A forgotten detail about 2008: Hillary Clinton beat Obama 2–1 among Latinos in their primary and it wasn’t all name recognition — but big challenges still lie ahead to maintain huge Latino support for Democrats. One other one: the looming possibility of Jeb Bush.

Hillary Clinton applauds United Farm Workers President Arturo Rodriguez during a rally in Salinas, California, on Jan. 22, 2008.

Paul Sakuma / Associated Press

Republicans are keenly aware that they must begin to peel away Latino voters from Democrats, who gave President Obama 71% of their vote in 2012. But there's a huge problem for those 2016 efforts, rarely discussed and largely forgotten.

Hillary Clinton, the presumptive favorite for the Democratic nomination, beat Obama 2–1 among Latino voters in the 2008 primary. It wasn't just name recognition, either. The Clintons have a robust network of Latino leaders and activists, and long history with outreach that dates back to 1970s in Texas.

This is not to say Clinton's path is totally clear — her 2008 campaign was not without stumbles, and she faced difficult questions last year from activists on immigration. If Jeb Bush were the Republican nominee, some argue, he might actually compete for a significant share of Latino support, something activists aren't totally closed to. But there is no other candidate both as likely to win a party nomination and who will start with the established, enduring Latino support, as Clinton.

"Republicans have a Latino problem," said Alfonso Aguilar, a former official in the George W. Bush administration and director of the American Principles Project's Latino Partnership, which promotes conservative values to the Latino community. He described the Republican policies around immigration that put the party stuck between an Obama "amnesty" position and a Steve King "enforcement-only" stance.

"Hillary would be a formidable candidate with Hispanics," he said.

Even for a candidate who has been on the national stage for decades, Clinton's history with Latino voters goes back a surprisingly long way.

In 1972, when a young Hillary and Bill Clinton were working the ill-fated George McGovern campaign, she worked closely with well-respected union leader, Franklin Garcia, who took her under his wing as she helped register Latino voters in south Texas and along the Rio Grande Valley.

"Hispanics in South Texas were," she wrote in her 2003 memoir Living History, "understandably, wary of a blond girl from Chicago who didn't speak a word of Spanish." But Garcia "took me places I could never have gone alone and vouched for me to Mexican Americans who worried I might be from the immigration service or some other government agency." Garcia drove her and Bill across the border to Matamoros, a dive that had only a "decent mariachi band," she wrote, but where she indulged in barbecued cabrito, or goat.

Garry Mauro, one of her first contacts in Texas, told the San Antonio Express in 2008 that back then she had a "cultural affinity with Hispanics," asking questions and listening to their concerns, a dynamic that would be on display again, more than three decades later in Nevada, as she tried to woo an influential Latino activist.

Eddie Escobedo was a flashy dresser — suits and hats to match — and hotly in demand by Democratic politicians.

The owner of a radio station and El Mundo newspaper, both of which he used to great effect, the late Escobedo was an important ally for anyone who wanted to get their message out to Latinos in Nevada. That's why Brian Greenspun, a Clinton ally who runs the Greenspun Media Group (which includes the Las Vegas Sun, Las Vegas Weekly, and Las Vegas Magazine), invited Escobedo along with other minority leaders to his home for dinner to meet with Clinton as she was exploring a 2008 campaign.

"She had a way about her," says Eddie Escobedo Jr., who was at the dinner. His father died in 2010 and left El Mundo to him.

"The way my dad explained it, she was somebody you could talk to," Escobedo Jr. said. "She spoke from the heart and asked about what the Hispanic community was going through and what had to be done. My dad was taken aback by Hillary, by how she was able to communicate and listen and how she wanted to help Hispanics."

Escobedo supported Clinton "tooth and nail," his son says — but of course she did not win. Obama campaign senior advisers repeatedly went to the El Mundo offices to wear down the activist, and finally got him to take a call from Obama. The two eventually had a meeting at the MGM Grand in Las Vegas, where Escobedo presented Obama with a T-shirt and hat with the words "El Jefe" — the boss — on them.

When Escobedo died from cancer in 2010, the Clintons offered their condolences in a letter to the family and Obama called Escobedo Jr.

Courtesy Eddie Escobedo Jr.

View Entire List ›

The former L.A. mayor is making real moves: meeting with SKDK advisers in D.C., courting Capitol Hill, and working the phones in California. But the reality of a campaign against Kamala Harris is tough, especially without Tom Steyer.

Kris Connor / Getty Images

After Barbara Boxer announced she would retire from the U.S. Senate, an unsettling rumor — by all official accounts false — made its way into the political circle of Southern California's most promising candidate: Antonio Villaraigosa.

It went something like this:

Up north, at a secret meeting of the minds, a deal had been brokered between the top two politicians in San Francisco. Kamala Harris would run for Senate, and Gavin Newsom would run for governor. Depending on the telling, the attendees of this conclave included some mix of both candidates, plus Boxer, Dianne Feinstein, Nancy Pelosi, and John Burton, the state party chairman.

People close to Harris, the California attorney general, and Newsom, the lieutenant governor, have dismissed the story as false and mocked it as ridiculous.

But two weeks ago, in the days after Boxer's announcement, the rumor just hit on grievances that Villaraigosa associates had already been feeling: that the race was being decided for him. For Villaraigosa — the former mayor of Los Angeles who'd always envisioned a campaign for governor, not Senate — the Boxer seat was initially something of a personal matter.

To forgo a Senate campaign, according to interviews with Villaraigosa's friends and supporters, would be a capitulation to the "coronation," led in their eyes by the same consultants who ran the mayor's races in the past, but are heading Harris's Senate operation from their firm, SCN Strategies, based in San Francisco.

Two weeks later, the indignation has faded, and his interest has become far more serious, supporters said. He has spent recent days working the phones unremittingly, assessing support from donors, and conferring with strategists from one of Washington's top Democratic consulting firms: SKDKnickerbocker.

