Alex Wong / Getty Images

NEW ORLEANS — The most viral headline this year with the Louisiana governor's name in it was published in The Onion: "Bobby Jindal Not Sure He Willing To Put Family Through 2-Month Presidential Campaign."

The article on the satiric news site — which included fictional quotes from Jindal fretting about how his young kids would cope with having a dad "spend dozens of days running for president" — was perfectly tuned to the sniggers and skepticism that pervade the political world when it comes to Jindal's 2016 prospects. When the article was published in January, several reporters (including this one) forwarded the link to the governor's advisers in hopes of goading them into responding. The strategists laughed it off at the time, joking that at least expectations were low.

Now, Jindal's small team of campaign aides and operatives is embarking on a plan to confound those expectations and transform their candidate from a punchline into a president. When he officially announces his bid for the Republican nomination here Wednesday evening, Jindal will be launching a campaign with little money, virtually no grassroots organization, and a principal who sits at around 1% in national polls. The most generous pundits call him an "underdog." The less generous ones call him a "dumbed-down" self-parody who "will never catch fire."

In multiple conversations with BuzzFeed News — as well as a candid, on-the-record briefing with reporters ahead of the announcement Wednesday, complete with a PowerPoint presentation and an expansive Q&A — Jindal's top strategists laid out their theory of the race and what they view as their candidate's most plausible path to victory.

Camp out in Iowa

Jindal's team conceded that their campaign is not starting out with the sort of war chest that will enable rivals like Jeb Bush and Scott Walker to crisscross the country and launch national ad campaigns.

"It wouldn't be bad to have $100 million," said Curt Anderson, Jindal's chief campaign strategist. "I'll be honest about that."

But for now, he said, all they really need is enough cash to buy roundtrip plane tickets from Des Moines to Manchester, New Hampshire. Jindal's advisers repeatedly stressed that they're running an "early-state campaign," and that the first "signs of life" for the Jindal candidacy will likely register with improved polling in Iowa.

Anderson pointed to the last two Republican victors in Iowa — grassroots favorites Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum — as proof that the first-in-the-nation caucuses "can't be bought" by well-funded establishment front-runners. And he said in this election's crowded field of 14 candidates and counting, the winner of the Hawkeye State will probably only need about 20% of caucusgoers, or 26,000 votes. Jindal will spend the bulk of the next six months trying to win those voters over one handshake at a time in diners and county fairs across the state.

Of course, it's been 15 years since the winner of the Iowa caucuses in a contested race went on to be the Republican presidential nominee. But as Anderson put it, "If you win Iowa, you're a serious contender for the nomination."

Harness the power of Duck Dynasty

Jindal will hardly be the only Republican candidate pinning his hopes on a strong showing in Iowa. Ted Cruz, Rick Perry, Carly Fiorina, Ben Carson, and Huckabee will all likely be pursuing similar strategies, and they will have to compete for attention with Donald Trump's high-profile political torch-juggling act. But one Jindal adviser noted that their candidate has something none of his rivals have: the Duck Dynasty endorsement.

Indeed, Jindal was perhaps the most outspoken defender of the Robertsons — the bearded, duck-hunting stars of A&E's hit reality TV show — when the family patriarch came under fire in 2013 for crude anti-gay remarks he made in a magazine interview. Jindal has known the family of Louisiana natives for years, and he used the flare-up in the culture wars to warn of a triumphalist secularism in American society that aims to bully conservative Christians like the Robertsons out of the public square.

The family rewarded Jindal's loyalty by featuring him in the most recent season premiere of their show, and Willie Robertson has said he would support the governor if he ran for president. The background photo on Jindal's Twitter feed shows him and his family posing with the Robertsons.

To many in the political class, Jindal's close alliance with a cast of goofy reality TV stars scans as pandering. But a senior adviser to the candidate pointed out that the show has been tremendously popular with the sort of religious conservatives who dominate the Iowa caucuses, and that Willie's endorsement could be a real selling point.

"The governor and Willie have been good buddies for a long time," he said. "And having somebody who folks know and trust, who can say, 'Hey look, I know this guy and he's a good man, and a great governor' — that's a big deal."

More substantively, Jindal's campaign says he has been out front on the debate over religious freedom dating back to a speech he gave in early 2014 at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library, when he prophesied of a "silent war" between people of faith and their antagonists in government and media. With the Supreme Court now poised to legalize same-sex marriage nationwide, they predict the issues he's been discussing could be central to the 2016 race. Helping him shape that message and take it to grassroots Christian voters is Family Research Council president Tony Perkins, a key power broker on the religious right who has been informally advising the Louisiana governor.

Jindal, who was raised Hindu before converting to Catholicism, refers to himself in his 2009 book as an "evangelical Catholic." According to Anderson, "He's going to talk a lot about his faith on the campaign trail, and he's not going to apologize for it."

Straddle the line between culture warrior and policy wonk

At the same time, Jindal's aides said they wouldn't pigeonhole him as the social conservative candidate. Anderson argued one reason Huckabee and Santorum ultimately flamed out after winning in Iowa was because they "had only one gear and were stuck in the evangelical lane."

Jindal, by contrast, is a Rhodes scholar who is well-versed in public policy. One slide in their presentation called Jindal "the sharpest knife in the Republican drawer."

"You hear this stuff about, 'Oh, so-and-so has assembled a team of experts — he's got Henry Kissinger who he had lunch with,'" Anderson said. "But Jindal actually is a policy expert. It might not be a bad idea to have the head guy be a policy guy."

Anderson also rejected the premise that a governor is automatically less qualified to handle foreign policy than a member of Congress. "This is one of the things that makes me laugh the most, when reporters or somebody says we have some freshman senators who have great foreign policy experience," he said. "Yeah, the government paid them to take a few trips. It's just a joke. I don't know that we have anybody [in the GOP field] who's a foreign policy [expert.].. I don't see a former secretary of state."

Win the trolling primary

Jindal's penchant for hurling barbed, intentionally provocative one-liners at Democrats is often derided by pundits, who note that this is the same politician who not long ago called for the GOP to "stop being the stupid party" and talk to voters like "adults."

