“We must also bring fathers back into the picture and require responsible behavior from them… One way to accomplish this is to require mothers applying for welfare to identify fathers of children born out-of-wedlock.”

Jeff Swensen / Getty Images

In a 1995 opinion piece in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Republican presidential candidate Sen. Rick Santorum wrote that "mothers applying for welfare" should be forced to "identify fathers of children born out-of-wedlock" in order to "bring fathers back into the picture" and "require responsible behavior from them."

"Mothers are not the only ones who should be the focus of reform," he wrote. "We must also bring fathers back into the picture and require responsible behavior from them. My plan requires states to increase paternity establishment from the current average of less than 50 percent to 90 percent. One way to accomplish this is to require mothers applying for welfare to identify fathers of children born out-of-wedlock."

"In addition to less government support for out-of-wedlock and teenage births, any real welfare reform strategy must require able-bodied mothers on welfare to work," he added.

On Wednesday evening, a spokesman for Santorum, Matt Beynon, said, "Just as he did when he led the effort to pass the landmark Welfare Reform law, Senator Santorum continues to believe that our welfare system must be about both compassion and responsibility."

"Our welfare system must be fair to both those who are receiving benefits, but also to those taxpayers who are funding it," he said. "This is why Senator Santorum believes that both parents, not just the heroic single moms but the fathers of those children must have responsibility in those efforts."

In the 1995 piece titled "Making Welfare Well And Fair," the senator further argued "government welfare programs" sent the "wrong message" when they "reward you with you with cash payments, food assistance, medical care, and even housing" after a mother will "have a child, don't say who the father is — and stay single."

"Although parents and a variety of public and private programs tell young men and women to avoid having children, government welfare programs undermine this message. The wrong message we send is that if you have a child, don't say who the father is — and stay single — then we'll reward you with cash payments, food assistance, medical care, and even housing."

The senator said that the taxpayer cost of "$30 billion this year in welfare benefits for families headed by mothers who had their first child as a teen-ager" did not compare to the "overall cost to society and its effect on the family."

"Increasing rates of crime and poverty, not to mention the cost of irresponsible, unattached young males wreaking havoc in the streets of America," he continued.

Mother Jones previously reported controversial comments Santorum made about single mothers, at a town meeting in 1994. "'Open up the current periodicals — study after study, article after article, children having children is destroying the fabric of our country,'" Santorum said.

"'If you want to close your eyes to it, if you don't care about it, if you don't want to solve it, if you want to continue the system, to let people stay and spiral — go ahead. Not with me." Single mothers, Santorum argued, needed politicians who weren't afraid of 'kicking them in the butt.'"

Santorum reiterated the comments on the campaign trail in 1994.

"What we say is that in order for Mom to be able to go on welfare if she has a child out of wedlock, you have to tell us who the father is," Santorum said at an event in Carlisle, Pa., on April 1, 1994.

"If you don't tell us who the father is, you're not eligible for any welfare benefits, none, not even medical care. You tell us who the father is or you don't receive benefits."

“Florida Governor Jeb Bush is a good man.”

Donald Trump on the mat after receiving a stunner from "Stone Cold" Steve Austin at Wrestlemania 23 in 2007.

Carlos Osorio / ASSOCIATED PRESS

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump described Jeb Bush in his 2000 book as "bright, tough, and principled," "a good man," and wrote Bush "may be" president someday. He also wrote positively of education policies Bush pushed through in Florida.

"Florida Governor Jeb Bush is a good man," wrote Trump in his book, The America We Deserve. "I've held fundraisers for him. He's exactly the kind of political leader this country needs now and will very much need in the future. He, too, knows how to hang in there."

"His first shot at Florida's governorship didn't work out, but he didn't give up. He was campaigning the day after his loss. He won the next race in a landslide. He's bright, tough, and principled. I like the Bush family very much. I believe we could get another president from the Bushes. He may be the one."

The comments are strikingly different than the ones Trump has made about the former Florida governor recently. The real estate mogul has called Bush "pathetic," sent racially-charged tweets about Bush's wife (who is Mexican), and taken repeated swipes at him over his stance on immigration and education.

Speaking on Fox News earlier this week, Trump criticized Bush on his stance on education and immigration.

"I watched Jeb Bush," he continued. "I think it's pathetic what's going on, his stance on Common Core. He's in favor of Washington educating your children. His weak stance on immigration — he said it's an act of love. I mean what kind of stuff is that? It's baby stuff."

Trump, however, praised Bush's education policies as Florida governor in his 2000 book.

In April 1999, Jeb Bush and the Florida legislature passed an education reform bill, including a provision that makes "opportunity scholarships" in the amount of $ 4,000 available to kids whose public schools rate a failing grade in terms of achievement-test scores. Good policy. Even smarter politics. By giving choice to kids trapped in Florida's failing public schools, Jeb Bush is forcing public-education apologists to admit they hate vouchers so much they'd keep kids locked into even the worst public schools before they'd give them a choice and a chance.