Villaraigosa has yet to set up a political committee, and hasn't formally raised money, paid staff, or commissioned polling as of Friday. Only unofficially has he received help from SKDKnickerbocker officials, including managing directors Hilary Rosen and J.B. Poersch, according to three people familiar with the arrangement. (Rosen used to work in California and has been close to Villaraigosa for years. Poersch used to head the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.)

Villaraigosa met with SKDKnickerbocker on Thursday during a trip to Washington, one of the sources said. Later that night, at a dinner for the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the volunteer who played "body man" for the night, trailing Villaraigosa from table to table, was an SKDKnickerbocker senior vice president.

The D.C. firm is helping Villaraigosa think through the realities of the campaign — and the hurdles he faces against Harris, a big national name who commands an advantageous electorate in Northern California, where more people vote.

On Thursday, Villaraigosa's odds got worse.

Tom Steyer, the climate activists and billionaire considering a run, announced he would sit out the race. The move leaves Harris with a broader base to stand on, and Villaraigosa with a narrower path forward in a top-two primary. (Steyer would have drawn votes from Harris, and perhaps even spent money against her.)

On Thursday, Villaraigosa wouldn't talk much about the news.

"I really don't have anything else to say right now," he said in Washington. "I can tell you that I called him within a minute or two of receiving word."

For now, Villaraigosa is said to be moving ahead with his same plans.

"Since he expressed interest publicly, his resolve to jump into the Senate race grows by the day," said Fabian Nuñez, a former state assembly speaker and among the friends with whom Villaraigosa has kept in close contact this month.

"He loves public service," said Nuñez. "He misses it immensely."

Former Gov. Gray Davis said he doesn't anticipate an imminent decision from Villaraigosa. "It's perfectly reasonable to expect this will take 30 or 60 days before he'll be comfortable deciding what he'll do."

"He was on a governor's track," said Davis, who said he spoke recently with both Harris and Villaraigosa. "If you're on one track and then all of a sudden an opportunity for a different track presents itself — you consider it."

Garry South, a California operative who said he has talked at length with the former mayor this month, summed up Villaraigosa's recent line of questioning like this: "What would I think of the Senate? What could I do in the U.S. Senate?"

But as he considers running, the race is moving ahead without him.

Harris has already amassed endorsements from two state leaders and three U.S. Senators in an ongoing attempt to deter challengers.

This week, in an apparent effort to slow those endorsements, some Villaraigosa supporters pushed a spate of stories about early support for Harris: The endorsements, lawmakers argued in the articles, could strip a Latino candidate of a fair shot at the seat.

During his trip to Washington, Villaraigosa also spent part of Wednesday and Thursday on Capitol Hill, speaking with members of the California delegation, according to sources familiar with the meetings. He also sought time with some of the lawmakers who have expressed interest in running for the Boxer seat.

Up until Thursday, when Steyer bowed out of the race, fundraising was the big concern for Villaraigosa. He'd have to raise as much as $20 million, and would almost certainly face heavy opposition from teachers unions.

"Both state affiliates would vigorously oppose him because of his education policies," said Josh Pechthalt, the president of the California Federation of Teachers.

Villaraigosa has a long and knotty history with the unions that first ruptured in 2005, when he pushed for mayoral control of the city's schools.

He has since become a leader on the kinds of education policies that unions fight against. He also counts as friends such donors as Eli Broad and Reed Hastings, who could potentially support a Senate campaign. Last fall, three sources said, Villaraigosa strengthened his relationships in the education community when he helped raise money and court donors for the independent group supporting Marshall Tuck, the failed candidate for California superintendent of public instruction.

Asked about the fundraising challenges, one Democrat advising Villaraigosa said, "He's not gonna run if he doesn't think he can raise the money."

More important, some friends argue, is whether Villaraigosa "has it in him."

"Is it in him to go out there and campaign the way he likes to campaign? He's a dogged retailer," said Nuñez, the friend and former assembly speaker. "I would argue that polling numbers and popularity contests are less important for Antonio."

"He does well as an underdog. Always has."

LINK: The Job Nobody Wanted: Kamala Harris And Gavin Newsom Decide On Senate

The move comes a week after a majority of the court voted to allow an execution in the state to proceed.

AP Jacquelyn Martin

WASHINGTON — A week after allowing Oklahoma to proceed with an execution, the Supreme Court announced on Friday afternoon that it will review the state's lethal injection protocol.

Following the botched execution of Clayton Lockett in 2014, Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin ordered a review of the state's execution protocol. Once the state revised its protocol, several inmates slated to be executed in the first months of 2015 challenged "Oklahoma's intention to use midazolam" as the first drug in a three-drug execution protocol.

This past week, however, when the issue reached the Supreme Court, a majority of the justices — over the dissent of four justices — denied a stay of execution to the first of the inmates who brought the challenge, Charles Warner, and he was executed on Jan. 15.

The underlying petition for Supreme Court review of the issue remained before the justices because of the fact that three inmates challenging the use of midazolam were a part of the petition for review that had been filed with the court along with the denied request for a stay of execution.

On Friday, the justices granted review of their case — a decision that only takes the vote of four justices — although they said nothing about whether they would be granting stays of execution for the other inmates in the case going forward. Specifically, Richard Glossip is scheduled to be executed next Thursday, Jan. 29.

The Supreme Court accepted review in two cases on Friday, the latter of which addresses Oklahoma's lethal injection procedure:

Here is the petition of the Oklahoma inmates seeking review:

View Entire List ›

Sen. John Cornyn, now the chairman of the subcommittee, decided to change the name. “The name of a subcommittee speaks to its priorities,” one Senate Democrat aide said.

Yuri Gripas / Reuters

WASHINGTON — The Senate Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Human Rights is now just the Subcommittee on the Constitution.

A spokeswoman for Sen. John Cornyn, the number two Senate Republican and chairman of the subcommittee, defended the name change.

"The Constitution covers our most basic rights including civil and human rights," said Megan Mitchell, Cornyn's spokeswoman, in an email to BuzzFeed News. "We will focus on these rights along with other issues that fall under the broader umbrella of the Constitution."

Now that Republicans control the Senate, senators who have ascended to the role of chair on the various committees are free to alter the names if they choose.