But Jindal's campaign suggested the charged rhetoric won't let up anytime soon, arguing that early-state voters are eager to support candidates who are "truth-tellers."

"He's not gonna sugar-coat anything," Anderson said, as a PowerPoint slide appeared on a projector screen that read, in part, "Clinton and Obama are leading America toward socialism."

While Jindal's trolling does little to earn the respect of political elites, it does earn him media headlines — and with TV networks using national polls to select the candidates who will participate in their debates, Jindal needs all the national attention he can get.

Own his polarizing Louisiana record

The campaign pointed to polls that show the vast majority of the Republican electorate would prefer to nominate a governor instead of a member of Congress. Jindal's own record in Louisiana, though, has been the subject of much debate recently.

According to the campaign's talking points, Jindal has cut the state budget by 26% while in office; reduced the number of government workers by 30,000; pushed through bold ethics reforms; reversed the decades-long trend of out-migration in the state; and done it all without raising taxes.

But Jindal's critics argue he is leaving out some key facts. The reduction in the government payroll, for example, was largely made possible by privatizing nine hospitals in the state — and it's unclear how much money Louisiana is actually saving with the overhaul. Timmy Teepell, a longtime Jindal adviser who will serve as his campaign manager, countered these claims by saying credit agencies have shown their approval of his administration's handling of the budget with several rating upgrades for Louisiana.

Anderson griped about the "rash of national reporters who knew nothing about what's going on in Louisiana" but nonetheless wrote stories saying Jindal's polarizing record and low approval ratings would ultimately sink his presidential aspirations. He said Jindal would eagerly tout his record on the campaign trail as a way of contrasting his competence with his rivals' lack of executive experience.

"We have a stunning crop of great talkers in the race right now," Anderson said. "But very few doers."

Take advantage of Jindal's low name recognition

At one point in the presentation Wednesday, the Jindal campaign presented a chart with two axes: one that mapped the Republican presidential contenders ideologically from "moderate" to "conservative," and the other from "insider" to "insurgent."

"This will really offend the other candidates, so we're not handing it out," Anderson said.

Nonetheless, he argued that the best positioned candidates in this race were those in the conservative-insurgent quadrant. According to the Jindal campaign's chart — which didn't appear to be based on any scientific data, but rather their own perception of the field — those candidates included Perry, Walker, Marco Rubio, and Jindal. (Huckabee, who seems like a logical rival for Jindal was placed on the "moderate" end of the ideological axis, presumably because of his stances on fiscal issues like entitlement reform.)

The Jindal campaign also eagerly pointed to a poll that showed 62% of the primary electorate said they had "no opinion" of Jindal. At this point in the cycle, Anderson argued, most poll respondents are basing their answers on name recognition, which explains why "a reality TV star" is currently polling in second place in New Hampshire.

They attributed Jindal's low standing in the polls to the fact that he has been busy with his "day job." Because he isn't part of a political dynasty and hasn't spent as much time as other candidates appearing on cable news, many voters simply don't know what to make of him, they said. "Half these people don't even know who their own damn governor is," Anderson said. He said at this point the popular perception of Jindal is largely colored by stereotypes, joking that because Jindal is Indian-American, people probably think he's "good at math."

Teepell said they plan to take advantage of voters' lack of familiarity with Jindal by defining him as "the youngest candidate with the longest resume" — a line several of the candidate's strategists have been using in recent days.

Anderson said at this point in the cycle, he would rather have a blank canvas to draw on than a widely unpopular caricature to erase — as in Bush's case. As he put it, "You don't want to have 100% name ID and 11% in the polls."

“Each state needs to decide for itself what it wants to remember and what it wants to memorialize. That’s part of states’ rights, that’s what the south fought for during the War Between The States…”

Drew Angerer / Getty Images

Alabama Congressman Mo Brooks said Wednesday that each state must decide on whether to remove the Confederate Battle Flag from their capitol buildings, saying "that's part of states rights, that's what the south fought for during the War Between The States."

Brooks added that "people need to be more tolerant of states' rights issues."

"Each state needs to decide for itself what it wants to remember and what it wants to memorialize," Brooks said on Alabama's Matt Murphy Show on Wednesday morning.

"That's part of states' rights, that's what the south fought for during the War Between The States, and I'll defer to our elected officials in Alabama who are responsible for that kind of decision, our state senators, our state legislators, and governor as they wrestle with the issue as I did when I was in the legislature back in the 1980s."

"I have decided on this issue as I have on a bunch of other issues that I have federal government and I'm gonna defer to the states what could be state responsibilities," said Brooks citing his past career as a state lawmaker.

Brooks said he wouldn't "second guess" what state lawmakers in Alabama decide to do. Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley ordered that four Confederate flags be taken down from the state Capitol grounds in Montgomery on Wednesday.

"As a federal official on this issue I'm not going to second guess what our state legislator and executive branch ultimately decide. I'm gonna have faith that the decision they reach will be the best one. And they're going to have deal with all of the different nuances associated with this and the myriad of other issues that they face."

Brooks said their was "no question" that the Confederate flag debate to distract from the real issues.

"I will add that there is apparently an effort underway on removal on removal of the Mississippi of the state flag from the Capitol grounds," said Brooks. "I'm not sure if you're aware but there are places on the United States Capitol grounds that have the flags of all 50 states, lined up. For example the tunnel from Rayburn House Building to the Capitol, also from the United States Capitol to the Senate office buildings and I will not be voting to remove the state flag of Mississippi."

"People need to be more tolerant of states rights issues. And if Mississippi decides if there flag is gonna be whatever it's gonna be, by golly that there is their flag, they are a state in this union. They are not violating any laws, and as such, we should defer to their wishes."

Brooks said that top-down dictates from the federal government have "made our country for the worst."

"Again, I don't believe in this top-down dictate from the federal government as unfortunately has happened on so many different issues and in my judgement has made our country for the worst."

w.soundcloud.com

“I remember during Ferguson there were all these marchers who made it clear the movement was about more then just mourning the loss of a black life, but about proclaiming the value of one. The next step should be to think about the policymaking that affects black lives and values them, too.”