Trump also donated $500 to Bush's gubernatorial re-election campaign in 2002.

“It’s a guy who I have always enjoyed watching him. It appears that the accusations are true and I think that’s the reality.”

ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS / Getty Images

Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders says "it appears that accusations" of sexual assault made against Bill Cosby are true, something he called a "tragedy."

"I think it's a tragedy," the Vermont senator said on The Black Eagle radio show with Joe Madison earlier this week.

"It's a guy who I have always enjoyed watching him. It appears that the accusations are true and I think that's the reality."

Cosby admitted in a 2005 deposition that he had obtained quaaludes with the intent to give them to women he wanted to have sex with, according to an Associated Press report earlier this week.

The comedian and television star has never been criminally charged, but numerous women have come forward accusing him of sexual assault.

Here's the audio:

w.soundcloud.com

“Based on what I saw in the curriculum, I felt there were some legitimate questions that needed to be answered.”

Danny Johnston / ASSOCIATED PRESS

While serving as lieutenant governor of Arkansas, Mike Huckabee once requested the state's attorney general to issue an opinion on whether a high school health class on AIDS prevention violated the law because it "legitimized" homosexuality.

The class, called "Preventing AIDS," was taught in Mountain Home, Arkansas, public schools. The program featured a "three-day discussion on AIDS and how the disease is transmitted," which was optional for students to attend. The school had said only a handful of students opted out of the discussion, according to the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette.

Huckabee questioned whether the class violated the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act and whether it abided by state law requiring public schools "emphasize premarital abstinence" to prevent pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases.

Then-state Assistant Attorney General Elisabeth Walker said the program did not conflict with state and federal law.

"It wasn't an issue I felt like I needed to determine. That's not my job," said Huckabee in 1994. "But based on what I saw in the curriculum, I felt there were some legitimate questions that needed to be answered."

Walker's opinion discussed Huckabee's objections to the program. These include claims that the course violates religious freedom and parental rights, runs afoul of an Arkansas law requiring abstinence-only sexual education, and "is sanctioning behavior and indeed instructing in behavior contrary to religious teachings (i.e., sodomy or premarital sex)."

Walker also addressed Huckabee's concern that "'homosexuality is legitimized contrary to Arkansas law'" by the course and the issue Huckabee takes with "the failure of the Curriculum to inform children of the sodomy laws in Arkansas."

In response to the first claim, Walker dismisses Huckabee's argument by writing that existing case law strongly suggested "that exposure to ideas one finds objectionable does not rise to the level of a free exercise claim."

"Having found none of the prohibited forms of governmental compulsion," Walker wrote, after a long discussion of the relevant precedents, "I must conclude that the Curriculum imposes no impermissible burden on the free exercise of religion."

Later in the opinion, Walker addressed Huckabee's "concern that homosexuality is legitimized contrary to Arkansas law."

"I am aware of no law that would prohibit the inclusion of information concerning homosexuality from a curriculum in the public schools," Walker writes. "Whether you agree or disagree with the particular facts presented, there is no legal prohibition against presenting this subject matter."

"[I]t is my opinion that the AIDS curriculum entitled 'Preventing AIDS' does not conflict with federal or state law," Walker concluded. "It appears that the issues raised in connection with this Curriculum are properly addressed to local school officials […]."

Huckabee has a tangled history with LGBT issues. He came under fire in his 2008 presidential campaign when it was revealed he wrote, in a 1992 questionnaire for the Associated Press during his failed Senate run, that people who had AIDS should be isolated from the general population.

In that 1992 questionnaire, Huckabee also called homosexuality, "an aberrant, unnatural, and sinful lifestyle, and we now know it can pose a dangerous public health risk."

That year Mike Huckabee also called homosexuality "learned behavior" and said that he told gay men he counseled to "control yourself." His crime plan from that campaign also proposed the death penalty for people who knowingly transmitted the AIDS virus.

Here's the full opinion from 1994 from the state's assistant attorney general:

The campaign quickly fixed the error.

Scott Olson / Getty Images

Democratic presidential candidate and former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley released a ten page plan Thursday for regulating Wall Street and breaking up the country's banks.

O'Malley outlines the paper as "protecting the American dream from another Wall Street crash."

The full paper can be read here:

Via martinomalley.com

View Entire List ›

“I’m a big fan of Hillary. She’s a terrific woman. She’s a friend of mine.”

Carlos Osorio / ASSOCIATED PRESS

Reality TV host and real estate mogul Donald Trump has slammed former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton repeatedly since launching his campaign for the Republican presidential nomination.

But in 2008, Trump thought Clinton should have been then-Sen. Barack Obama's vice presidential pick. It was even suggested multiple times on CNN during interviews Trump might have endorsed Obama instead of Arizona Sen. John McCain had Clinton been on the Democratic ticket.

Speaking with CNN that in 2008, Trump, asked if he might have endorsed Obama if she had picked Clinton said he was "a big fan" of her. Trump said she was "a terrific woman" and a "friend" and not picking Clinton hurt Obama "quite badly."