A spokesman for Sen. Richard Durbin, the ranking member on the subcommittee, said that despite the name change the committee would still work on civil and human rights.

"The name of a subcommittee speaks to its priorities," Ben Marter, a spokesman for Durbin, said in an email to BuzzFeed News. "Senator Durbin will make sure that civil rights and human rights aren't dropped from Congress' agenda."

A watchdog group, the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, lambasted Cornyn for truncating the name.

"The new Senate Republican Majority's decision to expunge civil rights and human rights from this subcommittee's name is a discouraging sign given the growing diversity of our nation and the complex civil and human rights challenges we face," said Nancy Zirkin, the executive vice president of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights. "Names matter. This, after all, is a subcommittee with jurisdiction over the implementation and enforcement of many of our most important civil rights laws."

The decision striking down Alabama’s 2006 ban on same-sex couples’ marriages goes into effect immediately. [Update: Alabama’s attorney general has asked the trial court judge to put his ruling on hold while the Supreme Court considers the same-sex marriage issue in other cases this spring.]

Via Facebook: Iamaparent

WASHINGTON — A week after the Supreme Court agreed to take up the issue of same-sex couples' marriage rights, a federal trial court judge in Alabama declared that state's ban to be unconstitutional.

Absent a stay of the ruling being issued, same-sex couples should be able to begin marrying in Alabama when county offices open on Monday morning.

"If anything, Alabama's prohibition of same-sex marriage detracts from its goal of promoting optimal environments for children," U.S. District Court Judge Callie V. S. Granade wrote in a brief 10-page opinion, concluding, "[T]he court finds that Alabama's marriage laws violate the Due Process Clause and Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution."

The lawsuit was brought by a same-sex couple, Cari Searcy and Kimberly McKeand, who had married in California and were seeking recognition of their marriage by Alabama for, among other reasons, adoption purposes.

Despite that, Granade declares the amendment and statutes involved to be unconstitutional as to both recognition of out-of-state marriages and marriages that are performed in Alabama.

Throughout the opinion, she specifies both marriage and recognition are being considered.

"The Attorney General does not explain how allowing or recognizing same-sex marriage between two consenting adults will prevent heterosexual parents or other biological kin from caring for their biological children," she notes at one point, for example. Later, she concludes that "Alabama's prohibition and non-recognition of same-sex marriage" financially harms the children of same-sex couples "because it denies the families of these children a panoply of benefits that the State and the federal government offer to families who are legally wed."

Additionally, Granade provides no stay in her ruling, nor does she provide any discussion of whether a stay was considered. Without a stay, the ruling goes into effect immediately.

The combined effect of the broad scope of the ruling and the lack of a stay means that Granade's intention appears to be that same-sex couples can marry in Alabama immediately.

Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange plans to seek a stay of the ruling.

"We are disappointed and are reviewing the Federal District Court's decision. We expect to ask for a stay of the court's judgment pending the outcome of the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling which will ultimately decide this case," Strange spokesman Mike Lewis told BuzzFeed News.

In the judgment enforcing the court's decision, Granade — a 2001 appointee of President George W. Bush — wrote:

"ALA. CONST. ART. I, § 36.03 (2006) and ALA. CODE 1975 § 30-1-19 are hereby DECLARED to be unconstitutional because they violate they Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The defendant Luther Strange, in his capacity as Attorney General for the State of Alabama, is hereby ENJOINED from enforcing those laws."

An appeal would be heard by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, which is yet to rule on the issue of same-sex couples' marriage rights — but did decline to extend a temporary stay in the federal case challenging Florida's marriage ban.

Read the opinion and order:

View Entire List ›

Palin made the comment Friday night in Iowa. It was the latest and most-strongly-worded hint yet that the former Alaska governor may run for the White House.

Sarah Palin speaks to a crowd Thursday in Las Vegas.

John Locher / AP

The Republican made the comments in a Des Moines hotel lobby, where conservatives are gathering this weekend for the Iowa Freedom Summit, The Washington Post reported. Reporter Robert Costa of The Post tweeted her comments about a possible run:

View Entire List ›

“A lot of things have changed since then.”

youtube.com

Dr. Ben Carson, the potential Republican presidential candidate and world-renowned neurosurgeon, says his views on health care have evolved since advocating for a partially nationalized government-run health care proposal in a 1996 article.

Nearly two decades ago in the essay that ran in the Harvard Journal of Minority Public Health Carson proposed government-run nationalized catastrophic care, essentially replacing Medicaid with health care food stamps, and "national guidelines" about when the elderly and terminally ill should receive care.

"That paper bears about as much resemblance to my current views as our views on Afghanistan did 20 years ago," Carson said speaking in a press conference at the Iowa Freedom Summit on Saturday. "Things change."

Asked if he changed his views because of the Affordable Care Act by Bloomberg Politics' David Weigel, Carson said his views evolved for many reasons.

"A lot of things have changed since then," he said. "The main thing that that shows you is that this is not something that is new to me. I've been thinking about health care policy and finding better ways for people to get health care. But obviously anybody who's a thinking person, who is looking at things as they evolve will also evolve those opinions."

Carson, a vocal critic of the Affordable Care Act, currently proposes reforming health care though a program of giving a $2,000 stipend to each American to set up Health Savings Accounts, he told Politico last year.

Carson's 1996 article can be viewed here.

“How ironic that we call them House ‘Leadership,’” the 2016 prospect will tell Iowa conservatives, according to speech excerpts provided to BuzzFeed News. Criticism for Hillary, too.

Former CEO of Hewlett-Packard Carly Fiorina

Mike Theiler / Reuters

DES MOINES, Iowa — In a speech Saturday at a high-profile conservative gathering in this important primary state, the one woman likely to run for the Republican nomination will sharply criticize her own party's Congressional leaders for abandoning an anti-abortion bill this week.

Carly Fiorina, the former CEO of Hewlett-Packard and failed Senate candidate who has said she is considering a 2016 presidential bid, will devote significant time in her remarks at the Iowa Freedom Summit to expounding on her pro-life beliefs, according to a transcript provided to BuzzFeed News.

