Quantcast
Channel: BuzzFeed News
Viewing all 15742 articles
Browse latest View live

Obama Used Someone Else's iPhone To Tweet His First Presidential Account Tweet

0
0

President Obama still carries his secure BlackBerry. On the day of the first tweet from @POTUS, the White House won’t say if that device is Twitter capable.

The first tweet from the new account @POTUS was posted by the president on an iPhone Monday:

The first tweet from the new account @POTUS was posted by the president on an iPhone Monday:

A White House official told BuzzFeed News Obama's first tweet from the brand-new presidential Twitter account was sent using an iPhone registered to the Executive Office of the President — the government name for the sprawling presidential staff — but was not a device Obama regularly uses.

Obama is still outfitted with his super-secure government BlackBerry. The White House said it would not get into specifics about the device, including whether or not it's capable of posting tweets. In an appearance on Jimmy Kimmel Live in March, Obama revealed his BlackBerry is far more locked down than consumer smart phones.

"I can't use phones with recorders in them," Obama told Kimmel. "So a lot of the newfangled stuff, for security reasons, I don't get."

Obama has posted to Twitter regularly during his campaigns for the White House and while serving as president. Up until Monday, presidential tweets from the president were posted to the @WhiteHouse account and signed with a "-bo."

The new @POTUS account, like @WhiteHouse, belongs to the government, not to Obama. The next president will take it over in 2017, according to Alex Wall, the White House Director of Online Engagement. In a White House blog post Monday, Wall announced the @POTUS account and explained that it "will serve as a new way for President Obama to engage directly with the American people, with tweets coming exclusively from him."

Obama won't use Twitter exactly like a regular user, however. A White House official told BuzzFeed News that while the president will continue to add follows and post tweets, he will not engage in direct messaging.


An Investigation: Where Did This Rand Paul Story Actually Take Place?

0
0

“So I’m down here and I’m in line for barbecue…” “Sen. Paul’s BBQ story is clearly a joke…something that everyone other than BuzzFeed reporters seem to understand,” a Paul spokeswoman said.

Scott Olson / Getty Images

Speaking in Texas in 2014, Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul relayed an incident that he said occurred at a barbecue in the Lone Star state.

"The one thing Texas has that's hard for the rest of the country to compete with is barbecue. So I'm down here and I'm in line for barbecue and the guy in front of me has got two big plates of barbecue. And I'm like, 'You're not going to live very long eating like that.' And he looked at me and he said, 'Well my granddad lived to be 105.' And I said, 'Well your granddad didn't live to be 105 eating like that.' And he said, 'No, my granddad lived to be 105 by minding his own business.'"

View Video ›

buzzfeed-video1.s3.amazonaws.com


View Entire List ›

Listen To A 25-Year-Old Marco Rubio Discuss Getting Out The Vote In A 1996 Radio Interview

0
0

“It’s important to get people excited about the political process and understand the importance of their vote, and understand the importance of elections. And so things such a street rallies and caravans play in to that.”

In 1996, a young Marco Rubio was recruited to work on Bob Dole's campaign by future congressman and friend David Rivera.

In 1996, a young Marco Rubio was recruited to work on Bob Dole's campaign by future congressman and friend David Rivera.

Tampa Bay Times via Marco Rubio Campaign

Rubio appeared on National Public Radio's Morning Edition in early November of that year where he discussed getting young people excited about voting:

w.soundcloud.com

"It's important to get people excited about the political process and understand the importance of their vote, and understand the importance of elections," the young Rubio said.

"And so things such a street rallies and caravans play in to that. They get people excited and they can feel part of something, and maybe someone who wasn't going to vote, who hasn't any interest or paying attention because they were watching the World Series or something on television, goes out on Monday morning and sees a caravan or street rally and is reminded of the importance of voting, gets excited about our candidate and decides, 'I'm going to take a couple of minutes out of my day and go vote tomorrow.'"

"I put in long hours, though, arriving at the office early every morning and often staying until midnight or later. Most days involved mundane but important tasks: setting up phone banks, organizing sign wavings, addressing whatever small problems walked in the door on a given day. Sometimes, I represented the campaign at public events."


View Entire List ›

Rand Paul Cites Questionable Benghazi Reporting In Forthcoming Book

0
0

Paul devotes a whole chapter to the September 2012 attack on the U.S. mission in Libya.

Reed Saxon / AP

Republican presidential candidate Rand Paul cites information that has been disputed or found to be baseless by the House Select Intelligence Committee about the 2012 Benghazi attack in his new book Making a Stand: Moving Beyond Partisan Politics to Unite America.

In a chapter titled "Libya: A Jihadist Wonderland," Paul writes at length about the attack on the Benghazi compound and the ensuing political debate over who is responsible for the tragic events.

"A story in Forbes magazine said that President Obama, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, and other high-ranking officials watched a live video feed of the attack from a drone that hovered overhead, and did nothing," Paul writes. "The White House denied that gathering ever happened."

The Forbes piece Paul cites, written by opinion contributor Larry Bell, includes the same claim.

"Just one hour after the seven-hour-long terrorist attacks upon the U.S. consulate in Benghazi began, our commander-in-chief, vice president, secretary of defense and their national security team gathered together in the Oval Office listening to phone calls from American defenders desperately under siege and watching real-time video of developments from a drone circling over the site," Bell writes. "Yet they sent no military aid that might have intervened in time to save lives."

Reporting from CBS News cited by Bell states only that a real-time audio feed of the attack was monitored by a diplomatic security official in Washington at the time. While the attack was captured on security cameras at the compound, the footage was only recovered 20 days later.

The Daily Beast reported that there was also footage of the attacks taken by a U.S. surveillance drone, but there is no reporting to suggest that it broadcast live.

Paul also writes, "Another report stated that the embassy made three urgent requests for military back up during those hours and were denied. The administration refuted that report also."

That statement was also featured in an article by Bell another piece by Bell, in which he cites reporting by Fox News that two Navy Seals "were ordered to stand down three times following calls during the attack."

The report on the Benghazi attack released by the Republican-led House Select Intelligence Committee later found that there was no evidence "that there was either a stand down order or a denial of available air support."

Paul cites an article by Seymour Hersh in the London Review of Books, in which he reported that the CIA annex also attacked that night was part of an operation to ship guns through Turkey into Syria to assist in arming the Syrian rebels.