Carlo Allegri / Reuters

WASHINGTON — Kouri Marshall was named executive director of Democratic GAIN, a progressive recruiting initiative earlier this month. One of his top priorities: recruiting talent within the labyrinth of organizers and movements sprouting from Black Lives Matter.

Marshall, 32, and the former District of Columbia Director for President Obama's 2012 re-election campaign, said every Democratic campaigns and policy group should pay attention to the principals behind the movement protesting racism and police brutality, or risk losing the chance to "seriously strengthen Democratic values."

Marshall said part of his mission as Democratic GAIN's executive director will be to create a pipeline for talent of the social media-driven protest movements to staff campaigns and organizations — especially ones seeking to reach black voters.

"There's a lot of progressive campaigns and organizations that said they have not been able to find diverse talent," he said, adding there are about 15 to 20 organizers on an informal short list whose skill and audience make them ideal candidates for political work.

"If I were a presidential candidate I'd be trying to hire some of them," he said. "Someone needs to get behind them."

The electorate may be soon taking its cues from the movement, Marshall said.

"These young people are going to need places to work," he said. "They're going to need resources and ways to harness that considerable talent."

Democratic GAIN held a career fair on June 16. A representative said officials from every political campaign was in attendance.

"I remember during Ferguson there were all these marchers who made it clear the movement was about more than just mourning the loss of a black life, but about proclaiming the value of one," Marshall said. "The next step should be to think about the policymaking that affects black lives and values them, too."

Jennicet Gutiérrez, who works with LGBT advocacy organizations, called on Obama to stop the torture and abuse of trans women in detention. The president responded by saying, “Listen, you’re in my house.”

Vice President Joe Biden, left, and President Barack Obama react after a heckler was removed from the East Room of the White House during a reception to celebrate LGBT Pride Month.

Evan Vucci / AP

An undocumented transgender woman who interrupted President Obama during the Pride Month Reception at the White House Wednesday called on the administration to release LGBT immigrants from detention, before being escorted out.

Jennicet Gutiérrez, who works with LGBT advocacy organizations Familia: TQLM and GetEqual, was removed shortly after she interrupted Obama's speech.

"President Obama, release all LGBTQ in detention centers," Gutiérrez said during the reception. "President Obama, stop the torture and abuse of trans women in detention centers."

Obama responded by saying, "No, no, no, no. Hey, listen, you're in my house," to cheers and applause of some in attendance.

"You are not going to get a good response from me by interrupting me like this. Shame on you, you shouldn't be doing this," Obama said.

Transgender immigrants and human rights groups have expressed concerns about the conditions trans detainees are kept in. Some report being sexually assaulted, lack of medical care, and being placed in solitary confinement.

A 2013 investigation by the Government Accountability Office found that of 15 substantiated reports of sexual abuse and assault, one fifth involved transgender detainees.

After the incident Jennicet Gutiérrez said she could not celebrate while some 75 trans detainees remained in ICE custody.

"The White House gets to make the decision whether it keeps us safe," Gutiérrez said in a statement. "If the President wants to celebrate with us, he should release the LGBTQ immigrants locked up in detention centers immediately."

View Entire List ›

Obergefell has sued the state of Ohio, seeking a court order that officials recognize his marriage to John Arthur on Arthur’s death certificate.

Jim Obergefell at the Supreme Court on Thursday, June 25, 2015, holding a picture of his husband, John Arthur, who died in October 2013.

Chris Geidner/BuzzFeed

WASHINGTON — It was two years ago this week, when the Supreme Court struck down the Defense of Marriage Act, that Jim Obergefell and John Arthur decided they were going to get married.

Now, Obergefell is at the Supreme Court — awaiting the outcome of his case, Obergefell v. Hodges, which is the lead case in the marriage cases that the justices heard arguments in earlier this year.

Obergefell and Arthur — who was suffering from amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) when they married — sued the state of Ohio to recognize their marriage on Arthur's death certificate. In October 2013, Arthur did die — but Obergefell has kept going with the case, taking it all the way to the Supreme Court.

Starting this past week, Obergefell has been first in line at the court to hear the decision in the case. "This is my fourth day," he told BuzzFeed News on Thursday morning, bespectacled and wearing a blue-and-yellow bow time.

"I promised John that I'd see this through to the end, and there's no other place in the world I can imagine being than here, in that courtroom, to hear the decision from the justice's mouth," he said.

Jim Obergefell waits first in line to attend the announcement of decisions at the Supreme Court on Thursday, June 25, 2015. Human Rights Campaign president Chad Griffin, third from right, is the second in line.

Chris Geidner/BuzzFeed

In a 5-4 decision, the court held that disparate impact claims are allowed because of the “results-oriented language” of the Fair Housing Act.

MANDEL NGAN / Getty Images

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court Thursday ruled that claims of "disparate impact" can be brought under the Fair Housing Act of 1968.

The 5-4 closely divided decision — authored by Justice Anthony Kennedy, joined by the four more liberal justices — was a victory for civil rights advocates, who have been long concerned about how the high court would resolve the issue.

In January, the justices heard arguments in the case — which was brought back in 2008 by the Inclusive Communities Project against the Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs.

The question that ultimately reached the Supreme Court is a relatively simple one: Whether "disparate impact" claims are able to be brought under the Fair Housing Act of 1968.

"Disparate impact" claims address policies that are not discriminatory on their face but have a "disparate impact" on a particular race, and civil rights advocates have said they are a key tool in addressing housing discrimination.

While the FHA makes no specific mention of whether such claims are covered by the law, every court of appeals to decide the issue and the federal government — through the Department of Housing and Urban Development — agree that such claims are permitted under the act.

"Congress' use of the phrase 'otherwise make unavailable' [in the FHA] refers to the consequences of an action rather than the actor's intent," Kennedy wrote for the court on Thursday. "This results-oriented language counsels in favor of recognizing disparate-impact liability."

The "disparate impact" question is one the court has been trying to review for several years now. Twice previously the justices have accepted a case to address the issue only to have it settle out of court before the justices could rule.

In a 6–3 decision authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, the court wrote Thursday that a “fair reading of legislation demands a fair understanding of the legislative plan.”

President Barack Obama speaks about healthcare reforms and the Affordable Care Act, known as Obamacare, during the Catholic Hospital Association Conference in Washington, D.C., on June 9.

