propaganda," National Security Council spokeswoman Caitlin Hayden said in an email.

“I like Ted Cruz but he’s not authentic.”

U.S. Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX)

Jonathan Ernst / Reuters

ALEXANDRIA, Virginia — On paper, Sen. Ted Cruz and Sen. Rand Paul aren't that different.

They both vote similarly, espouse similar beliefs on liberty and the constitution, and are both very likely 2016 presidential contenders. And both delivered speeches on Thursday at the Liberty Political Action Conference — a place where diehards of the Ron Paul and libertarian movements gather to hear from their political heroes.

The conference is explicitly geared toward Rand supporters; his face is everywhere and conferencegoers could snap photos with a cutout of the senator at the RANDPac booth as well as pick up "Stand with Rand" bracelets.

But that doesn't mean Cruz, already a darling of the social conservative and Tea Party movements, is abandoning the GOP's libertarian wing — he has steadily been trying to make inroads with the increasingly influential libertarian faction in an attempt to syphon off support from Paul.

Cruz's speech was full of applause lines for the crowd, and plenty of criticism for the Obama administration. He went through the bill of rights, hitting Senate Democrats, and said Obama's "assault on free speech" has been "unparalleled." There was an Atlas Shrugged shout-out and criticism of the over-militarization of police — all winners with the libertarian crowd.

And while attendees walked away impressed, the liberty movement remains skeptical of Cruz as a guy who is really on their side.

"I appreciate the liberty things that Cruz does, but he's too polarizing sometimes. He's become the whipping boy for the left," said Jason Amatucci, a conferencegoer from Virginia. "I also think he's hypocritical on his marijuana stance. I don't see how you can sit there and say everybody should have guns but draw the line on the drug war. I think that's just ridiculous."

In fact, Cruz's overt partisan criticism of the Obama administration, as opposed to substantive policy critiques, was repeatedly cited as a reason why he'll have trouble expanding his support with libertarians, who are often skeptical of party politics.

"Rand is attacking government policy, not particularly any administration. Cruz seems to be, even though I'm a full supporter of him, a lot more blatant attacking the administration," said Dennis Wade. "It's easier to win people over to liberty when you are not attacking someone personally … When you are talking about the administration, you can lose some listeners in that battle."

Dan Feliciano, the Libertarian Party candidate for governor in Vermont, said he thought Cruz was "not as appealing, if you will," as other candidates.

"I think he's trying to have it both ways," Feliciano said, citing Cruz's support of "traditional big government, big defense, 'we're going to protect the world.'"

"You can't have it both ways," Feliciano said.

Cruz has made conspicuous efforts to reach out to establishment Republicans and to neoconservatives, groups that are widely mistrusted among libertarian-leaning voters. For instance, earlier this month Cruz met with major Republican donors and neoconservative figures like Bill Kristol.

And Cruz has staked out a more hawkish position on foreign policy than Paul, making full-throated defenses of Israel his trademark. While his staged walkout last week at a conference of Middle Eastern Christians critical of Israel may have played well with neocons, it's not the sort of thing that libertarians will look favorably on.

"There are a lot of libertarians that are non-interventionists. Like on Israel, we believe they have a right to exist and everything, but we just don't think we need to be giving them so much aid," said James Maier, who called Cruz "a disappointment."

Iris Gaddis, a Houston area real estate investor, said she would accept Cruz as a second choice in 2016, but didn't view him as an authentic libertarian.

"He's conservative for sure and he's a little bit liberty-minded, but not near as much as Rand Paul, [Rep.] Justin Amash and [Rep.] Thomas Massie," she said.

Though Cruz is "trying real hard to go after that segment," he isn't totally succeeding, she said.

"I like Ted Cruz but he's not authentic," she said. "We know he's not a libertarian but he's a good guy, and if Rand wasn't in the race I would support him."

The incident forced a rare evacuation of much of the presidential residence. A suspect was arrested and taken to a hospital for evaluation, the Secret Service said.

"This dude just jumped the fence right in front of me!! He made it pretty far didn't see them catch him," eyewitness Brandon Pawlinski said on Instagram.

instagram.com

A man who scaled the fence of the White House Friday sprinted across the lawn and made it through the front doors of the presidential residence before he was apprehended by officers, the Secret Service said.

The unarmed intruder, who was identified as Omar J. Gonzalez, 42, of Copperas Cove, Texas, was arrested around 7:20 p.m just inside the North Portico doors of the White House that face Pennsylvania Ave.

The scare forced a rare evacuation of much of the building, including staff and press inside the West Wing. Secret Service agents evacuated journalists from the area, and officers were seen combing the complex with their guns drawn.

A U.S. Secret Service agent with an automatic rifle directs people to evacuate the White House complex Friday evening.