"It's hard to imagine, should there be any legitimacy to the reports, that the Secretary of State would be kept out of such a loop," Paul writes. "If the gunrunning operation in Benghazi existed, then Mrs. Clinton and the very upper reaches of our government had to be aware and perhaps even complicit."

The House Select Intelligence report on the attack "found no evidence that the CIA conducted unauthorized activities in Benghazi and no evidence that the IC [Intelligence Community] shipped arms to Syria."

An aide to Paul's presidential campaign said the senator noted the two allegations from Bell's Forbes articles in an attempt to lay out the narrative following the event.

In addition, the aide noted that reports on documents released on Monday by the conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch provide support for Hersh's gunrunning story ahead of the attack.

Conservative Criminal Justice Advocates Embrace Obama's Police Militarization Move

0
0

Rand Paul and Cato are warily optimistic about Obama’s plan to change how programs that disperse military hardware to local cops work.

Mark Makela / Getty Images

WASHINGTON — Conservative-leaning criminal justice advocates cautiously praised President Obama's reforms to federal programs that funnel millions in military equipment to local law enforcement Monday, while progressive leaning advocates called the changes surprisingly robust.

"I see no reason why a 20-ton mine resistant vehicle should ever roll down any city in our country. The president can change some of this through executive order and I commend him for doing so," Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul said in response to a question from BuzzFeed News at a press conference following a campaign event in Philadelphia. The libertarian-leaning Republican and 2016 presidential candidate was the most vocal politician to speak out against so-called police militarization in the wake of the Ferguson, Missouri, unrest in 2014.

Paul noted his own anti-militarization legislation and said he hadn't been briefed on the full details of Obama's plans. But he said "I hope we've removed bayonets from the list of what we are handing out."

Bayonets were among the list of equipment banned from the federal programs by the Obama administration, along with grenade launchers, vehicles with tank-like tracks, large-caliber weapons and several other items. The changes bring an end to parts of the militarization programs that have rankled opponents the most. Most don't object to local law enforcement getting free communications equipment, uniforms ,and other non-lethal gear used from the military or new from military contractors with federal government grants. The bayonet was a sort of mascot for opponents of the programs who say they outfit local cops like they're an invading army readying for lethal combat.

But Obama's changes to the programs go beyond the top-line concerns and make changes to the way militarization programs work that were deep on the opponents' wish lists. One change, which ends the policy that allowed local police chiefs to request free surplus military equipment without getting a sign off from their elected governmental leaders, brings a new level of bottom-up scrutiny to police militarization programs recommended by advocates, particularly conservative-leaning ones. Those advocates have suggested for years that local elected leaders take a bigger role in police equipment procurement.

The new federal rules make that role a requirement.

"One welcome aspect of the proposals is the inclusion of approval from local civilian government," Trevor Burrus, a fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute, told BuzzFeed News in an email. "The citizens of towns, counties, and municipalities should have a say in whether their police are geared up like soldiers."

Burrus said the changes overall were "a welcome change," but called on the federal government to take back equipment doled out under the old rules that now would not qualify for distribution.

"It is unclear whether the executive order would apply to military gear already in the hands of police," Burrus added. "Since $4 billion in military gear is already possessed by local law enforcement agencies, meaningful reforms need to look not just to future restrictions and oversight, but at the misuse of equipment already in the hands of police."

The militarization debate is just one end of the larger criminal justice advocacy movement that has united liberals with the libertarian-leaning and evangelical right. On Monday, as details of the White House plan emerged, police leaders pushed back on it, saying the new limits would make their job more dangerous. But there wasn't much political early backlash to an issue that has increasingly blurred party lines.

Progressive-leaning demilitarization advocates said the changes to the military equipment programs could have a big impact on community-police relations.

"There's certainly some progress being made, and certainly some progress since Ferguson. Almost a year later, we're seeing some action on the part of the administration to really hold law enforcement accountable and to really address the violence at the hands of the police that's going on, especially since Ferguson," Kanya Bennett, legislative counsel at the ACLU, told BuzzFeed News. "That said, how this is implemented, how this plays out at the state and local level is ultimately what we all will be waiting to see."

Kate Nocera contributed reporting.

Democratic House Freshman Aims To Ban LGBT Conversion Therapy As "Fraud"

0
0

After a handful of states banned the practice for minors, Rep. Ted Lieu — who wrote California’s ban — will introduce a nationwide proposal Tuesday not limited to those under 18. A BuzzFeed News exclusive.

Rep. Ted Lieu, in the California Senate in 2014.

Rich Pedroncelli / AP

WASHINGTON — On Tuesday morning, Democratic Rep. Ted Lieu of California will introduce a federal bill to ban commercial efforts to change people's sexual orientation or gender identity — often called conversion therapy.

"The public views conversion therapy as quackery, as something that harms people," Lieu told BuzzFeed News on Monday afternoon, just after landing back in D.C. from California. "Eventually, I believe Congress will catch up to that, but you do need to start somewhere, so that's why we're introducing this legislation."

He faces an uphill battle: The legislation, which would label conversion therapy an "unfair or deceptive act or practice" that would be illegal under the Federal Trade Commission Act, is being introduced with less than three dozen co-sponsors — all of whom are Democrats.

Lieu does, however, have a powerful ally in his effort. Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi has signed on as an original co-sponsor of the bill.

"Conversion therapy is abusive, destructive, discredited, and has no place in any medical practice," Pelosi said in a statement. "This legislation will stop conversion therapy peddlers from committing these fraudulent and hateful acts against LGBT children and adults. Being LGBT is not an error to be corrected."

While in the California Senate, Lieu was behind a similar effort and, in 2012, California became the first state in the country to ban the practice for use on minors. Since then, with legislation largely modeled after California's law, New Jersey, Oregon, and D.C. have passed similar bans. Just last month, President Obama backed such bans.

But now, Lieu — who only entered Congress in January after his election last fall — is attempting to go further, with a national bill that has a broader scope and would not be limited to those under 18.

"The bill is … broader, obviously, because it's nationwide," he said. "But, what this bill seeks to do is to reaffirm what medical science has already stated formally: Being gay or lesbian or transgender is not a mental disease, illness, or defect that needs any sort of cure."

He aims to do so on a federal level by applying the existing laws addressing "unfair or deceptive act[s] or practice[s]" to conversion therapy. The bill would make illegal any commercial conversion therapy and any advertising for conversion therapy under certain conditions. The Federal Trade Commission would enforce the provision the same as it does other prohibited practices.