She will also call out House Speaker John Boehner and his fellow Republican leaders, who yanked a bill this week that would have outlawed abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy. The move — made amid concerns from some women and moderate Republicans in Congress who thought the bill would make the party look extreme — outraged many conservatives.

"The majority of Americans and the majority of women believe that abortion after five months for any reason at all is extreme," Fiorina will say in her remarks. "And yet politics intervened to prevent the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act from being brought to the floor for a vote. This is disappointing because once again politics triumphs over principle and expediency triumphs over courage. How ironic that we call them House 'Leadership.'"

Fiorina will go on to attack Democrats over abortion, putting the debate in personal terms:

It is on the issue of life that the hypocrisy of liberals is the most breathtaking. They believe flies are worth protecting, but the life of an unborn child is not. The platform of the Democratic Party asserts the right to an abortion at any point in a pregnancy for any reason. There are those who are now fighting for abortions to be performed by non-doctors. Barbara Boxer once commented that a life is only a life when it leaves the hospital.

We know that science supports those of us who believe in the sanctity of life.

When I married my husband Frank thirty years ago, I learned that his mother had been told to abort him or her life would be in danger. She refused and spent a year in the hospital following his birth. Her son, my husband, was the joy of her life and is the rock of mine. I think often of how different my life would have been had my mother-in-law made a different choice.

A woman who faces a difficult choice or a pre-natal diagnosis deserves our profound empathy and our deepest support, never our judgment or our condemnation. She knows she faces difficulty and struggle.

Fiorina has never held elective office — after winning the GOP Senate primary in California in 2010, she lost to incumbent Sen. Barbara Boxer — but she has served as a senior fundraiser and surrogate for the past two Republican presidential nominees. She is considered a long-shot in 2016, but unlike Sarah Palin — who is publicly toying with the idea of a run — Fiorina has begun to build a political operation, and appears to be taking the race seriously.

She has also become a popular conservative speaker over the past year, with her ridicule of the Democrats' "War on Women" rhetoric, and her strong criticism of Hillary Clinton. In her speech on Saturday, she will wade into a subject for which she is not well-known — foreign policy — to assail Clinton's record.

"Like Hillary Clinton, I too have traveled hundreds of thousands of miles around the globe," Fiorina will say. "But unlike her, I have actually accomplished something. Mrs. Clinton: Flying is an activity not an accomplishment."

She will continue:

I have met Vladimir Putin and know that it will take more to halt his ambitions than a gimmicky red "Reset" button. Having done business in over 80 countries and having served as the Chairman of the External Advisory Board at the CIA, I know that China is a state-sponsor of cyber-warfare and has a strategy to steal our intellectual property. I know Bibi Netanyahu, and know that when he warns us, over and over and over again, that Iran is a danger to this nation as well as to his own, that we must listen. And unlike Hillary Clinton I know what difference it makes that our Ambassador to Libya and three other brave Americans were killed in a deliberate terrorist attack on the anniversary of 9-11 and that the response of our nation must be more forceful that the arrest of a single individual a year later.

“We are Americans.” Perry and Christie were speaking at the Iowa Freedom Summit, which features appearances by a number of top 2016 candidates, and is being hosted by Steve King, the Republican known for his strict views on undocumented immigration. Two DREAMers were arrested.

Activists began shouting during the former Texas governor's speech on Saturday night:

View Video ›

The DREAMers included national immigration activists Erika Andiola and Cesar Vargas, who made the trip to Iowa to join with other DREAMers from across the country including Texas and New Jersey, which helps explain why Perry and Christie were the two interrupted. Vargas and Marco Malagon from Texas, were arrested afterwards, New Jersey DREAMer Giancarlo Tello told BuzzFeed News. They have since been released.

Malagon was the one yelling, "We are Americans."

"Marco is an undocumented person from Texas and Perry is the guy who was governor, the guy who sent the National Guard to the border," Tello said, of Perry's response to the unaccompanied minors crisis from Central Malagon. He said Malagon has a child on the way.

"He wanted to confront Perry, he wanted to represent his community, his family and his unborn son and try to ensure their safety," he added.

The activists were holding up signs that said, "Deportable?" a reference to a much-maligned Steve King tweet before the State of the Union address, complaining that Michelle Obama's guest was a DREAMer.

View Entire List ›

At least 30 people were killed and 93 injured in a rocket attack in Ukraine today.

On Saturday, war has essentially broken out again. At least 30 civilians were killed by rocket fire in eastern Ukraine, including two children.

STRINGER/AFP / Getty Images

Russian-backed rebels fired rockets that hit a market, housing, and a toy store. The rebels have been on an offensive in recent days, over the border established last year. But the fighting has picked up in recent weeks overall — at least 262 have died since Jan. 13.

In a statement Saturday, Secretary John Kerry joined his "European counterparts in condemning in the strongest terms today's horrific assault by Russia-backed separatists on civilian neighborhoods in Mariupol."

LINK: The War In Ukraine Is Back On

View Entire List ›

A key judges association in Alabama is advising against granting marriages — they say the federal court ruling doesn’t apply to the local judges. Lawyers for the same-sex couple push back — and invoke the image Gov. George Wallace standing in the doorway during integration. [Update: Federal judge issues a 14-day stay of her marriage order.]

Reed

mc-ala.org

Norris

probatejudge.net

Agricola

rpdas.com

View Entire List ›

After playing a key role in securing Obama’s executive actions on immigration, DREAMer activists are back, confronting Republicans, with an eye towards Hillary Clinton too.

McKay Coppins / BuzzFeed News

In 2014, DREAMer activists, undocumented youth brought to the country as children, established themselves as a pivotal force in the immigration fight. But if you thought the immigration protests that interrupted speeches from both Democrats and Republicans during 2014 would end with President Obama's executive actions, you thought wrong.

If anything, last year showed them that the strategy works, and so DREAMer activists are back. Their first volley of 2015 came at the Iowa Freedom Summit, a gathering of conservatives, many with presidential aspirations, where they had one question: Do you stand with us, or with immigration hardliner Steve King?