SAUL LOEB / Getty Images

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that insurance subsidies are available under Obamacare for people in states that did not set up their own health insurance exchanges.

The argument before the justices was that the language of Obamacare prevents the health care subsidies that are available under the act from being given to those people purchasing their health insurance through the federal exchange. The text of the law, the argument went, stated that the subsidies are only allowed for those who bought their insurance in "an Exchange established by the State."

On Thursday, the Supreme Court disagreed. "Had Congress meant to limit tax credits to State Exchanges, it likely would have done so in the definition of 'applicable taxpayer' or in some other prominent manner," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the court. "It would not have used such a winding path of connect-the-dots provisions about the amount of the credit."

Without subsidies available to those getting their health insurance through the federal exchange, it would, effectively, kill Obamacare — sending it into a "death spiral," as was discussed at oral arguments in March, because a significant number of people would no longer be able to afford health insurance.

The court, however, upheld the use of subsidies for those in the federal exchange in a 6–3 decision authored by the chief justice in which he was joined by Justice Anthony Kennedy, as well as the court's four more liberal justices: Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan.

Notably, the court did not apply its usual rule — as a lower court had done — of examining whether the agency's interpretation of the law was a permitted reading of the statute when language in a law is ambiguous. Roberts, instead, wrote that this was one of the "extraordinary cases" where the court believed Congress did not intend to delegate such interpretation of the law to an executive agency.

"The tax credits are among the Act's key reforms, involving billions of dollars in spending each year and affecting the price of health insurance for millions of people," Roberts wrote for the court. Calling the subsidies question "central to this statutory scheme," he wrote that "had Congress wished to assign that question to an agency, it surely would have done so expressly."

The court, instead, held — if the language is ambiguous — that it would have to determine itself what Congress meant "with a view to their place in the overall statutory scheme."

After finding that the language was ambiguous, however, Roberts concluded, "The whole point of that provision is to create a federal fallback in case a State chooses not to establish its own Exchange" and that "the structure of Section 36B [the "established by the state" provision] itself suggests that tax credits are not limited to State Exchanges."

Since the justices agreed in November of last year to take up the case, all eyes have been on the chief justice — as court watchers, and the administration, wondered whether Roberts, again, would side with the court's more liberal members in upholding the law as he had done in 2012.

At the March arguments, however, Roberts didn't give much of a hint as to where he stood — but Kennedy had expressed concerns about whether a ruling ending the subsidies for those covered through the federal exchange would create unconstitutional coercion from the federal government on the states.

Both of them ended up joining the more liberal justices, leaving justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito in dissent.

Scalia authored a fiery dissent, derisively saying that the pair of decisions upholding the constitutionality and implementation of the law should lead people to call the law "SCOTUScare."

Read the decision here:

View Entire List ›

Behind the music with Bernie Sanders.

View Video ›

In the 1980s, then-mayor of Burlington, Vermont, Bernie Sanders had his own show on public access television.

The show, Bernie Speaks, aired on the Burlington public access channel Center for Media & Democracy (CCTV) on Channel 17 Town Meeting Television. The show is available under a Creative Commons license from CCTV.

One show was a behind the scenes look at the recording of Sanders' spoken word folk album. The thirty-minute episode from 1987 shows how the mayor and 30 musicians recorded the songs that appeared on the album, "Oh Freedom" and "We Shall Overcome."

In the episode, Sanders can be seen interviewing the recording artists about why they decided to do the album and sharing his thoughts on the mass media.

"The literal fact is that we've doubled the number of billionaires in America in the last year, you've got one guy whose wealth grew by four billion dollars," Sanders says while talking to some of the artists. "One guy is now worth eight billion dollars and you've people sleeping out on the streets all over America."

"How come musicians aren't writing about that and I think the fault is not with musicians -- I think there are thousands of serious and good writers -- they say 'why the hell should I write that, where's it gonna go anyhow?"

The recording took place at Burlington Musician Todd Lockwood's White Crow studio.

Last year, when the album was uncovered, Lockwood spoke to the Vermont alt-weekly Seven Days where he said he called Sanders on a with the idea for the album. Originally Sanders was supposed to sing but they soon realized he was not musically-inclined. As a result, Sanders spoke lyrics while others served as backup singers.

"As talented of a guy as he is, he has absolutely not one musical bone in his body, and that became painfully obvious from the get-go," Lockwood told Seven Days. "This is a guy who couldn't even tap his foot to music coming over the radio. No sense of melody. No sense of rhythm — the rhythm part surprised me, because he has good rhythm when he's delivering a speech in public."

“…the idea of becoming so politically correct that we got to remove every other remembrance of our past is insanity.”

Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images

w.soundcloud.com

Rep. Mark Sanford, a Republican from South Carolina, said Wednesday that he supported the call to remove the Confederate flag from the South Carolina statehouse grounds, but cautioned that it would be "insanity" to begin removing other public monuments to the Confederacy.

"The idea of becoming so politically correct that we got to remove every other remembrance of our past is insanity," Sanford, who served as governor of South Carolina from 2003 to 2011, said. "Because, you know, the reality of our human history as individuals, and collectively as a civilization, is that there are gonna be good parts, and there are gonna be bad parts."

Sanford made his remarks in an interview on The Morning Report With Jay Harper, a South Carolina talk radio show.

"The governor decided to act, and then the question you gotta ask yourself is: 'Will you support the governor, or won't you?" said Sanford. "And I did."

"The problem with symbols is they can represent anything to anybody, and people hold strong onto those symbols," Sanford continued. "And that's where I think you really do have to go to the Bible and say: 'What does it say on this subject?'"

"What it says," Sanford explained, "is if you've got something that causes a brother to stumble, at times you just need to be magnanimous, though you may be right in your view, and just fold the cards."

Stanford went on to compare the dispute over the flag to "a horrible divorce, wherein the couple starts fighting over a chair."

"The chair really means nothing at the end of the day," Sanford mused, "but it symbolizes 'no, I'm not giving up any more. But the only way to break that free is for somebody to be magnanimous and say: 'Tell you what: you keep the chair.'"

