China Cartoon

As Common Core testing results trickle in, initial goals unfulfilled

LOS ANGELES –  Results for some of the states that participated in Common Core-aligned testing for the first time this spring are out, with overall scores higher than expected though still below what many parents may be accustomed to seeing.

Full or preliminary scores have been released for Connecticut, Idaho, Missouri, Oregon, Vermont, Washington and West Virginia. They all participated in the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium, one of two groups of states awarded $330 million by the U.S. Department of Education in 2010 to develop exams to test students on the Common Core state standards in math and English language arts.
Scores in four other states that developed their own exams tied to the standards have been released. The second testing group, the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers, is still setting benchmarks for each performance level and has not released any results.
Even when all the results are available, it will not be possible to compare student performance across a majority of states, one of Common Core's fundamental goals.
What began as an effort to increase transparency and allow parents and school leaders to assess performance nationwide has largely unraveled, chiefly because states are dropping out of the two testing groups and creating their own exams.
U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan told state leaders in 2010 that the new tests would "help put an end to the insidious practice of establishing 50 different goal posts for educational success."
"In the years ahead, a child in Mississippi will be measured against the same standard of success as a child in Massachusetts," Duncan said.
Massachusetts and Mississippi students did take the PARCC exam this year. But Mississippi's Board of Education has voted to withdraw from the consortium for all future exams.
"The whole idea of Common Core was to bring students and schools under a common definition of what success is," said Tom Loveless, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. "And Common Core is not going to have that. One of its fundamental arguments has been knocked out from under it."
No Child Left Behind, President George W. Bush's signature education law, requires states to test students each year in math and reading in grades three to eight and again in high school. Congress has been debating ways to overhaul the law. The House and Senate have approved differing versions this summer that would maintain the testing requirement but let states decide how to use the results.
The Common Core-aligned tests fulfill the federal requirement, yet are significantly different from the exam that students are accustomed to taking.
Rather than paper-and-pencil multiple choice tests, the new exams are designed to be taken by tablet or computer. Instead of being given a selection of answers to choose, students must show how they got their answer. Answer correctly and get a more difficult question. Answer incorrectly, get an easier one.
Field tests administered last year indicated that a majority of students would not score as proficient in math and reading on the tests. So this summer, states have braced for the results, meeting with parents and principals to explain why the results will be different.
At Los Angeles Unified School District, Cynthia Lim, executive director of the Office of Data and Accountability, said the preliminary results received by the nation's second largest district are "lower than what people are used to seeing." District officials are consulting with school leaders about how to explain to parents and students that new test results should not be compared with old ones.
"I think we are getting richer information about student learning," she said.
Overall, the statewide scores that have been released are not as stark as first predicted, though they do show that vast numbers of students do not qualify as proficient in math or reading.
In Idaho, nearly 50 percent or more of students tested were proficient or above in English language arts. The results were lower for math: less than 40 percent were proficient in five grade levels. In Washington, about half of students across the state earned proficient scores. In Vermont, English proficiency scores hovered below 60 percent and dipped to as low as 37 percent in math.
States using the Smarter Balanced tests are using the same cut scores but different descriptors. What is "below basic" in one state might be "slightly unprepared" in another.
Initially, Duncan said the department would ask the two consortia to collaborate and make results comparable. But while the Smarter Balanced test has four achievement levels, the PARCC exam will have five.
When the testing groups were created, PARCC was a coalition of 26 states and Smarter Balanced 31; some states belonged to both. This year, 11 states and the District of Columbia took PARCC exams. Arkansas, Mississippi, and Ohio have since decided to withdraw from the exams. Eighteen states participated in the Smarter Balanced test this year. Of those, three states have since decided to abandon one or all of the grade level tests.
"It's always disappointing to have a state drop out," said Kelli Gauthier, a spokeswoman for Smarter Balanced. "But we feel really confident in the group that we have."
Sarah Potter, communications coordinator for the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, said the frequent changes in which test will be given and what students will be tested on has frustrated teachers and parents. The state participated in Smarter Balanced this spring but lawmakers have appropriated $7 million to develop a new state-based assessment plan.
"We are losing that that state-to-state comparability after this year, unfortunately," Potter said. "But our Legislature has said we should have Missouri standards so that is the route we are taking."
Aside from the defections, the exams have also experienced from technical glitches and an opt-out movement that surfaced this spring. Results in Nevada, Montana and North Dakota were hit with widespread technical problems; Nevada counted last year's scores a total loss.
In Oregon, slightly more than 95 percent of students took the exam, just making the federal requirement for participation. For black and special education students, as well as some districts, the requirement was not met, meaning the state could potentially lose federal funds.
Most states have not been able to release test scores before the start of classes, a delay that was expected in the exam's first year, but nonetheless frustrating for some teachers and parents.
"From a high school senior's perspective, it's gotta be really tough," said Renata Witte, president of the New Mexico PTA. "You want to get those college applications in and you need this information to complete them."