"This bill uses the FTC," he said. "There's nothing unusual about government going out and trying to protect consumers against fraud. It happens all over the place." When asked whether the FTC had ever been used to address the provision of mental health services, however, he acknowledged, "[W]e'd have to go do some research on that. I don't know that exact answer."

As Lieu noted, the Food and Drug Administration regulates extensive aspects of medical practice. As an advocate noted, Congress also has taken steps — outside of the FTC — to address mental health services, including 2008's Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act.

Lieu, however, pressed his case Monday afternoon for why it made sense to look to the FTC to address conversion therapy.

"There is no medical condition known as 'being gay or lesbian.' That is not a medical disease, defect, and for people to charge money to treat you for something that's not an illness is fraud," Lieu said. "There already is an established baseline that you cannot practice medicine below a reasonable standard of care, and when you purport to treat someone for a condition they don't have, that would be medical malpractice."

Referencing an ongoing lawsuit that the Southern Poverty Law Center filed in New Jersey, Lieu noted that the case is proceeding "exactly along those lines, against a group of mental health professionals doing conversion therapy — because it is medical malpractice." In addition to SPLC, Lieu has been working with the Human Rights Campaign and National Center for Lesbian Rights on the legislation.

He also noted that the new legislation is inclusive of transgender people, citing a case of a transgender woman who committed suicide related to conversion issues. "I believe it's important to expand the bill [from the California law] to cover the entire LGBT community, including the transgender community," he said.

When asked about the fact that the bill is not limited only to minors, Lieu said that the approach of the issue as one of fraud made it a different issue, in some ways. "[F]raud is fraud, whether you practice it on a 16-year-old or a 45-year-old," he said.

He added, though, that he would have supported a ban on conversion therapy for all ages in his original California legislation as well. "I would have loved to have not limited it to minors; I just couldn't get it through," he said, noting that there were issues with "stakeholders" that led to the limitation.

"So, this is always what I wanted to do," Lieu said, "and I'm very pleased to be able to introduce a bill that calls this therapy what it is, which is, it's fraud."

Bobby Jindal Makes Religious Freedom Pitch In New Iowa Ad

0
0

The Republican Party’s most vocal defender of the Duck Dynasty family looks to build his presidential campaign around religious liberty.

youtube.com

With a new political ad airing this week in Iowa, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal is informally kicking off his bid for the Republican presidential nomination by casting himself as the conservative movement's leading voice in the culture war battle over religious freedom.

The ad, which was previewed for some news outlets including BuzzFeed News, features Jindal rhapsodizing — in his signature rapid-fire twang — about the sacred need to protect religious believers' "freedom of conscience," which he argues "must, in no way, ever be linked to the ever-changing opinions of the public." It concludes with a line that has become a mainstay of his recent speeches and interviews: "The United States of America did not create religious liberty. Religious liberty created the United States of America."

In keeping with what is bound to be a relatively low-budget, scrappy campaign operation at the outset, Jindal's ad doesn't have much money behind it. According to an operative at The American Future Project — the pro-Jindal advocacy group launching the ad — the commercial is debuting in Iowa with a "five-figure ad buy," meaning the organization spent somewhere between $10,000 and $99,000 to get it on the air. It will appear on cable and online and it will run for one week, according to the group.

But the ad's focus highlights a key plank in the Jindal camp's strategy to propel the conservative governor — currently polling in the low single digits — to the top tier of the Republican field. If Jindal can "own" the issue of religious freedom, his aides say, they believe he can build enough grassroots momentum among conservative Christians to break out in Iowa's first-in-the-nation caucuses next year.

"The issue is very topical right now and I suspect it will be for quite some time," said one senior Jindal adviser, adding, "I think he understands this issue far beyond just the standard talking points."

Jindal has been out front in the religious freedom debate ever since December 2013, when Phil Robertson, the bearded family patriarch in A&E's hit reality show Duck Dynasty, came under fire for the crude quotes he gave to GQ about homosexuality. After the cable network, facing boycott threats, announced it was suspending Robertson, Jindal rushed to his defense. Though often a punchline in secular political and media circles, Duck Dynasty — with its overt emphasis on Christian faith and family values — is hugely popular among religious conservatives in middle America. It also happens to be filmed in Jindal's home state of Louisiana.

Jindal became the first politician to publicly back up Robertson, quickly releasing a statement that read, in part, "The politically correct crowd is tolerant of all viewpoints, except those they disagree with.... It is a messed up situation when Miley Cyrus gets a laugh, and Phil Robertson gets suspended."

Since becoming the face of the Robertsons' conservative booster club, Jindal has set about expanding his religious freedom argument, speaking out forcefully in numerous public settings against legal compulsion for religious bakers and wedding photographers to participate in same-sex ceremonies, and condemning liberals who he says are trying to bully conservative people of faith like the Robertsons into submission or silence.

Jindal's argument hasn't always gotten through to the political class, where he is often viewed as a third-tier 2016 prospect prone to pandering. Last month, in a New York Times op-ed, he framed the debate over controversial religious freedom laws like the one in Indiana as a battle between conservatives and an unholy alliance of social progressives and big business. It was a uniquely populist pitch — aimed not just at social conservatives, but also blue-collar workers and middle-class Republicans who have little respect for the billionaires in their party's business wing — but the point was largely lost to the news media, thanks in part to the Times' headline: "Bobby Jindal: I'm Holding Firm Against Gay Marriage."

But Jindal's team believes his argument will resonate with the conservative grassroots — even as he competes for their votes with rivals like Sen. Ted Cruz and former Gov. Mike Huckabee. Jindal's advisers point to a speech he gave early last year at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library, in which he warned that Americans were mired in a "silent war" that would grow more intense as "the Obama regime" sought to transform the country into "a land where faith is silenced, privatized, and circumscribed."

Jindal's campaign is likely to be built on similarly provocative rhetoric. When The American Future Project sent its ad to reporters, it was accompanied by a quote from the group's spokesman Henry Goodwin, who said of the governor's speech, "Now, that prophesy has become reality."

Republican Senator To Deliver Impassioned Remarks On Body Cameras For Officers

0
0

Sen. Tim Scott, the junior senator from South Carolina, will deliver remarks on why body-worn cameras help move the conversation on better policing forward, according to remarks made available to BuzzFeed News.

JIM WATSON / Getty Images

WASHINGTON — South Carolina Sen. Tim Scott will make a plea Tuesday for investment in police body cameras in a committee hearing on Capitol Hill.

