Billion Dollar Cartoon

Trump attacks McCain's record as war hero, draws rebuke from GOP presidential field

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump’s criticism Saturday of fellow party member and Arizona Sen. John McCain for being “captured” during the Vietnam War brought sharp rebuke from others in the GOP field.  
“He was a war hero because he was captured,” Trump said at the Family Leadership Summit, in Ames, Iowa. “I like people who weren’t captured.”
Most of the 14 other GOP candidates, including some at the summit, immediately criticized Trump’s remarks.
Former Texas Gov. Rick Perry tweeted that McCain “is an American hero” and that all U.S. prisoners of war “deserve our nation's highest debt of gratitude” and that Trump’s comments are “disgraceful.”
He also called on Trump to apologize and said the comments make him “unfit” to become commander in chief and that he should quit the race.
Trump made his remarks after the conference moderator, Republican pollster Frank Luntz, described McCain as "a war hero" and Trump was pressed on his recent description of McCain as "a dummy."
McCain spent more than five years as a prisoner of war after his plane was shot down during combat in Vietnam.
McCain and Trump have been feuding for days. The discord apparently follows a recent joint event in Phoenix, Ariz., that swelled to 1,500 people when Trump decided to attend and talk about illegal immigration.
McCain referred to the attendees as “crazies.”
Trump when announcing his candidacy said some Mexicans who cross the border illegally come with problems and that some are “rapists.”
He said McCain calling the attendees at the Arizona event crazies was “disrespectful.”
“These were not crazies," Trump said. “These were great American citizens.”
Trump earlier complained about having financially backed McCain’s failed 2008 presidential bid and said that McCain graduated last in his class at the U.S. Naval Academy.
More recently, he has accused McCain of failing veterans by not improving the trouble Department of Veterans Affairs, the agency that provides their health care.
Trump said in a series of tweets after the event: “I will make this right for our great Vets!” and “John McCain has failed miserably to fix the situation and to make it possible for veterans to successfully manage their lives.”
Among the other 2016 GOP presidential candidates to respond was Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal.
“John McCain is an American hero,” he said on Twitter. “I have nothing but respect for his service to our country.”
Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, a GOP candidate who has been at or near the top of most polls since the start of the election cycle, said on Twitter: “Enough with the slanderous attacks. @SenJohnMcCain and all our veterans -- particularly POWs have earned our respect and admiration.”
Candidate and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie said on Twitter: “Senator John McCain is an American hero. Period. Stop.”

As US energy output surges, Republicans lead effort to lift decades-old oil export ban