Sanford voiced strong opposition, however, when asked if he supported removing other public monuments to the Confederacy, saying he would "vigorously work in the opposite direction" of such efforts.

"In this case you've got a flag that is flown, and I think appropriately on a state capitol grounds there should be two flags: the American flag, and the flag of the sovereign state, and that's it — that's where I happen to fall out on this one," said Sanford. "But the idea of becoming so politically correct that we got to remove every other remembrance of our past is insanity."

"You know, the reality of our human history as individuals, and collectively as a civilization, is that there are gonna be good parts, and there are gonna be bad parts," Sanford mused. "I just this morning went by the Jefferson memorial, and I was sitting there thinking: 'Are we gonna take that thing down?'"

Sanford called it "some level of groupthink, and mistaken in notion" to "become so politically correct trying to remove the past."

"If you look at different countries around the world, where they've had things that go bad, whether it's genocide or other," he added, "once they try to wipe the slate clean, and pretend it did't happen, [they] don't learn from the history."

Sanford called a critical re-appraisal of history "the mark of a growing civilization," but argued that instead of removing controversial memorials, Americans should acknowledge that "this and that we got wrong, but we can learn from it."

"We've got to remember our past," the congressman concluded, "to move forward into our future."

You can listen to the full interview here:

w.soundcloud.com

View Entire List ›

“It really just goes to show, in my opinion, an anti-growth, anti-capitalist mindset…”

View Video ›

buzzfeed-video1.s3.amazonaws.com

Sen. Tom Cotton, a Republican from Arkansas, said that President Obama refuses to approve the controversial Keystone XL pipeline because he is "enthralled to left-wing radical environmentalists."

Cotton's remarks were made in the senator's first-ever interview on Periscope with David Ray, who worked as the communications director on Cotton's 2014 campaign before taking his current position as state director of the Arkansas chapter of Americans for Prosperity.

Asked about the pipeline, Cotton told Ray that Congress had passed a bill approving its construction, "but President Obama vetoed it, because he's enthralled to left-wing radical environmentalists."

"Every environmental study has said the pipeline is going to be environmentally sound, it's going to help provide more jobs for Americans, it's a key piece of infrastructure for Canada, one of our strongest allies in the world, one of our closest trading partners," Cotton argued. "It should have been built years ago."

"President Obama says that he's going to make a decision by the end of his tenure," Cotton continued. "I suspect that he's waiting until the end of his tenure so he can decline the permit."

"It could always be resurrected under a Republican president," Cotton explained. "But it really just goes to show, in my opinion, an anti-growth, anti-capitalist mindset, that a perfectly safe, modern pipeline wouldn't be built, at a time when North America has a chance to be the world's leading energy provider."

“Every time I have a chance to watch him, I learn a little better how to try to carry out our craft with the highest level of skill and integrity, and so I would commend it to all of us.”

For the second time, Republican-nominated Chief Justice John Roberts on Thursday sided with the more liberal justices on the Supreme Court to uphold a provision of Obamacare.

When the majority opinion authored by Roberts was released, Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz criticized the justices in the majority as "lawless" and called their actions "disgraceful."

"For nakedly political reasons, the Supreme Court willfully ignored the words that Congress wrote, and instead read into the law their preferred policy outcome," Cruz said in a statement. "

"These judges have joined with President Obama in harming millions of Americans. Unelected judges have once again become legislators, and bad ones at that. They are lawless, and they hide their prevarication in legalese. Our government was designed to be one of laws, not of men, and this transparent distortion is disgraceful."

But before Roberts had his fall from grace in the eyes of the conservative movement, Cruz held him in high esteem. Cruz and Roberts have a history together -- both clerked for Chief Justice William Rehnquist in their careers and worked together on Bush v. Gore.

As Texas Solicitor General Ted Cruz spoke highly of John Roberts during his confirmation hearing to the Supreme Court, emailing his staff to say Roberts was a role model for how to "carry out our craft."

In the email, obtained by BuzzFeed News, Cruz recalled how Rehnquist viewed Roberts as "the best Supreme Court litigator in the nation," which Cruz wrote was a sentiment that enthusiastically" agreed with.

"I've worked with John and seen him argue numerous cases, and, to my mind, there's not another appellate advocate who's even close," wrote Cruz.

Cruz wrote Roberts had an "unparalleled credibility before the Justices" because of his style.

"What made John so good at the podium was the way he could, eschewing rhetoric, calmly and coolly answer each and every difficult question that came his way. His balanced, reasonable tone commanded enormous respect at the Court and, over the years, he earned unparalleled credibility before the Justices."

Cruz conclude by noting every time he watched Roberts he learned "a little better how to try to carry out our craft with the highest level of skill and integrity."

A Cruz spokesman didn't return a request for comment on if he regretted past support for Roberts.

“They are extremely well organized.”

Jose Luis Magana / AP

Republican presidential candidate Dr. Ben Carson said in an interview last year that Communists are "in our society" and are "organized" in their effort to "bring America down."

The retired neurosurgeon was talking to Baltimore News Radio's Bryan Nehman in May of 2014 about social divisions in the US, when he started explaining his understanding of "neo-Marxist" literature and how it reflected contemporary American society.

He recommended that people read Saul Alinksy's Rules for Radicals to "put a lot of stuff that you're seeing going on into perspective," noting that the book was "dedicated to Lucifer, the original radical who gained his own kingdom."

"This is what we're up against," he said.

"Go back and read what the neo-Marxists said about America and about our incredible strength and how it would be necessary to bring America down to do two essential things," the retired neurosurgeon said. "We have to destroy the American family--basically change the concept of what the family is. And the other thing they said is you've got to kick to the curb their Judeo-Christian beliefs because it provides way too much strength. The only thing that's amazing is how quickly that's occurring. There's a book called the Naked Communist by Cleon Skousen, the same guy who wrote the Five Thousand Year Leap, published in 1958. I encourage people to go and read that book."

The host asked Carson, "Who are the communists that are doing that? I mean, the Soviet Union is no longer there." Carson responded that, "They're in our society," but that people should read about it themselves because he didn't want to "feed into what people say is paranoia."