Scott, one of the two black U.S. senators, hails from the South Carolina area where a man was shot in the back by a police officer after a routine traffic stop and captured on a bystander's phone.

"I believe that if a picture is worth a thousand words, then a video is worth a thousand pictures," Scott will say to his colleagues, according to remarks made available to BuzzFeed News.

"The past year has shown, in no uncertain terms, that there are problem spots across this country in interactions between law enforcement and minority and low-income communities. It is well past time for a national conversation about this and the policies affecting people that are growing up and living in communities like I did as a poor kid with a single mom in North Charleston, South Carolina."

Last month, Scott petitioned Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley and Sen. Lindsey Graham, his colleague from South Carolina, to hold a hearing on the subject of body cameras, which have become a popular proposal after a series of instances of violence carried out by police officers, sometimes on video, over the last year.

"Whether we are talking about Ferguson or Baltimore, Ohio or New York City, Tulsa Oklahoma or North Charleston, South Carolina, working together to find meaningful, long-term solutions is absolutely critical. I have been working on many of these through my Opportunity Agenda, and will continue to do so, quite frankly, for the rest of my life — be it improving educational opportunity or emphasizing programs like apprenticeships to ensure the skills of the workforce match the needs of employers."

Scott's testimony will be the first panel of the afternoon. The second will feature Jarrod M. Bruder, the executive director of the South Carolina Sheriff's Association; Wade Henderson, President & CEO of The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights; Lindsay Miller, senior research associate with the Police Executive Research Forum; and Peter Weir, District Attorney, First Judicial District, State of Colorado.

Scott will argue that body-worn cameras are one piece of the puzzle to help foster stronger relationships with between police and communities.

"I say one piece, because I think we can all acknowledge there is no single solution, but rather many critical steps we must take to tackle poverty, criminal justice reform and instances of police brutality," he will say according to prepared remarks.

"I am not proposing that we federalize local policing, or mandate the use of body-worn cameras, but rather that we find the best way possible to make technologies available to local departments looking for ways to keep both their officers and the public they serve safer. As states and localities around the country implement body-worn camera programs, we should consider ways in which the federal government may add to the conversation."


Congressman: I Felt Safer In Israel Than I Would In "Certain Parts Of New York City Or Chicago" Or Baltimore

0
0

“The whole time we were there, of course, we had security with us, but there was no restrictions on travel, we never felt threatened one bit — unless you’re threatened by the merchants in the Old City trying to get you to come in their shops.”

Via Facebook: RepLoudermilk

Rep. Barry Loudermilk, a Republican from Georgia, says he felt safer during a recent trip to Israel than he would "in certain parts of New York City or Chicago."

Loudermilk was speaking about a recent trip overseas to discuss the security situation in the Middle East with foreign leaders.

"The whole time we were there, of course, we had security with us, but there was no restrictions on travel, we never felt threatened one bit — unless you're threatened by the merchants in the Old City trying to get you to come in their shops," Loudermilk told Washington Watch, the radio show of the conservative Family Research Council.

"In fact, I can say that we felt safer in Israel than we would in certain parts of New York City or Chicago," Loudermilk said.

"Yeah — or Baltimore, I would think, as well," interjected host Tony Perkins.

"Exactly," replied Loudermilk laughing.

The trip was Loudermilk's first overseas CODEL as a member of Congress and lasted 11 days.

Here's the audio:

w.soundcloud.com

Senate Homeland Security Chairman: Ayatollah Could Be More Trustworthy Than Obama On Iran Deal

0
0

“I don’t know, I hate to admit it, but in terms of this framework, do I trust President Obama, or do I trust the Ayatollah? In terms of what the framework actually says? I’m not so sure I’m trusting President Obama on this.”

Mark Wilson / Getty Images

Sen. Ron Johnson, the Homeland Security Committee chairman, says when it comes to a nuclear deal with Iran, he's "not so sure" he trusts President Obama over the Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

"Now, a President who was awarded the 2013 Politifact Lie of the Year, if you like your healthcare plan you can keep it, period. If you like your doctor you can keep it, period. They lied boldfaced to the American public repeatedly with Obamacare," the Wisconsin senator said at a recent town hall in Cerdarburg, Wisconsin.

"I don't know, I hate to admit it, but in terms of this framework, do I trust President Obama, or do I trust the Ayatollah? In terms of what the framework actually says? I'm not so sure I'm trusting President Obama on this."

Back in April, Iran and six world powers reached parameters for a framework for a final deal on the country's nuclear program, but differences quickly emerged in each side's interpretation of the parameters. The disagreements ranged from the level of access inspectors will get in Iran to how quickly sanctions will be relieved.

"Discrepancies--Secretary Kerry, President Obama saying, 'oh we can inspect anywhere. This is totally verifiable. Totally be able to hold them accountable,'" said Johnson earlier at the event. "And the Ayatollah goes, 'Well, yeah you can inspect just not on military bases.' Now if you're going to have a nuclear weapon program I don't know, I think I put it on a military base, and we can't even get in there and inspect."

"10,000 kilograms of uranium, President Obama says, 'well that's going to get shipped out.' The Ayatollah goes, 'no it's not,'" he added. "'Sanctions. We're not going to lift those until they adhere to the terms of the agreement.' The Ayatollah goes, 'no those get lifted immediately.'"

Here's the video of Johnson's remarks:

youtube.com

Mike Huckabee On Free Trade: From Evangelist To Populist Critic

0
0

Huckabee said this year that workers would “take it in the backside” under President Obama’s trade deal. As governor of Arkansas, he went to Japan and Mexico to foster trade ties and wrote columns touting the benefits of free trade.

Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee in Little Rock, Ark. Tuesday, Nov. 14, 2006.

Brian Chilson / AP

"We don't create good jobs for Americans by entering into unbalanced trade deals that forego Congressional scrutiny and looking the other way as the law is ignored so we can import low wage labor, undercut American workers, and drive wages lower than the Dead Sea," he said.

Though the exact terms of the deal, called the Trans-Pacific Partnership, are still being negotiated, it is expected to reduce tariffs on a variety of goods and includes countries from Mexico to Japan.

Huckabee writes on his campaign website that he supports "free, fair trade" but says he is sick of "America's workers getting punched in the gut."

Speaking to reporters earlier this month, Huckabee said American workers would suffer from a bad trade deal.