Congressional Republicans are leading a bipartisan effort to lift a decades-old ban on oil exports, arguing the recent surge in domestic-energy production and other factors have pushed the embargo past its prime.
To be sure, the United States has recently emerged as the world’s largest energy producer -- largely the result of the relatively new method of extracting natural gas and hard-to-get oil known as “fracking.”
Supporters of the plan, including many in the oil and gas industry, essentially argue that lifting the ban would help the U.S. economy. They say it is now slowing future energy production and exploration and that U.S. companies could profit from getting an abundance of domestic energy products on world markets.
“I’m optimistic about our efforts,” North Dakota GOP Rep. Kevin Cramer told FoxNews.com on Wednesday. “We have bipartisan support and a broad understanding of the issue among members.”
Cramer largely attributes the support from rank-and-file members and top GOP leadership alike to three separate bills circulating in three different House committees -- Agriculture, Foreign Affairs and Energy and Commerce.
He touts the legislation as a potential boon for the U.S. economy. And he prefers a measured approach to passage, amid urgent calls to immediately repeal the ban in the wake of the Iran nuclear pact, fearing that strategy will become a political football like the Keystone XL Pipeline, not the “jobs creator” he wants it to be.
Cramer and other supporters also argue that lifting the ban would result in cheaper electricity, which would spark growth in U.S. manufacturing and other sectors of the economy, beyond the oil and gas industry.
In addition, they argue, the so-called “light sweet” or “sweet” oil derived from fracking and the companion horizontal-drilling process cannot be readily processed by U.S. refineries but is exceptionally valuable overseas.
“It’s a premium product,” said Cramer, who is co-sponsoring bills by Texas Republican Reps. Joe Barton and Mike McCaul that combined have at least 10 Democratic co-sponsors.
However, calls to lift the ban, the result of the 1970’s energy crisis, have also brought out critics. And they have resulted in conflicting reports about the potential impact of adding billions of barrels of U.S. crude oil to world markets -- from oil prices plummeting around the globe to gas prices increasing at pumps across the county.
“Pro-ban supports would like to make it cut and dry, but it’s a very complicated issue,” Jay Hauck, executive director of the CRUDE coalition, said Friday. “It’s an onion, and you have to peel away the layers.”
The group, whose full name is Consumers and Refiners United for Domestic Energy, represents U.S. energy companies and advocates for keeping crude in the country.
Hauck argues the U.S. is indeed now the world’s biggest energy producer but has yet to achieve total energy independence, which means exporting would result in billions of barrels more annually from foreign countries, posing a greater national security risk.
One of the biggest critics of lifting the ban is Navy Cmdr. Kirk Lippold, who was in charge of the USS Cole in 2000 when terrorists attached and detonated a bomb on the destroyer at a Yemen port, killing 17 American sailors.
Lippold testified at a recent House hearing on the issue that the biggest benefactor of U.S. exports would be rival China.
In the Senate, Sen. Lisa Murkowski, an Alaska Republican and chairwoman of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, is helping lead efforts to lift the ban.
She was among those sending early-warning signals about the Iran nuclear deal allowing the oil rich country to put 1 million barrels daily on the world market.
“We are letting Iran export its oil to markets that we prevent our own companies from accessing,” Murkowski said in late June. “Any deal that lifts sanctions on Iranian oil will disadvantage American companies unless we lift the antiquated ban on our own oil exports."
And Murkowski’s committee held a hearing June 9 on a bill that she and Sen. Heidi Heitkamp, North Dakota Democrat, have co-sponsored on lifting the ban.
However, a top Senate staff told FoxNews.com after the Iran deal was struck Tuesday that Murkowski has no intentions of holding up a major foreign policy vote or international trade legislation over lifting the ban, likely references to the Trans-Pacific Partnership pact being debated in Congress and the upcoming votes on the Iran nuclear deal.
(The staffer made the comments after a House effort to insert ban-lifting language into the trade pact went nowhere.)
Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz said this spring that he doesn’t think “an overly compelling argument has been made” to lift the ban while the U.S. continues to import 7 million barrels of crude oil daily.
However, the issue is being handled by the Commerce Department, not the Energy Department. And Moniz made clear he was not making a statement “in support of or against the idea of exports.”
Both agencies decline Friday to comment.
Hauck said the companies that his group represents are not "absolutely, under-no-circumstances opposed" to lifting the ban and would consider such a change when the U.S. becomes free from foreign oil dependency.
Cramer says the House bills, including the third from Texas GOP Rep. Mike Conaway, could be combined or become an amendment to a large bill.
And he sees possibility in the fact that the White House has never threatened to veto such legislation.
“I’m the optimist,” he said.

Family of Chattanooga gunman says their son suffered from depression

The family of the man who authorities say killed four Marines and a sailor in Chattanooga said
in a statement that their son suffered from depression and was not the same person they knew.

"There are no words to describe our shock, horror, and grief," said the statement, provided Saturday to the Associated Press by a lawyer representing the family of Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez. "The person who committed this horrible crime was not the son we knew and loved. For many years, our son suffered from depression. It grieves us beyond belief to know that his pain found its expression in this heinous act of violence."
"We understand there are many legitimate questions that need to be answered," the statement said. "Having said this, now is the time to reflect on the victims and their families, and we feel it would be inappropriate to say anything more other than that we are truly sorry for their loss."
The family also said they are cooperating with the investigation.
Some Muslims now fear the Chattanooga community’s perception of them had changed after the shooting rampage Thursday.
Mohsin Ali, a member of the Islamic Society of Greater Chattanooga, said he hopes the local community doesn’t dissolve into turmoil the others have in the region over building mosques and other matters. Peaceful coexistence has largely prevailed in the city that has pride itself on strong ties between people of different faiths.
"We, our kids, feel 100 percent American and Chattanoogan," said the Pakistani-born Ali, who is a child psychiatrist. "Now they are wondering if that is how people still look at them."
Serving a warrant on the Abdulazeez home Thursday, agents led two women wearing Islamic head coverings away in handcuffs. However, FBI agent Jason Pack said Saturday that no arrests have been made in the case.
Authorities are looking into the shooting as a terrorism investigation and whether Abdulazeez was inspired or directed by a terrorist organization. They still don’t know what motivated the shooting.
The president of the Islamic Society of Greater Chattanooga said Abdulazeez's father told him he felt blindsided and did not see any recent changes in his son.
"He told me that he had never seen it coming, and did not see any signs from his son that he would be that way and do something like that," Bassam Issa said.
Ali said immigrants owe a debt of gratitude to America and the armed forces to protect it, because they often know firsthand what it means to live in countries without personal freedoms or the rule of law. Near the end of Friday night’s service, at Ali’s urging, dozens of Muslims received a standing ovation as they stood in support of their city and in allegiance to their nation.
It was a remarkable show of togetherness in a region where relations have sometimes been tense since the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
Still, the events of the last few days have left some on edge, particularly the young. The end of Ramadan is usually a time for celebration, but events at the Islamic Center were canceled after the shootings. A sign on the door Friday encouraged visitors to go to the memorial service instead.
Khadija Aslam, 15, didn't wear her head covering in the car while riding to prayer services after the shootings for fear of attracting attention, and 15-year-old Zoha Ahmad said her family is worried about the possibility of vandalism at their home.
"A lot of people know we live there and that we're Muslims," she said.
Ali said he plans to offer group counseling for concerned members of the Islamic community at his home, and that might help ease concerns. But, he isn't sure.
"We'll see," said Ali.