Larry Downing, Reuters

Gonzalez was taken into custody and later transported to George Washington University Hospital for medical evaluation, the Secret Service said.

The intrusion, which occurred just minutes after President Obama and his daughters departed the White House aboard Marine One for the weekend at Camp David, raises serious questions about the security at what is considered to be one of the safest places in the world.

Last week, another man scaled the White House fence on the anniversary of Sept. 11, prompting a lockdown. The suspect was seen being apprehended by Secret Service officers on the lawn.

"This situation was a little different than other incidents we have at the White House," Secret Service spokesman Ed Donovan told the Associated Press. "There will be a thorough investigation into the incident."

View Entire List ›

More cut-and-paste.

Burke For Wisconsin Facebook / Via scontent-a-lga.xx.fbcdn.net

Sections of Wisconsin Democratic gubernatorial candidate Mary Burke's veterans and rural communities plans appear to copy text directly from a variety of sources.

The sources include, but are not limited to, academic journals and reports, and a local newspaper column.

In other instances, the sources are linked in plan's footnotes, though Burke's plan makes little effort to indicate that not just the source, but the words themselves were taken from the sources.

BuzzFeed News has also found another section of Burke's jobs plan was copied from another gubernatorial candidate in another state, this time 2010 candidate Peter Corroon in Utah.

BuzzFeed News reported Friday that large portions of Burke's jobs plan for Wisconsin were copied directly from the plans of four Democratic candidates who ran for governor in previous election cycles.

Portions of the plan also used the same language as a White House press release and a Harvard report.

A spokesman for the Burke campaign placed blame on an "expert" named Eric Schnurer who also worked on the other campaigns as responsible for the similar text.

The campaign cut ties with Schnurer on Friday.

The campaign didn't immediately comment on the latest copied text.

The Walker campaign blasted Burke's latest copy-and-pasted plans in a statement to BuzzFeed.

"Mary Burke's plagiarism is clearly not an isolated incident as she claimed last week but a disturbing pattern of intellectual dishonesty. It's time for Mary Burke to come clean with Wisconsin voters."

Here's a Council Of State Governments report from 2003:

At a time when U.S. manufacturing employment is generally on the decline, the production of wind equipment is one of the few potentially large sources of new manufacturing jobs on the horizon.

And here's Burke:

While manufacturing employment in general has been declining for years, the production of wind equipment is one of the few potentially large sources of new manufacturing jobs.

In Mary Burke's recent Plan for Wisconsin Veterans:

Here's a 2013 Dunn County News column:

The opposition argued that the bill would impose additional burdens on those that were injured — and in some cases plaintiffs could die before their cases made it through the lengthened court process.

And here's Burke:

This places additional burdens on those who were injured and in some cases plaintiffs could die before their cases make it through the lengthened court process.

Here's the Wisconsin Food Cooperative's website:

The WFHC helps local farmers by providing them with the opportunity, through marketing, sales, aggregation, and logistics, to access wholesale markets they could not access easily before.

And here's Burke:

Promoting the replication of Food Hubs for helping small farmers get their produce to retail markets, profitably. The Food Hub model, exemplified by the Wisconsin Food Hub Cooperative (WFHC), helps local farmers – through marketing, sales, aggregation, and logistics – to access wholesale markets.

Here's the National Rural Health Institute:

Although only one-third of all motor vehicle accidents occur in rural areas, two-thirds of the deaths attributed to these accidents occur on rural roads.

And here's Burke:

And although only one-third of motor vehicle accidents occur in rural areas, two-thirds of automobile fatalities occur on rural roads.

Here's the Journal of Extension on incubator farms:

An incubator farm is typically a place where people are given temporary, exclusive, and affordable access to small parcels of land and infrastructure, and often training, for the purpose of honing skills and launching farm businesses.

And here's Burke:

An incubator farm, like other entrepreneurial incubators, is a place where aspiring farmers can have temporary affordable access to small parcels of land and infrastructure, training, practice, and mentorship for the purpose of honing skills and launching farm businesses.

View Entire List ›

“Fallujah is now in the Taliban’s hands.”

View Video ›

A Democratic congressional candidate believes the Taliban are in Iraq and that Saddam Hussein gassing his own people was good for Middle Eastern stability.

"Fallujah is now in the Taliban's hands," Alabama Democratic congressional candidate Jesse T. Smith said in a local radio interview. "Fallujah was in Saddam Hussein's hands and Saddam Hussein was not connected to the Taliban. I just say that, I like to make that distinction because ... I feel that if we had not gone into Iraq, there's a lot of things around the world that would not be going on."

Smith added Saddam Hussein's brutal crackdowns on his own people kept the Middle East stable.

"You know that tyrant, that tyrant was needed in that area," he said in the interview. "Saddam Hussein was known ... he would, he would gonna throw some gas on his people. He did that to the Iranians. So, they knew he was a tyrant. Sometimes you have necessary evils and I think for that area he was a necessary evil. And once he was removed, we see what's going on now."