View Video ›

HOST: Let me ask you first about Barack Obama, is it true you would have thrown your support behind him. I was hearing possibly if he had would have picked Hillary Clinton you would have been right there with him.

TRUMP: I'm a big fan of Hillary. She's a terrific woman. She's a friend of mine. I think she was treated very poorly and I think it's hurt Barack Obama quite badly. She's a terrific woman.

buzzfeed-video1.s3.amazonaws.com

KING: Are you concerned, say, about Sarah Palin or Joe Biden, who will be better suited to step into that office right now?

TRUMP: Well, I can only say that Joe Biden got less than 1% of the vote every time he ran for president. I mean, you know, I don't understand why Hillary wasn't chosen because she was really winning. I have a friend that came to this country and was here for the last four weeks of that whole election. He said how did she lose? She won every election, she won every primary. He didn't understand it. The fact is that Obama went limping across the finish line. He should have chosen Hillary, it would have been a much different race, I believe. Right now, it looks to me like McCain is probably winning.

KING: Are you saying, though, that Biden would be better suited than Palin to step into that office?

TRUMP: No, I'm not saying that. I think she's made a tremendous impact. The impact that she has had on rejuvenating almost the Republican Party, it's been unbelievable. She has had a tremendous impact and frankly I didn't know who she was. Most people didn't know who she was. As soon as we got to see her and watch her, everybody's impressed. I think that really is to John McCain's credit. What he did in this choice is amazing because nobody else would have made it. It was a courageous choice. It has really reinvigorated the party.

KING: Have you formally endorsed the ticket?

TRUMP: No, but I'm endorsing McCain. I am basically very strongly -- you have to understand, I've known him, I like him, I respect him.

KING: So you're endorsing him?

TRUMP: He's a smart guy and I think he's going to be a great president.

KING: So you're endorsing him?

TRUMP: Sure, I'll endorse him on your show, why not?

KING: You just endorsed him.

TRUMP: I endorse him.

View Entire List ›

Trump also took credit for bringing to the public’s attention the death of a San Francisco woman killed by an undocumented immigrant.

Carlos Osorio / ASSOCIATED PRESS

w.soundcloud.com

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump on Wednesday compared undocumented Mexican immigrants to the "hardcore criminals" Fidel Castro sent to the United States in the early 1980s.

Speaking on conservative radio, the real estate mogul addressed the controversy surrounding his characterization of Mexican immigrants as "rapists" in his presidential announcement speech.

"A lot of people said, 'Would you apologize?' I said, 'Absolutely, I'd apologize, if there was something to apologize for," Trump told radio host Wayne Dupree on Wednesday.

"But what I said is exactly true. You understand that, Wayne. And what I'm saying — and I have great respect for the Mexican people. I love the Mexican people. I have many Mexicans working for me and they're great."

"But that's — we're not talking about — we're talking about a government that's much smarter than our government," Trump continued. "Much sharper, more cunning than our government, and they're sending people."

Trump then went on to compare the immigrants coming into the country from Mexico to Cuban exiles who came to the U.S. as a part of the Mariel boatlift in 1980. Many of those exiles were later found to be inmates released from Cuban prisons and mental health facilities.

"And they're sending — if you remember, years ago, when Castro opened up his jails, his prisons, and he sent them all over to the United States because let the United States have them," Trump stated. "And you know, these were the many hardcore criminals that he sent over. And, you know, that was a long time ago but essentially Mexico is sending over — as an example, this horrible guy that killed a beautiful woman in San Francisco. Mexico doesn't want him. So they send him over. How do you think he got over here five times? They push him out. They're pushing their problems onto the United States, and we don't talk about it because our politicians are stupid."

Trump then took credit for bringing to the public's attention the death of the San Francisco woman killed by an undocumented immigrant.

"I don't even think it's a question of, uh, good politics. I think they're just stupid. I don't think they know what they're doing. So I bring it up and, you're right, it became a big story," said Trump.

"And I'll tell you something: the young woman that was killed — that was a statistic. That wasn't even a story. My wife brought it up to me. She said, you know, she saw this little article about the young woman in San Francisco that was killed, and I did some research and I found out that she was killed by this animal ... who illegally came into the country many times, by the way, and who has a long record of convictions. And I went public with it and now it's the biggest story in the world right now. ... Her life will be very important for a lot of reasons, but one of them would be that she's throwing light and showing light on what's happening in this country."

“He’s a congressman from New York. He has been a powerful guy,” Trump said of the Democrat.

Charles Krupa / ASSOCIATED PRESS

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump said in November 1999 that, if elected president, he wanted to make Charles Rangel, the Democratic Congressman from New York, the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development.

At the time, real estate magnate was considering running for president as a member of the Reform Party. Asked by CNN anchor Wolf Blitzer if he'd "given some thought to a potential Trump Cabinet," Trump mentioned Rangel as his top choice to lead HUD.