"When there's a cronies involved in getting a special deal, and when other countries are cheating, and Americans lose jobs, I'd like to think the U.S. government would stand up to the U.S. worker rather than let them take it in the backside and somehow just have to tough it out," Huckabee said.

"Percentagewise, Arkansas has the fastest-growing Hispanic population in the country. Arkansas industries, especially our burgeoning poultry industry, have offered jobs that often are filled by immigrants from Mexico. The rapid growth of our state's Hispanic population has led to complex social issues. Heavy migration can increase the demand for state services. But most of those who've moved to the state in recent years are hard-working people with strong family ties. They've made a contribution to our economy and revitalized parts of numerous Arkansas towns that previously were dying. I was reminded again during the trip to Mexico of how proud I am of the way the majority of Arkansans have received these Hispanic immigrants. We respect hard work in Arkansas. We respect those who want to provide a better life for their children and grandchildren. For decades, we treated our state's African-American population poorly. The Hispanic influx gives us a second chance to prove what kind of people we really are.

"I looked into the eyes of rural Mexican children, and my heart was moved. These children often don't have enough to eat, don't have good clothes and don't have a dry place to sleep at night. They have little chance of ever breaking out of the cycle of poverty. I was humbled at the thought of how much Americans have. And I was reminded we can give something back by offering a helping hand to those who follow the American dream along Interstate 30 and Interstate 40 into Arkansas. I also was reminded of the global impact our small state and the companies based here have had."


View Entire List ›

Scott Walker On Israeli-Palestinian Relations: "Long Way Off" From Two-State Solution

0
0

“They need defensible and secure borders and they’re a long way off from having that happen,” Walker said of Israel Tuesday.

w.soundcloud.com

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker says the Middle East isn't ready for a two-state solution just yet. Walker said a Palestinian state is a "long way off" because Israel does not yet have "defensible and secure borders."

"We were looking there and you could see in a helicopter up in the air you could see how close the threats were from Hezbollah, the Islamic State, down to the problems in Gaza," Walker told Sean Hannity on his radio program on Tuesday.

The Wisconsin governor, who is expected to launch a campaign for president in the coming months, said that current threats to Israel are why it's "certainly not the time" for a two-state solution.

"You could just see why they are so concerned. And when people bring up a two-state solution and I've said as well after being there certainly it's not the time for that now. They need defensible and secure borders and they're a long way off from having that happen."

Walker was recounting a helicopter ride he took on his "way back to Jerusalem" where he saw the close threats.

"At one point we were on our way back to Jerusalem, we were hovering, they went high up in the helicopter and I could see in east the Dead Sea Basin and to the West I could see the Mediterranean — actually, it was kind of cool they pointed down where we were hovering we were literally over the place they believe that David slayed Goliath. I mean, think about how amazing that is."

LINK: Scott Walker And The Israel Primary

In Iowa, Hillary Clinton Takes A Question About Her Questions

0
0

And makes little news on policy or politics. “WHAT MAKES YOU SO SPECIAL?”

Jim Young / Reuters

CEDAR FALLS, Iowa — At a bicycle shop here in northeast Iowa, Hillary Clinton was taking questions from the audience — a handful of local officials who'd come to watch her roundtable discussion with small business owners — when a voice rang out from the other side of the room.

"Secretary Clinton, will you take questions from the media as well?" said one of the few dozen reporters crowding the rope line at Bike Tech on Tuesday morning.

Clinton is now one month into the presidential race. Since her campaign announcement, a number of negative stories have followed Clinton to Iowa and New Hampshire and Nevada: There's the use of her personal email at the State Department, the foreign contributions to the Clinton Foundation, and the new book, Clinton Cash, which investigates whether those donations, and domestic ones, were used as tools of influence.

From these varied matters, one common question has emerged for the media covering her campaign: How many questions, about these questions, has Clinton answered since her launch — and when will she take more? (Last week, one news outlet published a story saying she had taken nine. Another counted 13.)

On Tuesday in Cedar Falls, the press got seven more.

The reporter who yelled his question to Clinton, appearing to startle some in the audience, also remarked on the candidate's recent silence.

"We haven't heard from you in a month," he told her, setting off a somewhat strained exchange, which the crowd of press and attendees observed in silence.

"Maybe when I finish talking to the people," Clinton said.

"Thank you."

"How's that?" she asked.

"Thank you," he replied. "Will you come over?"

Clinton paused. "I might."

"Thank you."

"I'll ponder it," she said, prompting some laughter.

"I appreciate that."


"I'll put it on my list."

After another question from the audience, Clinton took pictures with the participants at the roundtable event — where she vowed to serve as the "small business president," eliminate "red tape," and ease regulations on community banks.

Then she came over to the reporters.

The shouting happened all at once.

One voice, booming above the rest, could be heard asking multiple times, "WHAT MAKES YOU SO SPECIAL?"

When the din quieted, Clinton took her seven questions.

First, the foreign donations:

I am so proud of the foundation. I'm proud of the work that it has done and keeps doing. It attracted donations from people, organizations, from around the world, and I think that goes to show that people are very supportive of the life-saving and life-changing work it's done here, at home, and elsewhere.

Her vote as senator for the war in Iraq:

I've made it very clear that I've made a mistake, plain and simple … what we now see is a very different and very dangerous situation. The United States is doing what it can but ultimately this has to be a struggle that the Iraqi government and the Iraqi people have to win for themselves — and we can provide support, but they're gonna have to do it.

Her personal wealth:

Bill and I have been blessed. And we're very grateful for the opportunities that we've had. But we've never forgotten where we came from.

Her relationship with a friend and adviser, Sidney Blumenthal, who, after being barred from serving in the Obama administration, still advised her on matters pertaining to Libya while he pursued business interests there, as reported on Monday in the New York Times:

I have many, many old friends. I always think it's important, when you get into politics, to have friends you had before you were in politics … He's been a friend of mine for a long time. He sent me unsolicited emails, which I passed on in some instances, and I see that [as] just part of the give-and-take.

Her paid speeches — did they amount to a conflict of interest?

No.

The emails from the State Department — will she "demand" they be released sooner than January 2016, as is expected?

I have said repeatedly I want those emails out. Nobody has a bigger interest in getting them released than I do. I respect the State Department. They have their process that they do for everybody, not just for me. But anything that they might do to expedite that process, I heartily support.

But would she demand it?

As much as they can expedite that process, that's what I'm asking them to do — to please move as quickly…

Clinton was cut off. The yelling started again.