"2016 is around the corner, so we want to see where Republicans stand, would they overturn [Obama's actions]? Would they deport DREAMers?" said activist Cesar Vargas, one of the nearly 10 who crashed the GOP event, interrupting former Texas Gov. Rick Perry and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie. "For Hillary Clinton, yes, she tweeted that she supported the president on executive action, but for us it's not just about approval — what else will she do?"

The young activists gave Clinton headaches last year during her book promotional tour and later on the campaign trail, when they repeatedly confronted her. National DREAMer activist Erika Andiola recently told BuzzFeed News that Clinton and Jeb Bush, two possible 2016 candidates with perhaps views on immigration policy more in line with the activists', will be forced to clarify their stances.
If the strategy seems counterintuitive, Vargas says the activists' strategy is constantly misunderstood.

"This is not just about political tactics, it's just about real questions, there are real people affected by this, whether they're parents or workers," Vargas said. "All 2016 hopefuls say, 'We want to talk to the real Americans.' Well these are the real people affected by these policies."

Why protest Perry, for instance, someone who has faced criticism from the right on immigration (Perry famously said "you don't have a heart" if you oppose in-state tuition for undocumented immigrants), when Sen. Ted Cruz and others also there? Activists say they see it differently after Perry sent the National Guard to the border during the unaccompanied minors crisis, and Marco Malagon, who interrupted Perry at the event and was arrested, was there because of that in particular. But Cruz has advocated for stricter policy on undocumented immigrants and had strong words about immigrants at the event too.

"Ted Cruz is a lost cause," Vargas said. "He's a far right political figure for the Tea Party. Chris Christie, Scott Walker, on the other hand, they're trying to stay away from the issue, we want to know where they stand. Jeb Bush, he's seriously considering not only running, but also working with the Latino community."

One activist in Iowa for the confrontation, Giancarlo Tello, a New Jersey DREAMer, said that after the president's announcement, future immigration actions won't only feature young undocumented advocates.

"Its not just going to be DREAMers, but whole immigrant families. Not just those who qualify for [deferred action], but also for Obama's actions for families," Tello said. "It left 7 million behind. As long as the undocumented community is still being criminalized, we're going to go after them, whether they're Democrats or Republicans."

It's important to note that the activists are not all from one organization. There are local groups, leaders like Andiola and Vargas of the Arizona-based Dream Action Coalition, and also one major national organization: United We Dream (UWD).

For its part, UWD spent Friday to Sunday in Maryland holed up at their yearly retreat, mapping their strategy for the year. BuzzFeed News has learned that the group has so-called offensive and defensive priorities, as well as local and national plans for 2015.

Going on offense looks a lot like what went down in Iowa this weekend, but just as importantly, the organization wants to defend Obama's executive actions, which they feel are under attack by Congressional Republicans, as well as in the 25-state Texas lawsuit on the constitutionality of the executive actions. UWD also wants to work on educating the community on implementation of Obama's actions, getting all of those who are eligible to apply to be protected from deportation.

A new strategy for UWD this year centers on some local battles they want to aid affiliates in, like in Texas, where Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick campaigned on far stricter border enforcement and dismantling the in-state tuition program (the issue is contentious within the Republican Party there — Republican Gov. Greg Abbott largely distanced himself from Patrick during his campaign, but said if the legislature passed the in-state tuition bill, he would sign it). The organization also wants to help in states that may be looking to add in-state tuition like Massachusetts and Connecticut.

The activists in Iowa on Saturday held signs that said "Deportable?" on them, a reference to a much-maligned tweet by Steve King, who organized the Iowa Freedom Summit. King was referencing Michelle Obama's guest at the State of the Union, a young undocumented immigrant whom he called a "deportable."

DREAMers say that King like Cruz, is a lost cause, but the signs were meant as a question to prospective presidential candidates, as in, "Are we deportable?"

Vargas said Christie calling King a friend on Saturday told them a lot.

"In Spanish there is a saying, 'Dime con quién andas, y te diré quién eres,'" Vargas said.

"Tell me who you're with, and I'll tell you who you are."

“Discrimination against an individual based on gender identity is discrimination because of sex,” Justice Department lawyers assert in court. Saks, earlier Monday, withdrew its argument that transgender people aren’t covered by Title VII’s sex discrimination ban.

Acting Assistant Attorney General Vanita Gupta for the Civil Rights Division.

s3.amazonaws.com

WASHINGTON — Saks Fifth Avenue has reversed its position in court on whether transgender people are covered by existing federal anti-discrimination laws.

In a filing in federal court on Monday morning, the company withdrew a Dec. 29, 2014, court filing in which it asserted that transgender workers are not covered by the sex discrimination ban in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. That position runs counter to most recent court decisions, rulings of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission since 2012, and the Obama administration.

The filing in the case brought by a former employee, Lyeth Jamal, came shortly before the Justice Department filed its own brief in the case, asserting the "strong interest" of the U.S. government in the case.

The government's move follows Attorney General Eric Holder's announcement on Dec. 18, 2014, that the Justice Department position in litigation going forward would be that Title VII's sex discrimination ban includes anti-transgender discrimination. Monday's filing is, however, its first court filing to assert the position.

The Justice Department, in the filing, sums up the issue as such: "In its Motion, SAKS maintains that Ms. Jamal cannot prevail on a Title VII sex discrimination claim that is based on her gender identity, particularly her transgender status. Not so. Discrimination against an individual based on gender identity is discrimination because of sex."

Saks will continue to fight the discrimination claims brought by Jamal, who is represented by Jiillian Weiss, but Saks will do so "on the merits" of her claims — not by asserting that Title VII does not cover transgender people.

"Saks is confident that, as this matter proceeds, the facts will demonstrate that Plaintiff's allegations are wholly without merit, that Saks did not discriminate against Plaintiff, and that Saks' policies and procedures are effective in ensuring an inclusive and diverse workplace free of discrimination and harassment," it stated in the motion.