"Well, let's go -- like HUD," Trump said. "I think Charlie Rangel is a terrific guy. He's a congressman from New York. He has been a powerful guy. Now the Democrats are not in power, but I think he'd be terrific at HUD."

Rangel has been a member of the House since 1971 and is still in office. His website touts his record promoting affordable housing in New York's 13th Congressional District.

Other Trump Cabinet picks would have included Colin Powell as secretary of state and General Electric CEO Jack Welch as treasury secretary. Trump said that John McCain would be "a very interesting candidate" for secretary of defense.

In the interview, Trump also predicted that, if he won the Reform Party's nomination, he would "take more votes away from the Democrats" than the Republicans in the general election. He ended up withdrawing from the race in February 2000.

“Look, I know people who see the confederate flag as a symbol of their heritage, not as a symbol of racism. But I also know people, many people, who see it as a symbol of pain.”

Carlos Barria / Reuters

Republican presidential candidate Marco Rubio on the Michael Medved Show Thursday said that although for some the Confederate Flag is a symbol of heritage, "we have to recognize that for millions of Americans, it is a deeply painful symbol and that's why it shouldn't be over government buildings, as it is not in Florida and it will now not be over in South Carolina."

Here's the full quote:

It was the right decision for South Carolina to make. I knew they would make the decision that was best for them. I had trust and faith in their process and in their leadership. And I felt strongly that outsiders should not be coming in and telling them what to do. That they knew what to do and they would do it. And I thought it would be counterproductive. Look, I know people who see the confederate flag as a symbol of their heritage, not as a symbol of racism. But I also know people, many people, who see it as a symbol of pain. For them, it's a reminder of an era in which in this country human beings were enslaved. And so, that's why in Florida and in many parts of the country, people have decided that the time has come for that flag not to be displayed in government buildings. And I think it's, it's, you're — it is possible to say you agree with that decision, as I do, and also say that we recognize, that, for many people, the flag — the reason that they're tied to it is not because of racism. They're not racist, it's a cultural attachment. But we have to recognize that for millions of Americans, it is a deeply painful symbol and that's why it shouldn't be over government buildings, as it is not in Florida and it will now not be over in South Carolina.

The flag was taken down from the South Carolina statehouse grounds this morning:

NBCNews.com

View Entire List ›

“…yes, I will ask the rich to pay a higher tax rate.”

ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS / Getty Images

Bernie Sanders said on Friday that he would have a concrete proposal for an income tax rate on the highest earners "in two or three weeks."

The Democratic presidential candidate was discussing legislation he has introduced as a senator from Vermont that he says "would end this business of companies being able to store their profits in the Cayman Islands" and tax "Wall Street speculation," when he was asked to name his preferred tax rate on the upper echelon of individual incomes.

"We're working on that," Sanders said on a New Hampshire radio station. "Ask me that question in two or three weeks, I will give you a definitive answer. How's that?"

In late May, Sanders said that, under the Eisenhower administration, the top tax rate "was something like 90 percent," and said he didn't think that was necessarily too high a rate to reinstate.

In June, Sanders alluded to "a comprehensive tax package" his team was working on and said he suspected that it would, "for the top marginal rates, go over 50 percent."

In the interview on Friday, Sanders said that the plan to be released in the coming weeks would "ask the rich to pay a higher tax rate."

"In general, what I can tell you is that when Warren Buffett tells us that he pays an effective tax rate lower than his secretaries or lower than nurses, there's something wrong with our tax system," he said, after again refusing to give a specific number. "So yes, my proposal will ask the wealthiest people in this country, who, by and large, are doing phenomenally well right now, while the middle class is disappearing, yes, I will ask the rich to pay a higher tax rate."

w.soundcloud.com

“No evidence of bulk orders or sales through any retailer or organization,” says the publisher, in a rare rebuttal to the all-powerful Times.

Richard Ellis / Getty Images

Publishing giant HarperCollins is publicly pushing back against the New York Times' claim that Ted Cruz's new book, A Time For Truth, was disqualified from its bestseller list because sales were limited to "strategic bulk purchases."

In a statement provided to BuzzFeed News, HarperCollins publicity director Tina Andreadis said the company looked into the matter and "found no evidence of bulk orders or sales through any retailer or organization."

It is common practice for politicians to try to game the Times' prestigious bestseller list by having their campaigns or political action committees buy up thousands of copies of their books. When Cruz's book was left off the list this week despite outselling many of the entries that did make it, the paper's spokesperson justified the omission by telling Politico they found an "overwhelming preponderance of evidence" that the sales numbers were being padded by bulk purchases.

By publicly refuting the Times' claim, HarperCollins is taking on one of the most influential forces in the publishing industry — an exceedingly rare move for any large publisher.

Here is Andreadis' complete statement:

HarperCollins Publishers has investigated the sales pattern for Ted Cruz's book A TIME FOR TRUTH and has found no evidence of bulk orders or sales through any retailer or organization.

When questioned about the omission of A TIME FOR TRUTH from its bestseller list, the New York Times told Politico, "In the case of this book, the overwhelming preponderance of evidence was that sales were limited to strategic bulk purchases."