"Secretary Clinton?"

"Did you take official actions from the Clinton Foundation donors?"

"Secretary Clinton?"

"Why did you delete the email server?"

"Secretary Clinton?!"

More voices rang out — but Clinton was done, exiting the Cedar Falls bike shop alongside her press aide to head to another campaign stop. A chyron on MSNBC summarized the "breaking news": "CLINTON TAKES QUESTIONS IN IOWA."

There was another question that went out to Clinton on policy — and it was from a voter on the roundtable, who raised the topic of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the trade deal President Obama is negotiating that has become an immense source of tension within the Democratic Party.

"What's your stand?" asked Denita Gadson, the owner of i-Gus Consulting, a small digital signage company based in Waterloo, Iowa.

Clinton, in this case, had plenty to say — except exactly whether she will support the deal.

"There are questions being raised about this agreement. It hasn't been negotiated yet … I have said I want to judge the final agreement." In the past, Clinton said, "I have been for trade agreements; I have been against trade agreements."

She would, she said, back a deal that increases jobs, wages, and protects national security. And she would oppose one, she said, that "gives corporations more power to overturn health and environmental and labor rules."

"I've been very clear on this," Clinton told Gadson.

Santorum: Obama "Doesn't Understand America" Because Of His "Radical Family" And "Time Overseas"

0
0

“President Obama doesn’t understand America. Maybe that’s because he was raised in a radical family, much of the time overseas, and educated by people who saw only the worst in this country.”

Justin Sullivan / Getty Images

Rick Santorum, who is expected to launch his presidential campaign at the end of May, wrote in his 2014 book Blue Collar Conservatives that President Obama "doesn't understand America" because he was raised by a "radical family" overseas.

"President Obama doesn't understand America," the former Pennsylvania senator wrote. "Maybe that's because he was raised in a radical family, much of the time overseas, and educated by people who saw only the worst in this country. He abandoned the slogan of 'hope' a long time ago. When Obama appeals to Americans, his themes are envy, resentment, and fear. He can mobilize his base on the Left with that talk, but it falls flat with everyone else."

Santorum was writing about the problems America faced in his book and contrasting Obama with past "great leader[s]" who took on challenges.

"Though some of today's problems are new, Americans have faced serious challenges before, and we have always prevailed. Sometimes in the hour of crisis , we have been blessed with a great leader," wrote Santorum.

"Abraham Lincoln guided us through the Civil War. Franklin Roosevelt inspired us with the determination to defeat Nazism and fascism in World War II. Ronald Reagan restored our confidence after the economic, military, and political crises of the 1970s and led us to victory in the Cold War. There is no such leader in the Oval Office now, no one who can appeal to the values that make this country great because he believes in them himself."

Santorum's comments about Obama fit into a larger theme of his book. He writes that "for more than a century, the growing left wing of the Democratic Party has been pursuing a secularist and socialist agenda for America," using "class warfare" to push through their agenda.

"Their method is class warfare— pitting one group of Americans against another. It's the rich versus the poor, men versus women, the 1 percent versus the 99, the insurance company versus the uninsured, and the natural gas driller versus his neighbors. They don't want to improve on America's success, correct its mistakes, and help it live up to its promise. They think that something is wrong with America at its core—that it needs to be "fundamentally transformed."

Nevada Could Turn Its Current Execution Chamber Into A Tourist Attraction

0
0

“Even if we did have tourists, we’d shut them down several weeks prior, because it is still an active execution chamber. We want to be, and we will be, respectful of that,” the bill’s sponsor said.

The execution chamber at the Nevada State Prison in July, 2002.

Cathleen Allison / ASSOCIATED PRESS

The next museum that could be coming to Nevada: the prison where the state performs executions.

Nevada hasn't executed anyone in nine years, but state legislators just passed a bill that would turn the 150-year-old Nevada State Prison — the only available location for Nevada to carry out an execution — into a museum.

When one lawmaker expressed concern that tourists would be able to visit a technically active execution chamber, the bill's sponsor brushed aside her concerns.

"The museum really won't get opened up and be fully public until such things as the execution chamber are taken care of," Republican Assemblyman P.K. O'Neill told the Associated Press.

"Even if we did have tourists, we'd shut them down several weeks prior, because it is still an active execution chamber. We want to be, and we will be, respectful of that."

According to the Nevada Appeal, the former head of the Department of Corrections thinks the museum could be a hit — that it could be as big as Alcatraz or could "become a major location for movie studios."

Meanwhile, the legislature is debating what to do about its execution chamber. A joint subcommittee split a vote 5-5 on whether the state should build a new chamber. Supporters say the current location in the Nevada State Prison could be problematic (even disregarding the tourists) because it doesn't comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Nevada's last execution was performed in 2006, and the state has only carried out the death penalty 12 times since 1977, according to the Death Penalty Information Center. The state does not have any executions scheduled — but has about 80 inmates on death row.


Clinton Super PAC Executive Director Exits Amid Shake-Up

0
0

Buffy Wicks, the head of Priorities USA, is in talks with the Clinton campaign about a senior role. She leaves the super PAC as Guy Cecil comes in.

Scott Olson / Getty Images

Buffy Wicks, a leading Democratic operative and former senior aide to Barack Obama, will leave her post as executive director of Priorities USA Action, the super PAC working to raise millions in support of Hillary Clinton's campaign.

Wicks, now in the process of arranging her exit from Priorities, is expected to stay inside the larger Clinton operation, three sources familiar with the move said.

She is in discussion with Clinton aides about a senior role on the "coordinated side" — which could include a position inside the campaign or at the Democratic National Committee, where officials would work closely with Clinton should she become the nominee.

A Clinton aide confirmed the talks on Tuesday evening.

"We are recruiting Buffy for a senior-level role on the coordinated side of the campaign," the Clinton official said.

The departure comes about three weeks after the news that Guy Cecil, the political director on Clinton's last campaign, would join the super PAC in a senior role.

At the time, many Democrats viewed the move as a means to minimize another Priorities official, Jim Messina, the former Obama campaign manager. Messina was installed as the super PAC's co-chair, but has never been fully embraced by the longstanding circle of aides and advisers around Clinton.

It was never clear, though, what Cecil's entry would mean for Wicks.

Wicks, a widely respected and well-liked figure in the party, served as the national director of get-out-the-vote efforts on Obama's reelection campaign.