O'Malley facing legal questions about buying governor's mansion furnishings at 'junk' prices

Democratic presidential candidate Martin O’Malley is facing questions about whether he violated state ethics rules when buying furniture from the governor’s mansion at cut-rate prices before his departure.

A Maryland assistant attorney general on Friday asked a state ethics commission to rule on whether O’Malley’s purchases violated rules on state property, according to documents obtained by The Baltimore Sun, which first reported the story.
O'Malley and his wife, Catherine O'Malley, reportedly paid $9,638 for 54 pieces of furniture that originally cost taxpayers $62,000.
The O’Malley administration’s Department of General Services sold the items after declaring them "junk." But an agency rule prohibits the preferential sale of state property to government officials, according to the paper.
The agency also allegedly permitted the sale without seeking bids or notifying the public that the items were for sale.
O’Malley and his wife, a Baltimore District Court judge, reportedly earned a combined $270,000 in state salaries last year.
Representatives for O'Malley, who retired as governor in January because of term limits, said he followed proper procedures and that the furniture was authorized to be discarded.
Among the purchased items were armoires, beds, chairs, desks, lamps, mirrors, ottomans and tables, according to The Sun, in a remarkably detailed, 1,596-word story.
The furniture was used in the residential sections of the mansion, not the public areas. But the sum of the items reportedly was essentially equal to most of the mansion’s taxpayer-purchased furnishings.
The depreciation formula for the items was devised by the Annapolis Capital Complex.
According to the inventory list, the O'Malleys paid $449 for a leather couch that the state bought in 2007 for $2,247; $739 for an armoire that the state paid $3,695 for in 2007; and $764 for a second armoire that the state paid $3,822 for in 2007.
John Griffin, O'Malley's former chief of staff, who spoke on behalf of the former governor, told The Sun that he thinks proper procedure was followed.
Former Maryland Gov. Robert Ehrlich Jr. faced similar scrutiny after purchasing furniture when he left office in 2008, but to a lesser extent. He paid the state $992 for 21 furnishings that had cost the state $9,904.
Ehrlich, a Republican, purchased mostly low-cost linens, mattresses, pillows, lamps and bunk beds used by his two sons, at prices also set a depreciation formula.

Democrats end summer meeting with no resolution to support Obama's Iran deal

The Democratic National Committee reportedly failed this weekend to pass a resolution supporting President Obama’s Iran nuclear deal, with Congress set to vote on the issue as early as next week.

Florida Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the committee chairwoman, prevented the resolution from being considered at the group’s summer meeting this weekend in Minneapolis, sources told The Washington Post, which first reported the story.
Obama and his White House team have worked diligently to get enough Capitol Hill votes for the resolution to pass, amid strong opposition from the Republican-controlled House and Senate.
Vice President Biden, in fact, spoke with DNC members on a conference call Wednesday to help garner support. And the group failing to pass such a resolution is largely being considered at setback for what would likely become Obama’s signature foreign policy victory.
Some congressional Democrats who are Jewish also oppose the deal, fearing it will put Israel at greater risk of attack by neighbor and bitter rival Iran. Among them is New York Sen. Chuck Schumer, who is expected to become the next Senate Democratic leader.
If the deal is approved, the United States and five other world powers would lift billions of dollars in crippling economic sanctions on Iran in exchange for the rogue nation curtailing its nuclear-development program.
The House and Senate are expected to have enough votes to pass a resolution of disapproval for the deal. However, Obama will almost assuredly veto the resolution, and neither chamber is projected to have the two-thirds majority needed to override the presidential veto.
The Post reports two conflicting arguments about why perhaps members didn’t vote on the resolution -- that procedural issues prevented a vote or it was thwarted by Wasserman Schultz, who is Jewish and whose south Florida district has many Jewish voters.
No such proposal was drafted in advance of the meeting, and the one presented failed to qualify as an emergency procedure, The Post reported, according to sources.
Still, at least 160 committee members signed an alternative “Special Letter to the President" in which they pledged their support for Obama's leadership in the negotiations and agreed that placing strict limits on Iran's nuclear program is “an important victory for diplomacy.”
The letter was prepared by James Zogby, the co-chairman of the group's Resolutions Committee.
Zogby and Christine Pelosi, chairwoman of the California Democratic Party Women’s Caucus, made a blog post Saturday on the Huffington Post website in which they listed the names of those who have so far signed the letter.
Wasserman Schultz, who has not said whether she will vote in favor of the Iran agreement, was not listed among those who signed the letter.
If Wasserman Schultz indeed blocked the vote, this would not be the first time she has faced criticism about putting her political future ahead of the party’s.
As far back as 2012, Obama political advisers had purportedly taken steps to replace Wasserman Schultz as chairwoman, and her relationship with the White House has since been strained.