A TIME FOR TRUTH ranked high on other publishing industry bestseller lists including Nielsen Bookscan (#4), a subscription service that tracks the vast majority of book sales in America, The Wall Street Journal (#4) and Barnes and Noble (#7). All these outlets omit bulk orders books from their rankings.

Since 2012, Republicans have spent time, money, and energy working to reach out to Latinos, and saw some success last year. But now a loudmouth they’ve had trouble completely repudiating is lighting up Hispanic media every night.

Greg Allen / AP

No Democrats are quoted in this story.

It's not that they don't want to be. There is no topic that fills them more with unbridled glee, outrage, or fake outrage than Donald Trump. His antics help Democrats who want the GOP to be seen as xenophobic and unable to discuss issues that deal with Hispanics, like immigration, in a respectful, measured manner.

But for those who have worked to improve the GOP brand with Hispanics, the last month of the Trump comedy spectacular, in which he has called Mexicans criminals and rapists and doubled down on those comments, has been deeply unsettling. More importantly, they worry it risks further damaging the party with Latinos and eroding gains they've already made — even as candidates like Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio put them in a potentially even better place.

Republicans have made real and concerted efforts, over a period of time, to engage Hispanics after 2012. The Republican National Committee's Growth and Opportunity project has been well-funded, successful in key 2014 races, and is ramping up for the presidential cycle, with the largest chunk of spending going toward Hispanic outreach.

Latinos on the left worry about the LIBRE Initiative, a Koch-funded project that's doing real on-the-ground work in Hispanic churches and communities, all while espousing conservative principles in literature and on Latino media. GROW Elect, an effort started in California and expanding to Southwest states, helped dozens of Latino Republicans get elected in 2014, often in Hispanic districts.

The goal with these projects is clear: showing that the Republican Party is not the enemy. And Trump, these Republicans worry, is ruining that.

"The greatest harm is to Trump himself — he says he can win the Latino vote, he's kidding himself," said Ruben Barrales, who leads GROW Elect and is the son of Mexican immigrants. "Now young Hispanics will be smashing Donald Trump piñatas at their birthday parties in celebration. He fails to recognize the harm on the Trump brand. But it's damaging not just to Republican Latino efforts, but to Republican efforts as a whole."

Barrales pointed to the campaign for California's Proposition 187, which took aim at undocumented immigrants and featured harsh ads about Latinos, as a moment when Latinos decided the GOP was against them.

Trump hasn't just dominated the mainstream media, but has been viewing nightly on Univision and Telemundo, the Spanish-language giants that reach Hispanic homes across the country.

"Trump has turned out to be Sheriff Joe Arpaio's replacement as the principal villain in what has practically become a new nightly telenovela on Univision and Telemundo," said MRC Latino's director, Ken Oliver-Méndez, whose organization monitors Spanish-language media's inclusion of conservative viewpoints.

Since his announcement, Oliver-Méndez said, Trump has been mentioned at least once or twice in practically every newscast with very few exceptions on the three major networks MRC Latino monitors: Univision, Telemundo, and MundoFox.

"It's a distraction, a major distraction," said LIBRE's executive director, Daniel Garza. "It's not the narrative you want driving the national news." But he said Trump has created a realignment within the immigration debate, where the bombastic businessman represents the extreme fringe and other presidential candidates are able to emerge as the adults in the room.

Still, Republicans have not just had to comment on Trump, but some have had to do so repeatedly. When Trump retweeted a comment by someone saying that Jeb Bush has to like the "Mexican illegals" because of his wife, Bush was forced to say, "You can love the Mexican culture, you can love your Mexican-American wife and also believe that we need to control the border."

Izzy Santa, former director of Hispanic media at the RNC, said Trump is the only person who disregards that tone, and rhetoric matters.

"Trump's comments hurt the Republican field for the next cycle because it portrays Republicans as out of touch when it comes to understanding Hispanic culture and the immigration debate," she said.

Republican officials have also pushed back against Trump. RNC Chair Reince Priebus reportedly called Trump and told him to "tone it down." House Speaker John Boehner condemned the use of immigration as a "political football."

Still, people maintain all's not lost. A prominent Hispanic operative advising a Republican campaign called Trump irrelevant and said he doesn't reflect the views of the party.

A Latino at a different campaign said the good news for Republicans is that it's 2015, not 2016. The operative said candidates who have had to engage Latinos in the past, like Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush, Rick Perry, and Chris Christie, know that they have to speak to Hispanic voters, who will be paying attention to how they respond to Trump and the immigration issue. "I think it's a defining moment for the Republican candidates on where they stand in regards to these comments," the strategist said, adding that Ted Cruz's embrace of Trump "has disqualified him as a serious general election candidate."

Trump, relishing his role as presidential troll, has made it clear that he isn't going anywhere.

On Saturday, Trump will hold a "Stand Up To Illegal Immigration" joint event with Arpaio in Arizona. The question now for GOP presidential candidates is even if they come out stronger to repudiate him, how can they stop Trump from being Trump, all the while representing their party?