"They're in our society," he said. "They infiltrated our society. And rather than, you know, feed into what people say is paranoia, I tell people, 'Go read this stuff yourselves.'"

"They are extremely well organized," he argued. "And when you start reading these things that were written 50 and 60 years ago you will recognize them immediately as things that are going on today. Vladimir Lenin, it was kind of funny, the way he put it, 'There are a lot of people, they will not recognize what we're doing. They'll play right into our hands.' And he calls them 'useful idiots.'"

Here is the audio:

w.soundcloud.com

“You say, ‘Well, Barack Obama’s a European Socialist.’ Understand what that means. He believes in the model of the French Revolution.”

Gene J. Puskar / AP

Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum said in May 2014 that calling President Barack Obama a "European Socialist" means he "believes in the model of the French Revolution," which "led to the Reign of Terror."

The former U.S. Senator from Pennsylvania offered a comparative history of the American and French revolutions while being interviewed by radio host Hugh Hewitt at an event sponsored by the Reagan Foundation.

Where the American Revolution was "about 'paternity': God-given rights," Santorum said, the French Revolution was predicated on "'fraternity': brotherhood, people giving rights." This, Santorum further argued, helps explain why the latter insurrection "led to the Reign of Terror" and why contemporary Europe is "a dying culture."

"And it was explicitly a secular revolution," he said. "Anti-clerical, secular revolution that said that the government is in charge. It led to the Reign of Terror, the execution, the guillotine, Bonaparte. And now Europe, which is a descendant of the French Revolution, is a godless, secular continent, as the European Union is. And it's a dying culture."

Santorum contrasted this outcome with that of the American Revolution, which, he said, "spawned this hopeful, optimistic country because we believe in the dignity of every human life and the human potential. And society was ordered to maximize that. And America flourished and changed the world."

Santorum was discussing how, today, there is "a group of people in America who believe that that moment has passed" and that "in fact Europe has the better ideas," when he transitioned into his critique of Obama.

"You say, 'Well, Barack Obama's a European socialist,'" Santorum said. "Understand what that means. He believes in the model of the French Revolution, he believes in a secular, government-run society. Freedom is top-down, not bottom-up."

View Video ›

buzzfeed-video1.s3.amazonaws.com

While Oklahoma waits for the U.S. Supreme Court to rule on the constitutionality of its execution methods, a federal judge dismissed a separate lawsuit this week against the state over a botched execution.

Reuters

A federal judge dismissed a lawsuit this week brought by the family of a man whose execution was botched by Oklahoma, finding that his extended death did not amount to unconstitutional cruelty.

The family of Oklahoma death row inmate Clayton Lockett filed a lawsuit against the state an after Lockett's execution lasted for 43 minutes, with witnesses reporting him raising up on the gurney and speaking after he was supposed to be unconscious. Lockett's family alleged the execution amounted to torture and violated his rights. His family asked for an unspecified amount of damages.

Judge Joe Heaton called the complaint "hyperbolic" and "bombast[ic]," and dismissed the suit this week.

"These allegations suggest nothing more than the sort of isolated mishap, which alone does not give rise to an Eighth Amendment violation, precisely because such an event, while regrettable, does not suggest cruelty," Heaton wrote in his decision.

Oklahoma is still awaiting a determination from the U.S. Supreme Court about the constitutionality of how it carries out executions, specifically its use of a drug called midazolam to anesthetize the condemned. The decision could come either Friday or Monday, but Heaton was clear that the decision would have no bearing on this case.

"But even if the Supreme Court ultimately [rules against Oklahoma], it is nonetheless clear that any right which [Lockett's estate] now asserts based on the use of midazolam was not clearly established at the time of Mr. Lockett's execution," the judge wrote.

A state investigation found that issues with setting the IV was the greatest cause of the botched execution. The paramedic and doctor who participated in the execution had trouble finding a vein, although prior checks and his medical history suggested his veins were good.

The Department of Corrections lowered the blinds when things began to go awry, but people who could see inside the room reported Lockett raised himself and said, "Shit is fucking with me," according to a copy of the state investigation obtained by BuzzFeed News.

BuzzFeed News

The state called off the execution, but Lockett died 10 minutes later.

The state investigation also found that Corrections personnel were inadequately trained — a finding that the warden and Department of Corrections Director Robert Patton acknowledged.

But inadequate training doesn't necessarily amount to a constitutional violation, Heaton ruled, because at the time there was no clearly established standard that the state violated.

"It may well be that, in [the current Supreme Court case] or in some other case, the appellate courts will conclude that aspects of Oklahoma's execution protocol were constitutionally deficient," Heaton wrote. "However, what is determinative for present purposes is that the claimed constitutional violations asserted here as to Mr. Lockett are not based on standards that were "clearly established" at the time of his execution. The law therefore recognizes that these defendants should not be held personally liable for any violation which may have occurred."

The attorney representing Lockett's family did not return a request for comment, but has indicated that he will appeal the decision. Lockett was sentenced to death for shooting 19-year-old Stephanie Neiman and then burying her alive.

View Entire List ›

“Just because Ronald Reagan dislikes these people, doesn’t mean that people in their own nations feel the same way.”

View Video ›

Channel 17/Town Meeting Television / CCTV Center for Media & Democracy; Creative Commons

Sen. Bernie Sanders, the socialist from Vermont who is now challenging Hillary Clinton for the 2016 Democratic nomination, praised the Castro regime and Nicaragua's Sandinista government upon returning from a trip to South America in 1985.

In an interview that aired on Channel 17/Town Meeting Television, Sanders called Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega, "an impressive guy," and said that while Fidel Castro wasn't "perfect," Americans shouldn't forget that "just because Ronald Reagan dislikes these people, doesn't mean that people in their own nations feel the same way."

According to his book, Outsider in the House, Sanders traveled to Nicaragua on the invitation of the Sandinista government, to witness the celebration of the "Seventh Anniversary of the Revolution." By his own account, he was the "highest ranking American official present" at the event.

Upon his return, Sanders said that he was "impressed" with the "intelligence and sincerity" of Sandinista leaders, arguing that they were not the "political hacks" some had portrayed them to be.