She is close with senior members of the Clinton team, including the campaign manager, Robby Mook. The two met working for Howard Dean in 2004 — an operation that famously trained much of its field staff in organizing techniques from the labor and protest movements of the '60s and '70s. Wicks and Mook both emerged from that race as part of an ascendant new class of field organizers.

Wicks was largely new to fundraising when she joined Priorities last January.

She took the helm along with Messina and his co-chair, former Michigan governor Jennifer Granholm, amid a relaunch by the pro-Obama super PAC into a paid-media effort backing a Clinton bid in 2016. The leadership team was formulated as a meld of the Obama and Clinton worlds ahead of the next election.

Priorities was inactive throughout the 2014 midterms. After the election, the super PAC struggled to solicit pledges and outline a clear fundraising strategy. With the campaign now underway, Priorities has had more success — but the group spent much of early 2015 dealing with negative stories over fundraising and leadership.

Originally, in late 2013, existing Priorities officials hoped that John Podesta, now the Clinton campaign chairman, would join the PAC as a co-chair. But Podesta, who served as a senior official in Bill Clinton's administration, took a job at the White House instead. Cecil, most recently the head of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, comes to the PAC as an ally of Podesta and Bill Clinton. (He was also reportedly considered as a choice for campaign manager.)

Cecil also used to work at Dewey Square Group, the consulting firm whose officials have informally advised the campaign and outside efforts leading up to it.

A Dewey Square founding partner, Charlie Baker, recently joined the Clinton campaign as chief administrative officer. His role, in part, was described by two sources as a liaison of sorts between the campaign and outside officials.

With Wicks's departure, it's likely that Cecil will take the lead role at Priorities — though his position has not been acknowledged or outlined by the PAC. Cecil's move to Priorities was first reported by the Washington Post.

Neither Wicks nor a spokesman for Priorities returned a request for comment.

Obama Administration Begins Aggressive Trade Campaign: Deals Will Bring "A Greener World"

0
0

A big, new administration report promoting administration deals as “Trade For A Greener World” promises new protections for endangered wildlife and plants. But the phrase “climate change” doesn’t appear.

Joe Raedle / Getty Images

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration is expected to promise Wednesday that proposed trade deals with Europe and the Pacific Rim will be a boon to the environment, pushing back on some of the president's most ardent trade policy critics in the environmental advocacy community.

A big new report from the United States Trade Representative and the State Department entitled "Standing Up For The Environment: Trade For A Greener World" is set to be released widely by the Obama administration late Wednesday morning. BuzzFeed News obtained a draft copy of the report Tuesday.

The report promises the trade pacts will bring strict new protections for fish and wildlife, animal trafficking, and illegal logging. The 56-page draft document only mentions the phrase "climate change" once — in a boilerplate section detailing the history of the State Department.

An administration official said the White House position on climate change is clear and that numerous global agreements to combat greenhouse gas emissions signed by President Obama prove that combatting climate change is a key goal of U.S. foreign policy. The lack of the phrase "climate change" was not intentional and not meant to telegraph a changing commitment to climate change, according to the official. The report, the official said, is not about climate change. An upcoming State Department report will detail the department's commitment to climate change and what it has done to advance the administration's agenda, the official said.

But the lack of a climate focus in an Obama administration environmental document is uncommon, and will likely grab the attention of trade opponents in the environmental community who have said for a while now that Obama's trade deals will be a climate nightmare, leading to a dramatic increase in domestic fracking and carbon emissions overseas.

The report — which repeats the oft-used administration phrase "the most progressive trade agreement in history" when describing the Trans-Pacific Partnership — promises administration trade deals will have a positive impact on many progressive conservation goals, such as illegal trade in wildlife, illegal logging, and unregulated fishing.

The report casts environmental threats as potential threats to U.S. national security.

"Trafficking in wildlife and timber is not a threat solely to the environment. Criminal elements of all kinds, including terrorist organizations, are believed to be involved in illegal logging and charcoal trade, and poaching and transporting ivory and rhino horn across and out of Africa," the draft reads. "Insurgency groups like the Lord's Resistance Army have benefitted substantially from poaching and trafficking of ivory and other wildlife products, while terrorist organizations like al-Shabaab benefit from trafficking in wildlife and timber products. In some cases, these networks are the same or overlap with those that deal in other illicit goods such as drugs and weapons."

The report casts TPP and a potential trade pact with Europe as much stronger on the environment than trade deals that have gone before them. Through case studies on past trade pacts, the draft report details what the administration calls "Environmental Progress Through Trade" in member countries of trade deals signed by the Bush administration with countries in Central and South America, Oman and Morocco. But the administration vows to go even farther with the TPP than the protections included in NAFTA, CAFTA-DR and other recent trade pacts.

The report is part of a high-pressure lobbying campaign by the Obama administration to get just enough Democratic support for its trade proposals to pass them through the Republican-controlled Congress. The White House always expected to rely on Republicans to pass its trade agenda, but efforts by the activist left drive Democrats away from the president on trade have been more successful than some of Obama's trade allies expected. Promises of environmental and labor improvements through trade deals have been used by the White House to shore up Democratic support, and Obama has taken to staking his reputation in public on what he calls progressive aspects of the trade deals. White House allies have been frustrated by what they see as a lack of trust among liberals for the president on trade deals. Obama has expressed frustration at continued Democratic opposition.

The aggressive environmental trade report goes right at that opposition, casting the trade deals as a major step toward environmental protection.

Climate does get a mention in a section on illegal logging — unregulated logging is "jeopardizing the climate stabilizing and pollution control effects of the world's forests," the report says — but the phrase "climate change" does not appear anywhere in the report itself. The only mention comes before the introduction to the document in a short overview of State Department history dating back to 1789.

"The U.S. Department of State's Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs (OES) advances U.S. foreign policy goals in such critical areas as climate change, wildlife trafficking, water, polar issues, oceans policy, infectious diseases, science and technology, and space policy to name a few," the section reads in part.

The environmental activist community, like much of the activist left, has been working to stop White House trade policy proposals from becoming law. While the report attempts to directly addresses many of their concerns about environmental impacts of trade policy and promises unprecedented protections for conservation programs dealing with animals and trees, it's unlikely the report will change many minds among the hardened anti-trade environmentalists. Like other progressive trade opponents, they've complained about the negotiating process and that past trade deals haven't lived up to their promises to the left.