Barrales said just as Republicans were leaders most recently in South Carolina to help take down the Confederate flag, they need to be here with Trump as well.

One prominent Latino operative who advises campaigns laid out the stakes, saying continued comments and a focus on Trump only endangers the work Republicans have been putting in for the last few years.

"Trump's divisive rhetoric and harsh tone is undermining those efforts and could potentially block Republican's path to the White House in 2016," the operative said.

View Entire List ›

The court heard arguments Friday that focused on whether Texas and other states can sue to stop Obama’s 2014 Deferred Action for Parents of Americans executive order.

Gerald Herbert / AP

NEW ORLEANS — A federal appeals court heard arguments Friday over President Obama's plan to defer the deportation of potentially millions of undocumented immigrants, leaving the plan on hold at least until it rules.

As the three-judge panel of the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals questioned the Texas and Justice Department lawyers Friday morning, hundreds of immigrants and their supporters held a raucous Second Line parade outside the courthouse that repeatedly interrupted the proceedings.

A district court judge in Texas this winter halted implementation of Obama's 2014 Deferred Action for Parents of Americans executive order, which would have provided deportation waivers for certain undocumented workers if they meet specific criteria.

The three-judge panel did not rule on the administration's argument that the case —brought by Texas and more than two dozen other states — should be dismissed because they lacked standing to sue, or on the underlying question of whether the administration had the authority to implement the new plan, and the court did not say when a decision will be released.

While it is unclear how the court will rule, Judge Carolyn Dineen King appeared sympathetic to the administration's arguments, particularly on the underlying legality of DAPA, repeatedly pressing Texas Solicitor General Scott Keller over the issue of work permits, which is at the center of the conservative complaints about the order.

Although Keller acknowledged there are a handful of specific instances in statutory language in which the Department of Homeland Security can provide work permits to recipients of a deportation deferment, King repeatedly and pointedly asked whether states see any discretionary authority. At one point as Keller seemed to dodge answering King head on, the judge said "I understand the state doesn't want that to happen … you don't want [undocumented immigrants] to be able to get work permits" before throwing up her hands, forcing Keller to concede her point.

Judge Jennifer Elrod, however, remained clearly skeptical of the administration's legal authority. Picking up the states' argument that the White House is conferring a legal status on the undocumented, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Benjamin Mizer struggled to answer her repeated questions about where the authority lies for the administration to declare them lawfully in the United States.

Elrod's skepticism was somewhat predictable, as she and Judge Jerry Smith — who also heard today's oral arguments — rejected a DOJ request to lift the stay on implementing DAPA that was based on largely the same arguments. As in the hearing on that motion, Smith remained largely inscrutable, asking only a handful of questions during the more than two hour-long hearing.

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court's recent redistricting ruling could impact the DAPA case. The states pointed to the high court's ruling that the Arizona legislature had standing to sue the independent redistricting commission to bolster their standing claim, which is at the heart of the early legal wrangling over the policy.

Throughout the course of the legal challenge to Obama's executive action, both sides have asserted that the expect an eventual victory. But so far the Obama administration and its supporters have been dealt only losses, first by Judge Andrew Hanen in the district court in Brownsville and then by a 5th Circuit panel that, like the one today, was dominated by conservative judges.

In the meantime, the federal government has stopped preparing to unroll the programs, and some immigrant advocates have begun to worry that the legal challenge may succeed — if not by winning in the courts, then at least by running out the clock. "I was looking at the timeline, and it hit me even harder," Julio Zuniga, president of the Arizona Dream Act Coalition, told BuzzFeed News in June. "The longest the appeal could go might be over a year. So that means that elections are going to pass, and that means that with a new president, the executive order could be stopped or eliminated."

In turn, the opponents of Obama's actions have grown emboldened. "On the merits, this case is a slam dunk for the plaintiffs," Kris Kobach, the Kansas secretary of state and a leading opponent of Obama's immigration policies, told BuzzFeed News. "I think many attorneys in the Justice Department realize what a difficult legal case they have."

From the beginning of the challenge, immigrant advocates have blamed these setbacks on what they call "venue-shopping," saying Texas and its fellow plaintiffs specifically chose Judge Hanen's district and the 5th Circuit for its predominantly conservative judges. John Wittman, a spokesperson for Texas Governor Greg Abbott, countered that the case may have also landed with a Clinton-appointed judge in the same court, and that the court's location made it a suitable venue. "The lawsuit was appropriately filed in Brownsville, Texas, as it was the epicenter of border crossings following Obama's executive order," Wittman said.

Still, some advocates were heartened by Judge King's aggressive questioning of the plaintiffs on whether they were motivated by a desire to prevent undocumented immigrants from obtaining work permits.

"Some of the questions that were raised in court today really brought to light what we think is the crux of the matter," said Karen Tumlin, managing attorney for the Los Angeles office the National Immigration Law Center. "Do we want to be a country that includes people or excludes them?"