Weiss responded to Saks' actions, telling BuzzFeed News, "I am gratified that Saks reversed its decision to advocate against the rights of transgender employees under the Civil Rights Act. We look forward to the opportunity to demonstrate our case at trial."

The Human Rights Campaign and National Center for Lesbian Rights recently filed a brief in the case, and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission submitted a brief as well, telling the court that they believed Saks' prior position that Title VII didn't cover transgender people was legally incorrect.

New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman also had begun an investigation into the company's practices regarding trans workers in New York, the New York Times reported, after the company initially defended the December 2014 filing to BuzzFeed News and, later, the New York Times.

Read the withdrawal of the motion:

View Entire List ›

The company is a huge supporter of President Obama and his administration.

Hank Green interviews President Obama.

Via YouTube

WASHINGTON — Google was directly involved in choosing the questions President Obama was asked by three YouTube stars last Thursday.

One of the personalities, Hank Green, the creator of educational science videos, wrote Sunday that Google pushed him to ask tougher questions in his post–State of the Union interview with Obama.

"After I sent Google my first list of questions, they got back to me pushing me to drop the soft balls," he wrote on the website Medium.

A Google representative did not immediately respond to a request for comment Monday on Green's assertion. On Friday, a Google official told BuzzFeed News the company helped the stars select questions that didn't overlap those of the other stars, but didn't generate the list of questions.

"The questions came from the creators and their audiences via their YouTube channels and other social media sources," the official said.

Both the White House and Google said Obama's team did not vet the questions beforehand last week, or in any interview that Google has participated in with the White House.

Though the three big YouTube names who interviewed the president, Green, Bethany Mota, and GloZell Green, are not employees of Google, they are closely tied to the company's platforms for their lucrative digital reach. Google acquired YouTube for $1.65 billion in October 2006. Company reps helped get them to the White House for the YouTube interviews with the president, and Google corporate marketed and promoted the campaign.

In the days after the YouTube interviews, the White House was criticized for going around the professional press corps and turning to three famous vloggers for the high-profile post–State of the Union sit-downs with the president. The YouTube interviews were the most elaborate iteration of a six-year partnership between the Obama White House and Google to help engage Americans not usually found reading or watching the news after the State of the Union. In the past, Obama has sat for Google+ Hangouts, taken questions submitted through social media read to him by a Google employee, and other avenues.

“Again, I can hear some people screaming after reading this that I am advocating for ‘death panels.’”

View Video ›

From his Charlotte, North Carolina, speech on health care in 2009.

Via vimeo.com

Dr. Ben Carson advocated for government-run catastrophic health care as late as 2012.

Responding to a report from BuzzFeed News during a press conference at the Iowa Freedom Summit on Saturday, Carson said that a 1996 essay that ran in the Harvard Journal of Minority Public Health in which he proposed government-run nationalized catastrophic care and end-of-life national guidelines for who should and should not receive care, "bears about as much resemblance to my current views as our views on Afghanistan did 20 years ago."

Carson, however, advocated a nearly-identical proposal to reform health care in his 2012 book, America the Beautiful. Carson also outlined the same approach in his 2000 book, The Big Picture, and in a 2009 speech to the Hood Hargett Breakfast Club.

From Carson's 2012 book saying the government should take over the responsibility of catastrophic care and health insurance companies should be regulated like utilities:

One solution would be to remove from the insurance companies the responsibility for catastrophic health-care coverage, making it a government responsibility. I can hear someone shouting now that the government can never do anything correctly , but I beg to differ . It is because of a government program known as FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) that most of us are able to afford our homeowners insurance. If there were no FEMA, Allstate, State Farm , Nationwide, and all the other homeowner insurance companies would be telling us that they had to drastically increase premiums because there might be an earthquake, tornado, hurricane , tsunami , or other natural disaster that would otherwise drain their coffers. Homeowners' insurance would be so expensive that you would have to ask your employer to cover it. Clearly, if the health-care insurance companies did not have to cover catastrophic health care, it would be relatively easy by analyzing actuarial tables to determine how much money they are likely to be liable for each year, which of course would determine how much money they had to take in. With this information at our disposal , health insurance companies could be regulated just as utilities are regulated.

Likewise, Carson argues as he does in his 1996 essay that the government taking responsibility of catastrophic care would lead to a delicate discussion of end-of-life care and when treatment is necessary.

Since the government would now have the responsibility of paying for catastrophic health care, we as a society would be forced to examine the policies that have led to a situation in which 40 to 50 percent of all health -care dollars are spent during the last six months of a person's life. We put dying people in intensive care units while testing, poking, and prodding them until they render up their last breath. Unlike most other countries of the world, many of us do not seem to acknowledge that death is not optional. It is perfectly reasonable to send terminal patients to hospice , where compassionate and comfortable care can be rendered until death takes place. Much of the excessive care that currently occurs when a patient is terminal is given by health-care providers who fear lawsuits if they fail to provide that care. Others are simply procedure-oriented, recognizing that they will be paid whether the patient survives or not. Fortunately, these individuals are relatively rare in the medical profession. Again, I can hear some people screaming after reading this that I am advocating for "death panels." Some people like to put forth terms like this because they stir up emotional responses rather than encouraging people to engage in rational dialogue aimed at resolving issues . Obviously , as our population ages and as our medical technology becomes more sophisticated and expensive, the potential for bankrupting our society with medical costs skyrockets.

We are facing a time when we have to be pragmatic, while at the same time exercising compassion. One day, we will be able to keep the average person alive for 150 or even 200 years due to medical advances, and we will then be faced with the question, should we use our advanced knowledge in a way that will rapidly overpopulate the world? The emotional answer would be, yes, of course , we should use our knowledge to extend every life, and we can worry about the consequences later. A more rational response would include examining the effect on the entire population of such action and perhaps advocating a more measured course of action.

Carson's 2000 book The Big Picture also advocates the same approach, arguing the program would paid for with contributions from insurance companies' profits.

In a 2009 speech in Charlotte, North Carolina, Carson also proposed government becoming responsible for catastrophic health care.