Justice Roberts' ObamaCare ruling could be boon for congressional Republicans

Supreme Court Justice John Roberts 

Supreme Court Justice John Roberts infuriated conservatives when he wrote the recent opinion to uphold ObamaCare.
But secretly, many Republicans in Congress are thanking Roberts from saving conservatives from themselves. And if they aren’t sending him balloons and flowers now, they may do so by the end of the year.
The King v. Burwell health care case centered on a four-word phrase: “established by the state.”
The Affordable Care Act (ACA) granted states the opportunity to set up local exchanges to process health care plans. But residents of states that didn’t establish exchanges could receive subsidies to use the federal system instead.
Thus, there was no exchange “established by the state” in those venues. So the question the high court examined was whether it was fair for residents of non-exchange states to score tax credits when the rest of the population was ineligible.
In its decision, the Supreme Court held that Congress “meant for those provisions to apply in every State as well.”
But what would have happened had the high court ruled it was unconstitutional to award people subsidies from non-exchange states?
“Chaos,” muttered one senior congressional Republican aide. “Any solution to the problem is going to have the right howling.”
Why? Because a vote to fix the problem would constitute a vote tacitly endorsing ObamaCare.
The Republican Party has engineered close to 60 congressional votes to repeal the law. Nobody knows the precise number because everyone has actually lost count.
Republicans in both bodies of Congress expressed optimism at constructing a health care fix that would pass. But they knew this could absolutely ignite the embers of the conservative base if they did anything short of scrapping the entire law.
Republicans feared a decision finding the credits unconstitutional would kick 7 million people off the subsidies and strip them of health coverage.
The GOP worried that the public might then turn on Republicans for stoking an effort that cost those people coverage -- even if some are skeptical about the law.
GOP sources said they feared President Obama would have trotted across the country with a simple, one-page fix to the law to include those people. But there was consternation as to whether the Republican-led Congress could approve a “patch” piece of legislation, even though GOP leaders promised to advance a plan.
“We want to give people a bridge from ObamaCare,” House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Rep. Paul Ryan said during an appearance on Fox News Channel before the decision.
But Ryan was circumspect when pressed on the same program about the minutiae of a GOP plan.
“We want to see what the (court’s) ruling is specifically so we can customize our response to the actual ruling,” he said. “That plan will involve making sure people have assistance as we transition to give people freedom from ObamaCare.”
Prior to the high court decision, Ryan spoke privately with members about giving block grant money to states to give them the ability to set up their own system to protect Americans for two years until a possible Republican Congress and Republican president could set up an ACA alternative. Most Republicans liked what they heard.
Ryan summoned Health and Human Services Secretary Sylvia Burwell (the “Burwell” in King v. Burwell) before the Ways and Means Committee in mid-June. The Wisconsin Republican blasted Burwell after the session.
“They (members of the administration) still refuse to entertain the notion that their health care law may be struck down by the Supreme Court. And they refuse to acknowledge they are even thinking about a backup plan. And that's unfortunate,” Ryan said.
A reporter followed up, asking Ryan about crafting his substitute.
“We are putting the final touches on it. Dotting the I's. Crossing the T's,” he replied.
Ryan may not have been willing to cough up the GOP legislative construct to the press corps then. But at the hearing, he insisted that Burwell publicly reveal what the administration would do if the court struck down the subsidies.
“Is the president going to be willing and flexible to work with Congress to fix this mess and negotiate with Congress?” Ryan asked Burwell.
“To solve that problem, the critical decisions are going to sit with the Congress,” Burwell told the chairman.
Ryan later predicted that if the Supreme Court tossed the subsidies, Obama could “put concrete around his ankles and say, ‘It's my law or nothing.’ ”
Rep. Kevin Brady, R-Texas, also tried to pry loose some answers from Burwell.
“Will the president sign legislation other than merely extending the subsidies to federal exchanges?” he queried.
“I think it's very hard for me to answer a question about hypothetical legislation,” responded Burwell.
Michigan Rep. Sander Levin, the top Democrat on the Ways and Means Committee, upbraided Ryan for “never coming up with a single, comprehensive alternative after all of these years.”
He also decried Republicans as “armchair critics” of the ACA.
Many Republicans privately acknowledge that the Supreme Court ruling helped them sidestep an immense fight over health care -- the trickiest parts including the navigation of fissures inside their own party.
But the fight isn’t over.
There’s an important congressional vocabulary term everyone will start to hear a lot about over the next few weeks. It’s called reconciliation -- a very special type of reconciliation, something known on Capitol Hill as “budget reconciliation.”
The congressional budget process is an exclusive bit of parliamentary infrastructure, separate from most other legislation.
Housed inside the annual budget machinery is “reconciliation.”
Reconciliation can be used to sync up spending, revenue and adjust the debt ceiling. Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution dictates that bills with revenue implications must start in the House. So the reconciliation vehicle originates in the lower chamber. But the real impact of reconciliation lies in the Senate.
The Senate’s fundamental glory is an unlimited amendment process and unlimited debate. That’s what gives rise to filibuster. But the budget process limits debate, curbs most amendments and requires but a simple majority to adopt legislative items. Thus, there is no way to filibuster something tucked into a budget reconciliation package.
Republicans now hold 54 seats in the Senate. Under conventional rules, Democrats could filibuster health care legislation. Vanquishing a filibuster would require a coalition of 60 Republicans and Democrats. Republicans know this. But since Obama signed the ACA into law in 2010, Republicans never controlled the Senate until this year.
Republicans would struggle to even put a health care bill on the floor right now. Sixty votes are necessary to hurdle the first filibuster blocking the measure from coming to the floor. Another round of 60 is required to shut off all debate and finish a bill. But that’s not the case with reconciliation.
There’s a lot of chatter now of putting a repeal of the ACA in a reconciliation measure later this year on the floors of the House and then the Senate. And Democrats can’t do anything about it.
Moving a health care bill through the House is simpler than in the Senate. But reconciliation grants the Senate the possibility to approve a repeal bill. That’s happened in the House umpteen times since 2011. But never in the Senate.
Undoubtedly, Obama would veto such a bill. But that’s what Republicans want. A dare. They want to deposit a full repeal bill on the president’s desk and dare him to veto it. And if he doesn’t, what have Republicans accomplished?
A lot.
To wit:
Congressional Republicans will have bypassed a catastrophic meltdown in the nation’s health care system because of the Supreme Court ruling in King v. Burwell. Mayhem may have descended on the Capitol had the High Court ruled that the subsidies were unconstitutional.
Republicans will have forced the president to veto a repeal of ObamaCare. But since they know they don’t have the votes to override the veto (a two-thirds vote in both bodies of Congress), Republicans haven’t necessarily had to produce an alternative health care bill. Such legislation remains a unicorn. And even if it does exist, this is a fractious issue in the Republican Party.
Republicans will have made Democrats from swing districts and states who face challenging re-elections to either vote to override the veto or side with the president.
Message masters at the National Republican Congressional Committee and National Republican Senatorial Committee will be more than happy to record those roll call tallies. The NRCC and NRSC will then integrate those votes into campaign ads against those lawmakers next year.
In short, some Republicans may seethe publicly at Chief Justice John Roberts now. But they could be sending him balloons and flowers later.
And here’s the Supreme Court address if they need it: 1 First Street, NE Washington, DC 20543.