Smith, who is running against Republican Rep. Mike Rogers previously made waves in August for saying Republicans are worse than ISIS.

"The greatest country on earth is being bullied from within. Actions of Republicans in congress are worse than #ISIL," he wrote on his Twitter feed.

Smith is two-tour veteran of Iraq.

A senior administration official told reporters Monday some of the 100 Americans who have fought for ISIS in Syria are back on US soil.

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry testifies before a House Foreign Affairs Committee.

Gary Cameron / Reuters

WASHINGTON — The FBI is actively monitoring an unknown number of of Americans who have returned to the United States after traveling to areas in Syria and Iraq where ISIS and its allies are active, a senior Obama administration official said Monday.

According to the official, the FBI's counter-terrorism efforts now include "those who have gone, those who have tried to go, those who have come back and are under active [surveillance] — the FBI is looking at them."

Earlier Monday, Secretary of State John Kerry told MSNBC that there were around 100 U.S. passport holders fighting for ISIS in the Middle East.

"We have over a hundred fighters there from America. They have passports. They can come back here," Kerry said.

“These plans are very in depth and what has been identified are very small passages, scattered throughout that, that have, uh, maybe been used in other plans that this consultant developed.”

View Video ›

Wisconsin Democratic gubernatorial candidate Mary Burke dismissed the latest examples of her campaign plagiarizing text from a variety sources for her jobs plan, rural communities plan, and veterans plan.

Speaking Monday morning with Wisconsin NPR-affiliate station WUWM's show Lake Effect Burke said the copied text in her plans were small instances.

"The thing that was wrong was that Eric used some very similar language, some exact words that he had used in other plans that he had provided to other campaigns," Burke said of campaign consultant Eric Schnurer. "And that's wrong, and that's why we cut ties with his firm."

A spokesman for the Burke campaign placed blame Thursday on an "expert" named Eric Schnurer for the similar text.

BuzzFeed News reported Friday that Burke's economic plan "Invest for Success" copied nearly-verbatim sections from the jobs plans of Ward Cammack, who ran for Tennessee governor in 2009 before withdrawing from the race, a 2008 plan from Delaware Gov. Jack Markell, now-Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe's plan from his failed-2009 bid, and John Gregg who ran for governor of Indiana in 2012 and lost to Mike Pence.

Another section takes the same language as a White House press release and a small section of language is copied from a Harvard report.

On Sunday, BuzzFeed News reported the additional instances of copied text in her plans.

Asked about BuzzFeed News' latest report that Burke had copied language from a variety of sources including academic journals and reports, a local newspaper column, and others the Wisconsin Democrat dismissed the instances as "very small" and "extremely limited" passages.

"My jobs plan is about 45 pages long," Burke said. "In addition, I've put out a rural plan on how we can make sure that rural communities around the statement are growing and thriving -- which has been a real issue. We've lost nearly 9,000 farms over a five-year period of time. I want to make sure that the people of Wisconsin understand the type of governor and the plans I have for moving the state forward."

Burke insisted she was merely drawing from "best practices and innovative ideas that are working in other parts of the country."

"I am going to draw on best practices and innovative ideas that are working in other parts of the country," she said. "But these plans are very in depth and what has been identified are very small passages, scattered throughout that, that have, uh, maybe been used in other plans that this consultant developed. This is something that is extremely limited and the main bulk of this work is work that I have been deeply involved with. And there not ideas in those plans unless I thought that they were great ideas for Wisconsin on how we're going to move our economy forward."

Four of the candidates Burke was shown to have copied lost their respective races.

President Obama is sticking by Michael Boggs.

Michael Boggs.

WASHINGTON — President Obama is standing by controversial judicial nominee Michael Boggs White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said Monday, despite a powerful new Democratic voice calling for the administration to scrap his nomination.

On Monday Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy, who's committee has jurisdiction over judicial nominations, urged the administration to withdraw the nomination of Boggs, who in the past has supported flying the Confederate Flag over the Georgia Capitol, restrictions on abortion and opposition to expanded rights for same-sex couples.

"He doesn't have the votes," Leahy told the New York Times Monday.

That led to progressive groups renewing their attacks on Boggs.

"We echo Sen. Leahy's call for Michael Boggs to withdraw his nomination. As we've said from the moment his nomination became public, Boggs lacks both credibility and a demonstrated commitment to equal justice under the law - qualities necessary for a lifetime appointment to the federal bench," NARAL Pro-Choice America president Ilyse Hogue said in a statement.

But despite opposition from Leahy, Earnest said Obama remains committed to Boggs, who's nomination came as part of a deal with Republicans to move other nominees. Asked if the White House will join the call for Boggs to withdraw his name, Earnest said, "no."