Ohio lawmakers slam Obama plans to rename Mt. McKinley 'Denali' during Alaska trip

Ohio lawmakers reacted angrily Sunday to the White House's announcement that President Obama would formally rename Alaska's Mt. McKinley — North America's highest peak — "Denali" during his trip to The Last Frontier this week.

"Mount McKinley ... has held the name of our nation's 25th President for over 100 years," Rep. Bob Gibbs, R-Ohio, said in a statement. "This landmark is a testament to his countless years of service to our country." Gibbs also described Obama's action as "constitutional overreach", saying that an act of Congress was required to rename the mountain because a law formally naming it after McKinley was passed in 1917.
"This political stunt is insulting to all Ohioans, and I will be working with the House Committee on Natural Resources to determine what can be done to prevent this action," Gibbs said.
The Ohio delegation's disappointment at the decision cut across party lines.
"We must retain this national landmark's name in order to honor the legacy of this great American president and patriot," Democratic Rep. Tim Ryan, whose district includes McKinley's hometown of Niles, in eastern Ohio.
Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, also blasted the decision as "yet another example of the President going around Congress", while House Speaker John Boehner said the naming of the mountain after McKinley was "a testament to [the 25th president's] great legacy .. I am deeply disappointed in this decision.
The state of Alaska has had a standing request to change the name to "Denali"  — a native Athabascan word meaning "the high one"  — dating back to 1975, when the legislature passed a resolution and then-Gov. Jay Hammond appealed to the federal government.
But those efforts and legislation in Congress have been stymied by members of Ohio's congressional delegation. Even when Mount McKinley National Park was renamed Denali National Park in 1980, the federal government retained Mount McKinley as the name of the actual peak, which rises 20,320 feet above sea level.
"With our own sense of reverence for this place, we are officially renaming the mountain Denali in recognition of the traditions of Alaska Natives and the strong support of the people of Alaska," said Interior Secretary Sally Jewell.
The White House cited Jewell's authority to change the name, and Jewell issued a secretarial order officially changing it to Denali. The Interior Department said the U.S. Board on Geographic Names had been deferring to Congress since 1977, and cited a 1947 law that allows the Interior Department to change names unilaterally when the board fails to act "within a reasonable time." The board shares responsibility with the Interior Department for naming such landmarks.
In 1896, a prospector in the mountains of central Alaska named the range after William McKinley upon learning that he had been nominated as a candidate for U.S. president.
McKinley became the country’s 25th president and was assassinated in 1901, six months into his second term. The 20,000-foot-tall peak had been previously known as Denali -- generally believed to be central to the Athabascan tribe's creation story and the site of significant cultural importance to many Alaska natives, according to the White House.
Denali also is an Athabascan word meaning "the high one" and is widely used across the state today, according to the White House.
Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, who had pushed legislation for years to change the name, said Alaskans were "honored" to recognize the mountain as Denali.
"I'd like to thank the president for working with us to achieve this significant change to show honor, respect, and gratitude to the Athabascan people of Alaska," Murkowski said in a video message recorded atop the mountain's Ruth Glacier, with cloudy snow-capped peaks behind her.
Obama will not personally visit the peak during his stay in Alaska, which runs through Wednesday. He'll spend much of the trip in Anchorage, south of the peak, where he will attend a State Department-sponsored meeting on climate change, titled GLACIER/Global Leadership in the Arctic Conference.
The conference will bring together foreign ministers of Arctic nations and key non-Arctic states with scientists, policymakers and stakeholders from Alaska and the Arctic, the White House said.
“The Arctic is warming twice as fast as the rest of the world and is experiencing the consequences,” the White House also said Sunday.
Supporters of the global warming theory say those changes include higher average temperatures and less winter sea ice, which is allowing for heavy storm surges that the sea ice once kept at bay, the White House said.
On Monday, Obama is scheduled to meet with leaders from the Alaska native community along with Gov. Bill Walker, Lt. Governor Byron Mallott and Murkowski to discuss ways to strengthen cooperation between the federal government and Alaska native tribes. Among the issues scheduled to be discussed is management strategies for fish and wildlife.

Martin O'Malley ex-governor Cartoon

O'Malley, Sander criticize small Democratic debate schedule, suggest its rigged to favor Clinton

Two top Democratic candidates in the 2016 White House race suggested Friday night that party leaders have rigged the debate schedule in favor of frontrunner Hillary Clinton.