Specifically related to the environment, opponents have warned that the Pacific trade deal opens up new markets to fossil fuels collected in the United States, meaning, they say, more fracking, more polluting processing infrastructure and more chances for a catastrophic pipeline, train or sea-borne tanker leak. They also question the administration's commitment to losing a trade negotiation on the issue of climate change. A February document leak purported to reveal U.S. trade negotiators removing the phrase "climate change" from trade deal language.

The USTR told Politico the leak was "misleading" at the time and said it "obscures the full range of potential environmental benefits being negotiated in the TPP."

The big new report from USTR and State sets out to cast the Obama trade deals as an environmental win.

"Today's environmental challenges are global in nature and require an international response," reads the report's introduction. "Strong environmental protections in trade agreements, like the ones we're negotiating in the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement can be a key part of this response."

Read the report:

Sen. Cardin: New Authorization To Fight ISIS Unlikely

0
0

“…it would be worse to go through a process and not get a consensus,” Senate Foreign Relations ranking member Ben Cardin said Wednesday.

Sen. Ben Cardin

Michael Bonfigli/The Christian Science Monitor

WASHINGTON — Senate Foreign Relations ranking member Ben Cardin Wednesday warned passage of a new authorization for the use of military force to continue to fight ISIS is highly unlikely and that a debate that does not end with a consensus position would be worse than doing nothing at all.

"I am not optimistic that we will be able to achieve a successful completion of an authorized use of military force" legislation this year, Cardin told reporters during a breakfast sponsored by the Christian Science Monitor.

Echoing Chairman Bob Corker, the Maryland Democrat also said that a debate that ends up with a divided Congress — or legislation that the Obama administration opposes — would be worse that simply punting the issue until divisions can be worked out.

"I'm with Sen. Corker, I agree, that it would be worse to go through a process and not get a consensus," Cardin said, pointing to "fundamental differences" within the Senate over the size and scope of a new AUMF.

President Obama sent a letter to Congress in February requesting new authorization to continue combat operations against ISIS in Iraq and Syria. The administration, however, has said they believe they have authority for their current operations under the AUMF passed in 2001.

Senators disagree over many core issues in the administration's proposed authorization, but Cardin believes agreement can be reached on several of them — notably eliminating the 2002 AUMF that covered the war in Iraq, whether there should be geographic limitations, and to a lesser extent the question of allowing for the possible involvement of ground forces.

"But then what do you about the 2001 authorization … and there I think there's a significant disagreement in Congress," Cardin said, as well as whether or not a new AUMF should cover the Assad regime in Syria.

Cardin, however, made clear that he is disappointed Congress has not yet acted on a new AUMF. "Its our responsibility to pass legislation authorizing the use of military force. And if we don't … we create a void that the administration will fill," he said.

Senate Homeland Security Chairman: Headlines Saying I Trust The Ayatollah Over Obama Are False

0
0

“And let me say for the record, I certainly do not trust the ayatollah.”

Mark Wilson / Getty Images

Sen. Ron Johnson, the chairman of the Senate's Homeland Security Committee, responded to a BuzzFeed News report Wednesday with a statement saying he did not trust Supreme Leader of Iran Ali Khamenei over President Obama when it comes to negotiations over Iran's nuclear program.

"The headlines accusing me of saying I trust the ayatollah in Iran are false," the Wisconsin Republican said in a statement on his website. "Simply reading my actual words in the stories below those headlines shows this. And let me say for the record, I certainly do not trust the ayatollah."

Johnson said at a recent town hall discussing a nuclear deal with Iran that he was "not so sure" he trusts President Obama over the Iranian leader.

"Now, a President who was awarded the 2013 Politifact Lie of the Year, if you like your healthcare plan you can keep it, period. If you like your doctor you can keep it, period. They lied boldfaced to the American public repeatedly with Obamacare," Johnson said at the Cedarburg, Wisconsin town hall.

"I don't know, I hate to admit it, but in terms of this framework, do I trust President Obama, or do I trust the Ayatollah? In terms of what the framework actually says? I'm not so sure I'm trusting President Obama on this."

Iran and six world powers reached parameters for a framework for a final deal on the country's nuclear program in early April, but differences quickly emerged in each side's interpretation of the parameters. The disagreements ranged from the level of access inspectors will get in Iran to how quickly sanctions will be relieved.

"I want to trust our president on this subject," Johnson added in his statement.

"The fact remains that he needs to be more forthcoming on his negotiations and he needs to involve Congress fully in developing the agreement. The real question is why President Obama does not trust the people's chosen representatives with a simple up-or-down vote of approval and why the president believes he can trust the Iranian regime to comply with any agreement."

Here's the video of Johnson's original remarks that brought about the clarification:

youtube.com

Graham On Immigration: GOP Going To Lose Again If We Don't "Get Our Heads In A Better Spot"

0
0

“And my party is in a bad spot over this issue, and if we don’t wake up and get our heads in a better spot, we’re going to lose yet again.”

w.soundcloud.com

Sen. Lindsey Graham, the South Carolina Republican who is expected to launch a presidential campaign soon, says his party will keep losing elections if they don't "wake up" to the reality of passing comprehensive immigration legislation.

"I am ready to deal with this problem. If I get to be president, we're going to solve it," Graham told Concord News Radio earlier in the week. "And my party is in a bad spot over this issue, and if we don't wake up and get our heads in a better spot, we're going to lose yet again."

Earlier in the interview, Graham said immigration has to be fixed in a "bi-partisan fashion."

"Well, let me tell you about immigration," said Graham "It's a problem that has to be fixed in a bipartisan fashion."

"At the end of the day, I've been working on immigration since 2006. George W. Bush understood this issue pretty darn well, coming from Texas. You've gotta secure your border, 'cause if you don't, they'll keep coming. You've gotta increase legal immigration, so people won't be enticed to cheat. You've gotta have e-verify, so we know when people do cheat."

"But as to the 11 million: Criminals not welcome. Non-criminals, people who just violated the immigration laws, can stay here on our terms, not theirs. They have to learn our language, pay taxes, get in the back of the line, and not become a citizen ahead of the people who have been doing it right — a 10-year ban before you can even apply for a green card."

"I've been doing this for 10 years, almost — there's no other way that I see to do it. You've gotta have Democratic support. They're not going to give the Republican Party all we want on border security, then wonder what happens to the 11 million — would you? If you were a Democrat, would you give us everything we want on border security and legal immigration increases, without us telling you what's going to happen to the 11 million? That is just all talk."

Viewing all 15742 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images