"Some people say, 'well you can't let the government be responsible for anything.' Well that's not true," said Carson citing FEMA taking responsibility in the instances of natural disasters.

"Let the government responsible for catastrophic health care as defined by a certain dollar amount and all of a sudden you can control the insurance companies. Quite simply while they can still make a profit."

Carson currently proposes reforming health care though a program of giving a $2,000 stipend to each American to set up Health Savings Accounts.

Ilan Ben-Meir contributed reporting.

“You know, I’m a Jewish member of Congress, I’m a strong supporter of Israel, but my first obligation is to the Constitution of the United States, not to the Constitution of Israel.”

w.soundcloud.com

Rep. John Yarmuth says Republican House Speaker John Boehner inviting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to speak to the House of Representatives is "close to subversion."

Speaking with the Stephanie Miller Show on Friday, the Kentucky Democrat added some Congress members' strong support for Israel "had to do with fundraising."

"I am totally outraged at Speaker Boehner for doing it, I think it's, it was deliberately
designed to undermine the president — that's close to subversion," said Yarmuth of Netanyahu's upcoming address to Congress.

"I mean, the president is supposed to be conducting foreign policy, not the Speaker of the House."

Yarmuth then said a lot of the strong support for Israel has to with fundraising and pressure from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).

"And you know, a lot of it has to do with fundraising — I'm sure some of it is sincere support for Israel," Yarmuth said.

"You know, I'm a Jewish member of Congress, I'm a strong supporter of Israel, but my first obligation is to the Constitution of the United States, not to the Constitution of Israel. And unfortunately, I think, some of the demands that are made of members by AIPAC and some strong Jewish supporters are that we pay more attention — I guess we defer — to Israel more than we defer to the United States."

"And that's another thing, because if he's going to come over here and say 'well, my intelligence shows this' — you know, there's an implicit, I guess, admission — or not admission, I guess concession — that Israeli intelligence is superior to American intelligence. I'm not ready to sit there and endorse that kind of proposition, and I suspect he will, basically, talk about things like that — you know, try to match their assessment of the situation against ours. And I'm not willing to believe theirs is superior."

Yarmuth also said he found the reaction to Netanyahu's 2011 speech "inappropriate on so many levels."

"And, you know, I was there in the chamber in 2011, when Netanyahu spoke, and there he got I don't know how many standing ovations. And I was in Israel shortly thereafter, and believe me, the Israelis pay very, very close attention to events like that. And I just — the first thing out of virtually every Israeli's mouth was: 'What was with all the standing ovations?' And I said: 'Well, AIPAC was meeting in Washington that week, and the gallery was full of AIPAC members, and every one of the members all wanted to see — make sure that their constituents saw them stand up.' Well, that was kind of a phony reaction, but the Israelis took it very seriously. And so it can have an impact on the election — and, yeah — totally inappropriate on so many levels."

Senate Democrats sent a letter to the president telling him that they won’t support a vote on the Kirk-Menendez sanctions bill until March.

Yuri Gripas / Reuters

WASHINGTON — Two of the top Democratic supporters of a controversial Iran sanctions bill publicly backed off the legislation on Tuesday.

Sen. Robert Menendez, who is the co-author along with Republican Sen. Mark Kirk of a bill that would impose new sanctions on Iran immediately if current nuclear negotiations fail, said during a Senate Banking Committee hearing that he does not want the bill to come to the Senate floor for a vote until after a March 24 deadline in the negotiations.

Menendez confirmed that he along with other Senate Democrats who have supported the bill sent a letter to the administration Tuesday morning saying that they will not push for a vote on it before March 24.

"This morning, however, many of my Democratic colleagues and I sent a letter to the president telling him that we will not support passage of the Kirk-Menendez bill on the Senate floor until after March 24, and only if there is no political framework agreement," he said Tuesday, "because, as the letter states, we remain hopeful that diplomacy will succeed in reversing Iran's ability to develop a nuclear weapon capability in accordance with the timeline that the P5 +1 and Iran negotiating teams have set for themselves, which is March 24, 2015, for political framework agreement."

"But we also say in this letter that we remain deeply skeptical that Iran is committed to making the concessions required to demonstrate to the world that its nuclear program is exclusively peaceful by March 24," Menendez said.

Sen. Chuck Schumer, the number three Democrat in the Democratic caucus, also said he does not want a vote on the bill before March, though he said he still supports it. Schumer's office said last week that he intends to co-sponsor the bill.

"The president has said that he needs a little more time," Schumer said. "I, along with a group of my colleagues...are releasing a letter that states we will not vote for the bill on the floor of the Senate till then."

Schumer said he still intends to vote for the bill when it comes up in committee on Thursday.

"Barring significant changes to the bill, I intend to vote for Kirk-Menendez in the committee on Thursday so a bill can be ready to go" if a preliminary agreement is not reached by March 24. The final deadline for a completed deal is June 30.

Even Senate Democrats who co-sponsored the bill last year have been hesitating on it this year. he bill never came to a vote last year because Democratic leadership prevented it at the behest of the White House; this year, however, the new Republican leadership has promised to put it to a vote, which would force Democrats into a direct confrontation with the White House. The Obama administration staunchly opposes it and President Obama has threatened to veto the bill. Without enough Democrats, the Republicans would not be able to cobble together a veto-proof majority.

“If they want to come here and they want to set up their own culture and values that’s not immigration, that’s really invasion if you’re honest about it.”

w.soundcloud.com

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, a potential Republican candidate for president, warned in an interview Monday on the Family Research Council's Washington Watch radio program of the possibility of so-called Muslim "no go zones" coming to America, focusing later on what he called a possible sharia "colonization" and "invasion" of America.

"If we're not careful the same no-go zones you're seeing now in Europe will come to America," said Jindal singling out those in "academic" and "media elite" who he said "don't want to proclaim American exceptionalism."

Jindal has been critical over the past several weeks of what he has said are "no-go zones" in Europe, which are areas under the control of Islamic sharia law.