"You do not fight, and lose your family, and get tortured, to go to jail for years to be a hack," said Sanders, adding that the Sandinistas had "very deep convictions."

Sanders also said he was "impressed" by Father d'Escoto -- at the time, Nicaragua's Minister of Foreign Affairs -- who he described as "very gentle" and a "loving man."

Acknowledging that his favorable assessment of the Sandinistas could lead to his being "attacked by every editorial writer in the free press for being a 'dumb dupe,'" Sanders countered that such a reaction was due in part to the fact that the Reagan White House had "trained and well paid people who are professional manipulators of the media," and who possessed a "sophistication" that Ortega and the Sandinistas lacked.

The Sandinistas, Sanders explained, had to "improve their ability to communicate with the average American."

Sanders also commented on Fidel Castro, pointing to the lack of resistance to Castro as proof that Americans would be "very, very mistaken" to expect a popular uprising against the Sandinistas in Nicaragua.

"In 1959 [...] everybody was totally convinced that Castro was the worst guy in the world and all of the Cuban people were going to rise up in rebellion against Fidel Castro," said Sanders. "They forgot that he educated their kids, gave their kids healthcare, totally transformed the society."

"So they expected this tremendous uprising in Cuba," Sanders continued, but "it never came. And if they are expecting a tremendous uprising in Nicaragua, they are very, very, very mistaken."

Sanders insisted that he did not mean to suggest "that Fidel Castro and Cuba are perfect; they certainly are not."

But "just because Ronald Reagan dislikes these people," he argued, "doesn't mean that people in their own nations feel the same way."

The fight over the Confederate flag in Hendersonville is a microcosm of a larger battle raging across the state in the days since a gunman killed nine African Americans in a church in Charleston, South Carolina.

View Video ›

Facebook: TheHendersonvilleStandard

When half a dozen or so protesters decided to use a Hendersonville, Tennessee, park to stage a rally for the Confederate flag on Wednesday afternoon, they drew camera crews and a few passersby honking horns in solidarity.

They also drew the attention of town resident Sibyl Reagan, a Tennessee native and self-proclaimed "local rabble rouser" who immediately took to Facebook and organized a counter-protest she hopes will see many residents lining the streets around the same park for a rally where they'll wave American flags and spread "the message of peace."

"We're going to go to the same place that they were, we're going to do the same thing, but hopefully we're going to get a different message out," she told BuzzFeed News in a phone interview Thursday.

The 48-hour fight over the Confederate flag in Hendersonville is a microcosm of a larger battle raging across the state in the days since a gunman killed nine African Americans in a church in Charleston, South Carolina. The debate over Confederate imagery — packed away behind compromise legislation across the South after a national fight in the late 1990s that left many symbols on prominent display — burst back onto center stage after governors across the region called for the Stars and Bars to come down from capitol grounds.

In Tennessee, the debate is not over the flag so much as it is over Nathan Bedford Forrest, a state native, Confederate general and, after the Civil War, prominent figure in the founding of the Ku Klux Klan.

After South Carolina's governor called for the removal of the Confederate flag from the Statehouse, Tennessee Gov. Bill Haslam said it was time for officials to make an exception to state law so the 4 foot tall bust of Forrest could be removed from their own Statehouse. Some Republican leaders quickly lined up behind Haslam, but others — most notably Lt. Gov. Ron Ramsey, have pushed back — hard. (Democrats in the state, minorities in both houses of the legislature, are more or less united behind removing the bust.)

The Forrest debate is deeply personal, tying the Confederacy directly to a conflict defined by Tennessee state law as the "War Between The States," which is remembered by many white residents for the valor of their ancestors.

Those battle lines also define the split in Hendersonville, where native Tennesseans with generations of history plan to send a message Thursday that the Confederate flag does not represent them.

"My great great grandfather...he was a teenager when he went to Gallatin and enlisted in the cavalry unit for the Confederacy," Scott Sprouse, a Hendersonville alderman and co-organizer of the anti-Confederate flag rally told BuzzFeed news. "He lived in the house of his older brother, who was married and had children.

"I respect him for rising to the call of duty, I respect his service in protection of his family I respect the service to his state, but that doesn't mean I need to respect the politics of Confederate leaders who have been dead for more than 150 years."

Wednesday's protesters told reporters at the scene they were waving the Confederate flag out of a devotion to Tennessee's past.

"Our rebel flags aren't about hate, it's about heritage," Tyson Ellis told WSMV news.

Reagan rejects the idea that honoring the Confederate past or even Forrest's troops requires flying the Stars and Bars. Her family history includes a great grandfather that she says served closely with Forrest during the Civil War.

"It's my history and my heritage," she told BuzzFeed News.

Supporters of the Confederate flag, she added, can be grating because they tell a story about her town she says just isn't true.

"It's frustrating for all of us, all you get is the waving flag crazy people on the news and that's just not representative of the people I know, regardless of their political persuasion," Reagan said.

Other civic leaders in Hendersonville are in on the plan to drown out the Confederate flag supporters. Sprouse said the local Veterans of Foreign Wars hall lent him 11 "full display size" American flags, and he purchased about 30 more ranging from midsize to little flags for kids to wave.

Sprouse and Reagan expect their protest to be much larger than the turnout on Wednesday.

However, the flag battle may rage on. Late Thursday, some Facebook posts in Hendersonville urged Confederate flag supporters to bring their banners to city hall, where Sprouse and other aldermen will be voting on a local tax increase.

But Sprouse believes his side will win out in the end.

"The main message is Hendersonville is one city in one country with one flag," he said. "We decided we want to come out and wave the American flag. That's the flag my grandfather fought under in World War II, and that's the flag my great grandfather lived under when he came home from the Civil War."

He added: "I'm gonna fly the flag that unites."

Anticipating a possible ruling in the same-sex marriage cases, Jim Obergefell has been joined by other plaintiffs — and lawyers — in the cases at the high court on Friday.

The line to hear the announcement of decisions at the Supreme Court on Friday, June 26, 2015.

Chris Geidner/BuzzFeed

WASHINGTON — Since June 15, Jim Obergefell — the lead plaintiff in the marriage cases before the Supreme Court — has been attending the announcement of decisions in some of the most anticipated cases in the term.