Private citizens are challenging Missouri’s execution methods, arguing that their tax dollars are being used to violate the law.

The execution chamber at the Missouri Correctional Center in Bonne Terre, Mo.

James A. Finley / AP

A new lawsuit filed Thursday accuses the state of Missouri of violating state and federal law in how it carries out executions. The suit alleges the Department of Corrections is violating FDA regulations in how it obtains its lethal drugs.

Unlike other suits challenging a death penalty method, however, this lawsuit isn't brought by death row inmates challenging their executions. Instead, it's brought by private citizens who don't want their tax dollars used on what they say is illegal activity.

Missouri, like some other death penalty states, is believed to obtain its lethal injection drugs from a secret compounding pharmacy. Compounding pharmacies, unlike drug manufacturers, mix up drugs based on a specific prescription. Without a valid prescription, the compounding pharmacy can't legally make or sell the drug, according to the lawsuit.

"This case is not about the general legality of the death penalty in Missouri or elsewhere," the suit says. "Nor is this case about the constitutionality of the death penalty. Rather, the question before this court is whether the Missouri Department of Corrections and other public officials responsible for overseeing and carrying out executions may violate the law using taxpayer funds."

The case is brought by two former members of the state legislature, a Baptist minister and a Catholic nun. They argue the prescription can't be valid because the doctor that writes it doesn't inspect the inmate, and isn't writing it for any medical need.

They are asking a state judge to enter a temporary restraining order to keep the state from violating the law. Missouri has an execution set for next week.

It's an interesting tactic for those against the death penalty to take, after the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling that said death row inmates have to propose a better method of execution if they are going to challenge the state's choice. Capital attorneys in Missouri have argued in court filings that doing so would be a violation of their ethics.

In a lawsuit like this though, the parties would not have to do so.

"The epitome of a taxpayer standing lawsuit is to enable ordinary citizens … to make their government officials conform to the dictates of the law when spending public money," the lawsuit states.

The plaintiffs point to a Missouri Supreme Court ruling that said such lawsuits "provide the door through which taxpayers may enter the courts to seek enforcement."

In a response, Attorney General Chris Koster's office says the plaintiffs are acting as surrogates for the man Missouri is about to execute. He also argues that they are attempting to privately enforce FDA regulations. "But precedent dictates that [those regulations] are not privately enforceable," his office wrote. "Further, [they] are not meant to apply to, and do not apply to, carrying out lawful executions."

"Over the past decade, the Missouri lethal injection protocol has withstood years of challenges of the offenders on constitutional and statutory grounds. Although [they] assert they are not challenging the legality of Missouri's lethal injection protocol, that is really what they are doing."

A judge held a hearing on the case Friday afternoon. She requested more information on taxpayer standing and indicated that she will make a decision on the temporary restraining order on Monday, the attorney general's office said.

Rep. Trey Gowdy also says Hillary Clinton should turn her email over to the State Department’s inspector general.

Pablo Martinez Monsivais / AP

Rep. Trey Gowdy, the Republican chairman of the House Benghazi Committee, said Hillary Clinton has made "maybe" a "half dozen" false statements about her compliance with the committee's requests and her exclusive use of a private email server during her time at the State Department.

"We're getting up near maybe half dozen demonstrably false statements," the South Carolina congressman said on the Mike Gallagher Show Thursday.

Gowdy said Clinton should turn her private email server over to the State Department's inspector general for review.

"Let the inspector general make sure that the public record was intact and not your own lawyers," said Gowdy.

Clinton turned over about 55,000 pages of emails to the State Department last December. Clinton's team decided which emails were personal and which were official government records that needed to be turned over to the State Department. Her lawyer told the Benghazi Committee in March that her server was wiped and the emails were deleted after they were turned over.

Clinton said in an interview with CNN she hadn't received a subpoena for emails from her time as secretary of state. A spokesperson for Clinton told CNN after the interview that Clinton was responding to the suggestion that she was under subpoena when her emails were deleted in December. Clinton was subpoenaed by the Benghazi Committee in March.

Take a listen:

w.soundcloud.com

A jab at Reagan?

Bill Pugliano / Getty Images

Donald Trump once spent nearly $100,000 to place a full-page advertisement criticizing U.S. foreign policy in the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the Boston Globe.

"There's nothing wrong with America's Foreign Defense Policy that a little backbone can't cure," the ad's headline blares. Below, the reader finds "an open letter from Donald J. Trump" -- addressed "To The American People" -- "on why America should stop paying to defend countries that can afford to defend themselves."

The ads appeared in the papers on September 2, 1987. According to an Associated Press story published the night before they appeared in print, Trump paid $94,801 to run the advertisements.

"For decades, Japan and other nations have been taking advantage of the United States," the letter declares. "The saga continues unabated as we defend the Persian Gulf, an area of only marginal significance to the United States for its oil supplies, but one upon which Japan and others are almost totally dependent."

"Why are these nations not paying the United States for the human lives and billions of dollars we are losing to protect their interests?" the ad continues.