"They want to use our freedoms to undermine that freedom in the first place," Jindal added. "This is a place where you have freedom of self-determination, freedom of religious liberty, freedom of speech. This is an amazing place and we're a majority Christian country. We're a Judeo-Christian heritage, but we don't discriminate against those that have no beliefs and or have different beliefs"

Jindal called sharia law "a very serious particular" threat, and pointed to examples of what he says are the existence of sharia law in parts of Europe and a lack of assimilation in European immigrants.

"But what is not acceptable and what you've seen in Europe and this is a very serious particular threat, you've got those that do want to try to impose a form of sharia law. And sharia law is antithetical, mutually exclusive of freedom, in treating women as first-class citizens, it is antithetical to the values we hold dear. And you see, third, forth generation immigrants in the U.K., France, in other places in Europe that don't consider themselves part of those societies and that's very dangerous."

"One of the great things about America is it doesn't matter if you were here in the first five minutes or a hundred years. We have folks who come here, want to be Americans, they join our military, they start companies, they work to create a better community. And that's wonderful."

Jindal said it was unacceptable to have people who come and try to "conquer us," calling it "colonization" and "an invasion" that could lead to more "lone wolf" terror attacks.

"But what's not acceptable is people that want to come and conquer us. That's not immigration, by the way, that's colonization. If someone wants to come here and change our fundamental culture and our values. If they want to come here and they want to set up their own culture and values that's not immigration, that's really invasion if you're honest about it. Of course, the politically correct crowd when you say things like they'll call you racist but this is a particular threat we face. And if we're not serious about this we're going to see more lone wolf actors. We're gonna see more folks come into our country just like you've seen in other countries -- the horrific shootings in Paris."

“Our ethic is that we don’t leave soldiers behind in the hands of our opponents. We get them back,” Sen. Jack Reed told BuzzFeed News.

AP Photo/http://U.S. Army, File

WASHINGTON — Reports that Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl will be charged for desertion are doing little to change lawmakers' minds on whether the prisoner swap that secured his freedom was worth it in the first place.

The report, which surfaced Tuesday, said Bergdahl will be charged in relation to an incident back in 2009 where he allegedly left his post during combat.

The Army has denied all reports that a decision to charge Bergdahl has already been made.

Bergdahl was brought back to the U.S. after five years in captivity in exchange for five Taliban members that had been in Guantanamo Bay for more than a decade.

Republicans blasted the White House for not consulting Congress before executing the swap, while Democrats defended the decision saying Bergdahl's life was in danger and the administration had no time to go through the legislature.

Sen. Jack Reed, the ranking member on the Armed Services committee, supported the administration's move when it was announced last year and said he continues to do so.

"Our ethic is that we don't leave soldiers behind in the hands of our opponents. We get them back," Reed told BuzzFeed News. "I don't think it's inconsistent that we get our soldier from captivity back home, but then look at his record and what he did and under [Uniform Code of Military Justice] charge him. Now he has to be tried and it will be the decision of the court-martial."

Sen. Lindsey Graham, who also serves on the Armed Services Committee and has been critical of the swap in the past, said whether Bergdahl served "honorably or not," the trade should not have been done in the way it was.

"You join the military and fall in enemy hands, I want to get you back…The merits of the situation in terms of Bergdahl's desertion don't destroy that dynamic," Graham, told reporters. "The five I thought created more of a national security threat that did not justify a swap."

"If he is charged, it's imperative that the presumption of innocence stay attached. That he be vigorously defended and the government prove its case," Graham added.

Sen. Jerry Moran, a Republican from Kansas who has questioned the legality of the prisoner swap, said he wasn't sure what charging Bergdahl would mean for his view of the trade.

"I'm glad the guy is free, but I was never satisfied with the way the transfer, the swap was handled," Moran said. "I don't know the answer to the question was it worth it or not."

Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore says the federal court marriage ruling does not permit same-sex couples to be married in the state. “[T]he issuance of such licenses would be in defiance of the laws and Constitution of Alabama,” he says.

Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore poses for a photo in his Montgomery, Ala., office.

AP Dave Martin

WASHINGTON — Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore lashed out Tuesday at federal courts that "have imposed by judicial fiat same-sex marriage in 21 states of the Union," arguing that he will continue to follow his state's amendment barring such marriages in spite of a federal trial court ruling to the contrary.

In a letter to Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley, Moore details what he calls "legitimate concerns" about whether the federal courts have the authority to consider the constitutionality of Alabama's marriage laws — asking the governor not to enforce the ruling.

Citing the Bible and an 1825 letter from Thomas Jefferson, Moore declares, "Our State Constitution and our morality are under attack by a federal court decision that has no basis in the Constitution of the United States."

Moore's letter came on the same day the federal judge in question, U.S. District Court Judge Callie Granade, issued a second ruling on the issue. Although the first case involved a plaintiff same-sex couple who had married in California and sought only to have their marriage recognized in Alabama — leading to questions about whether Granade's order could cover marriage licenses — Tuesday's ruling involved a same-sex couple who "seek to marry in Alabama."

The second ruling, however, is unlikely to address Moore's complaints.

Saying he was "encouraged" by the Alabama Probate Judges Association, which advised against issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, Moore said he was "dismayed" by state judges who said they would go ahead and grant licenses. Specifically, he said that "the issuance of such licenses would be in defiance of the laws and Constitution of Alabama" because district court rulings "are not controlling authority in [the Alabama Supreme] Court." As such, Moore wrote, "I will continue to recognize the Alabama Constitution and the will of the people overwhelmingly expressed in the Sanctity of Marriage Amendment."

Moore — who gained national prominence in 2003 when he refused to remove a monument of the Ten Commandments from the courtroom and was removed from office — goes on to ask Alabama Gov. Bentley to keep enforcing the marriage amendment, noting "I stand with you to stop judicial tyranny and any unlawful opinions issued without constitutional authority."

Granade's two rulings currently are on hold until Feb. 9, pending the state's appeal for a stay from the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Read the letter, first reported at AL.com:

Via documents.buzzfeed.com