Until Friday, however, he's been alone among the plaintiffs in the marriage cases to attend. With only five cases and two scheduled decision dates remaining on the court's schedule — Friday and Monday — anticipation is high.

Among the others in the court on Friday are Michael De Leon and Gregory Bourke, two of the plaintiffs in the Kentucky case before the court, who flew in last night after Bourke got permission to miss work on Friday.

Obergefell's attorney, Al Gerhardstein, had flown in from Cincinnati, Ohio. Both Mary Bonauto and Doug Hallward-Driemeier — the attorneys who argued for marriage equality and marriage recognition at the April oral arguments in the cases — were in the building before 8 a.m.

Also at the Supreme Court on Friday morning: Paul Smith, the lawyer who argued the 2003 case that ended sodomy laws across the nation, Lawrence v. Texas.

The decision in that case came down a dozen years ago today, June 26, 2003.

The Supreme Court struck down the federal ban on recognition of same-sex couples' marriages in the Defense of Marriage Act in United States v. Windsor exactly a decade later, on June 26, 2013.

On Friday morning, Obergefell, De Leon, Bourke, Gerhardstein, Bonauto, Hallward-Driemeier, Smith — and the country — awaited the decision in Obergefell v. Hodges.

Bourke, De Leon, and two of their children:

Chris Geidner/BuzzFeed

Jim Obergefell and the Human Rights Campaign's Chad Griffin entering the Supreme Court:

youtube.com

View Entire List ›

After avoiding answering the question in 2013, Supreme Court ruled 5-4 Friday that states can no longer ban same-sex marriage. “It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage,” Justice Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion.

View Entire List ›

Sanders wrote that media abides by the “well-tested Hitlerian principle that people should be treated as morons and bombarded over and over again with the same simple phrases and ideas.”

Donna Light / AP

In the late 1970s Bernie Sanders, then still known mostly as the perennial Liberty Union candidate and freelance writer, wrote a critique of mass media and television for the Vanguard Press, an alt-weekly that ran from the mid 1970s into the early 1980s.

In the critique, Sanders holds contempt for the mainstream media, which he said abided by the "well-tested Hitlerian principle that people should be treated as morons and bombarded over and over again with the same simple phrases and ideas."

Sanders noted three major functions of the television industry.

"First, it is supposed to make as much money as possible for the owners of the industry and for the companies who advertise," he wrote. "Second, like heroin and alcohol, television serves the function of an escapist mechanism which allows people to 'space out' and avoid the pain and conflict of their lives — and the causes of those problems. Third, television is the major vehicle by which the owners of this society propagate their political points of view (including lies and distortions) through the 'news.'"

Today, the socialist Vermont senator who is seeking the Democratic presidential nomination still views mass communication as an important issue facing the country. He maintains a page on his website where he notes, "media consolidation suppresses diversity and ignores the needs and interests of local communities."

The Vermont weekly Seven Days has dug deep in Sanders' history in the state, as a perennial candidate, mayor, congressman, and senator. A "Bernie Beat" archived details his record in the state coming back into the early 1970s. This article is among those posted in their extensive archives.

Sanders noted a "fundamental contradiction" in television like many aspects of a capitalist society. He said owners of the mass media industry don't want to educate people because "to do so would be to act against their own best interests."

"What the owners of the TV industry want to do, and are doing, in my opinion, is use that medium to intentionally brainwash people into submission and helplessness," wrote Sanders.

"With considerable forethought they are attempting to create a nation of morons who will faithfully go out and buy this or that product, vote for this or that candidate, and faithfully work for their employers for as low a wage as possible."

Sanders said if "the television industry encouraged intellectual growth, honesty, and the pursuit of truth, it would put most major corporations out of business." He noted "most advertising consists of lies designed to sell products which are either identical to the competition, totally useless, grossly overpriced, or dangerous to human health or the environment."

"The last thing that the owners of the TV industry would want is for people to know the truth about the products sold on the air," he wrote.

Sanders concluded by noting control of television is a political issue that is necessary to address for those "who are concerned about living in a democratic and healthy society."

Read the full article here:

After the Supreme Court ruled bans on same-sex marriage are unconstitutional, Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio focused on religious freedom — while Mike Huckabee, Bobby Jindal, and, most interestingly, Scott Walker focused more on keeping the fight alive.

Jeb Bush said he believed that the Supreme Court should have allowed the states to make a decision on marriage, adding that it is "crucial that as a country we protect religious freedom and the right of conscience and also not discriminate."

Joshua Lott / Reuters

"Guided by my faith, I believe in traditional marriage. I believe the Supreme Court should have allowed the states to make this decision. I also believe that we should love our neighbor and respect others, including those making lifetime commitments. In a country as diverse as ours, good people who have opposing views should be able to live side by side. It is now crucial that as a country we protect religious freedom and the right of conscience and also not discriminate."

Florida Sen. Marco Rubio said he disagreed with the decision, but that "we live in a republic and must abide by the law."

Carlos Barria / Reuters

"I believe that marriage, as the key to strong family life, is the most important institution in our society and should be between one man and one woman. People who disagree with the traditional definition of marriage have the right to change their state laws. That is the right of our people, not the right of the unelected judges or justices of the Supreme Court. This decision short-circuits the political process that has been underway on the state level for years.

"While I disagree with this decision, we live in a republic and must abide by the law. As we look ahead, it must be a priority of the next president to nominate judges and justices committed to applying the Constitution as written and originally understood.

"The next president and all in public office must strive to protect the First Amendment rights of religious institutions and millions of Americans whose faiths hold a traditional view of marriage. This is a constitutional duty, not a political opinion. Our nation was founded on the human right of religious freedom, and our elected leaders have a duty to protect that right by ensuring that no one is compelled by law to violate their conscience.

"I firmly believe the question of same sex marriage is a question of the definition of an institution, not the dignity of a human being. Every American has the right to pursue happiness as they see fit. Not every American has to agree on every issue, but all of us do have to share our country. A large number of Americans will continue to believe in traditional marriage, and a large number of Americans will be pleased with the Court's decision today. In the years ahead, it is my hope that each side will respect the dignity of the other."

View Entire List ›