"The world is laughing at America's politicians as we protect ships we don't own, carrying oil we don't need, destined for allies who won't help."

Trump writes that Americans could "help our farmers, our sick, our homeless by taking from some of the greatest profit machines ever created -- machines created and nurtured by us."

"'Tax' these wealthy nations, not America," suggests the tycoon. "End our huge deficits, reduce our taxes, and let America's economy grow unencumbered by the cost of defending those who can easily afford to pay us for the defense of their freedom."

"Let's not let our great country be laughed at any more," Trump's letter concludes.

At the time the ad ran, there was speculation that Trump might oppose George H.W. Bush for the Republican nomination for president. The same day the ads ran, an article elsewhere in the Times reported that the developer had scheduled a trip to New Hampshire.

Ultimately, Trump did not enter the 1988 race -- bringing the first of his many flirtations with a presidential bid to an end.

Read the full ad here:

The New York Times

UPDATE: A tweet from the Wisconsin governor Friday said he was running for president — three days before his real announcement. Late Friday, Twitter said the tweet wasn’t Walker’s fault.

On Friday, a photo with the words "Scott Walker Is Running For President" was tweeted from Walker's account.

The tweet, which did not appear in Walker's timeline for much of the day but was still visible for hours at its permalink, was a weirdly timed surprise: Walker wasn't supposed to formally announce his candidacy until Monday in Wisconsin.

"We're looking into today's issue, and we've determined the Walker team was not at fault," the spokesman said in a statement.

Twitter did not provide further information on what exactly happened.

Since Iowa Freedom Summit this winter, he has aggressively campaigned in early presidential primary states this year and is considered a top Republican contender for the nomination.

The Wisconsin governor is best known for his battles with public unions. After he passed a budget that required public workers to contribute more money to their pension plans and limited collective bargaining in the public sector, unions protested for weeks, and ultimately helped force a recall election in 2013, which Walker won decisively. Because of the recall, the Republican has won three statewide elections in a blue state.

Early on, Walker has focused on his conservative record and pitched himself as a slightly more populist alternative to many of the other prospective candidates.

“Most importantly, for all of her notoriety, what has she accomplished? And so having someone who has real accomplishment I think is a great contrast.”

Scott Olson / Getty Images

Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker says he's the best person in the Republican presidential field to take on Hillary Clinton, who he says has no real accomplishments.

"I do," Walker said when asked if he thought Clinton was going to be the Democratic nominee on the Charlie Sykes Show Friday. Walker is set to officially launch his presidential campaign on Monday.

"I think that provides a great contrast," continued Walker. "I think it's all the more reason why as Republicans we need to nominate a new fresh face. Someone definitely from outside of Washington with big bold ideas. I think most importantly someone who can more than talk who can actually deliver."

Walker said he is from "the future" but Clinton, who is from Washington D.C., is from "the past."

"Cause that's the best contrast. Clinton's obviously not a new face, someone from the past is best taken on with someone from the future. Certainly she's someone from Washington, so someone from outside of Washington is helpful."

Walker added "for all her notoriety" Clinton has no accomplishments.

"Most importantly, for all of her notoriety, what has she accomplished? And so having someone who has real accomplishment I think is a great contrast."

Take a listen:

w.soundcloud.com

And don’t blame Fox.

As you may have noticed, Donald Trump has been on TV and in the media a lot in the last week.

Just how much? This much:

This search was done using the media monitoring service TV Eyes, which uses closed captioning. It's a very loose estimate, though. Closed captioning is often pretty rough.

The number above seems likely to be short, given this video which features 239 instances in a 24-hour period:

youtube.com

After a false start on Friday, the Republican governor of Wisconsin officially announced Monday he has entered the race.

Darren Mccollester / Getty Images

The Walker campaign released a video this morning, touting his conservative record as governor.

View Video ›

Facebook: video.php

"In Wisconsin, we didn't nibble around the edges," Walker said in the video. "We enacted big, bold reforms that took power out of the hands of the big government special interests and gave it to the hardworking taxpayers — and people's lives are better because of it."

"We fought and won. In the Republican field, there are some who are good fighters, but they haven't won those battles. And there are others who've won elections, but haven't consistently taken on the big fights. We showed you can do both. Now, I am running for president to fight and win for the American people."

The Wisconsin governor, best known for his battles with public unions, has pitched himself as a more populist candidate than the other contenders in the race.

Walker passed a budget that required public workers to contribute more money to their pension plans and limited collective bargaining in the public sector. The unions in his state protested for weeks, ultimately forcing a recall election in 2013. Walker survived the recall election, his third win in statewide election in a blue state.

On Friday, a tweet went out saying Walker was in the race. A Twitter spokesperson said that it wasn't the Walker campaign's fault.

Walker joins a crowded field of Republicans running for the nomination, with more candidates still expected to announce before the first GOP primary debate in August.

Walker is expected to make a formal announcement speech in Wisconsin Monday afternoon.

View Entire List ›