“Only four debates … before voters in our earliest states make their decision,” Martin O’Malley, a former Maryland governor, said at the Democratic National Committee’s summer meeting in Minneapolis. “This sort of rigged process has never been attempted before.”
O’Malley is particularly concerned about the party having just one sanctioned debate each in Iowa and New Hampshire, the first two states in which primary votes are cast.
“That’s all we can afford?” O’Malley asked. “Is this how the Democratic Party selects its nominee?”
He also argued that limiting the total number of sanctioned Democratic debates to six, including two after the Iowa and New Hampshire votes, is allowing the rhetoric of Republicans candidates to go largely unchallenged.
“Republicans traffic in immigrant hate,” said O’Malley, who has been critical of the debate schedule since it was announced in early August. “We need debate.”
However, he made clear to reporters afterward that he thought the schedule helps Clinton.
Fellow 2016 Democratic challenger Sen. Bernie Sanders, Vermont Independent, was also at the summer meeting and told The Washington Post that he agrees with O’Malley’s argument that the DNC has rigged the debate process.
Sanders has recently been gaining ground on Clinton, but he and O’Malley need debates to get out their message because neither has the estimated tens of million that Clinton has to spend on advertising.
And most political strategists think that frontrunners have the most to lose in debates because they are under constant attack by the challengers.
The wildcard in the Democratic primary is whether Vice President Biden enters the race.
Donors and other Biden backers have been ramping up efforts.
Josh Alcorn, senior adviser for the super-PAC Draft Biden 2016, told Fox News on Sunday that Biden has the potential backing but would have to enter the race before the first debate, Oct. 13, to catch up with the other candidates.
“He may not have the financial resources, but there is a ground swell of support,” Alcorn said. “I think having the vice president on that debate stage is an important part of the campaign.”
The DNC has said its candidates are being given ample opportunity to be on the same stage to debate, defending the schedule.
Clinton has 47.8 percent of the vote, compared to 26.3 percent of Sanders, 14 percent for Vice President Biden, 1.5 percent for O’Malley and 1.3 percent for former Virginia Sen. Jim Webb, according to an averaging of polls by the nonpartisan website RealClearPoltics.com.

Texas investigators search for motive behind killing of sheriff's deputy

Texas investigators were trying to determine on Sunday what may have motivated a 30-year-old man accused of ambushing a suburban Houston sheriff’s deputy filling his patrol car with gas in what authorities believe was a targeted killing.

Shannon J. Miles was charged Saturday with capital murder in the killing of Darren Goforth, 47, a 10-year veteran of the Harris County Sheriff’s Office.
Goforth had gone to the station in Cypress, a middle-class to upper-middle class suburban area of Harris County that is unincorporated and located northwest of Houston, after responding to a routine car accident earlier Friday.
Harris County Sheriff Ron Hickman said the attack was “clearly unprovoked,” and there is no evidence so far that Goforth knew Miles. Investigators have no information from Miles that would shed light on his motive, Hickman said.
"Our assumption is that he was a target because he wore a uniform," the sheriff said.
The killing has brought out strong emotions from the local law enforcement community, with Hickman likening it to the heightened tension over the treatment of African-Americans by police.
The nationwide "Black Lives Matter" movement formed after the killing of a black man by a white police officer in Ferguson, Missouri, has sought sweeping reforms of policing. Related protests erupted recently in Texas after a 28-year-old Chicago area black woman, Sandra Bland, was found dead in a county jail about 50 miles northwest of Houston three days after her arrest on a traffic violation. Texas authorities said she committed suicide but her family is skeptical that she would have taken her own life.
Hickman and Harris County District Attorney Devon Anderson on Saturday pushed back against police criticism, saying there must not be open warfare on law enforcement officials.
"We've heard Black Lives Matter, All Lives Matter. Well, cops' lives matter, too," Hickman said.
Local law enforcement officers were worried after the Goforth killing that others could be targeted, he said.
"It gives us some peace knowing that this individual is no longer at large and that he wasn't somebody that would be targeting the rest of the community," Hickman said.
Miles is likely to be arraigned in court on Monday.

Bush fundraisers exit campaign amid sagging poll numbers, Miami says move voluntary

Three of Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush’s fundraising consultants have left the campaign, Fox News confirmed Saturday.

The consultants are Kris Money, Trey McCarley and Debbie Alexander, and they voluntarily left the campaign Friday, according to multiple sources.
Politico first reported the departures and suggested they were the result of personality conflicts and concerns about the strength of the campaign.
However, a Bush campaign source attempted Saturday to minimize the impact of the departures by saying the consultants remain involved in multiple projects outside of the campaign.
In addition, Bush spokesman Tim Miller told Fox News: "Governor Bush has the widest and deepest fundraising operation of any candidate in the field.”
He also said Ann Herberger, a longtime aide with more than two decades of experience in state and national politics, will continue to lead fundraising operations at campaign headquarters in Miami.
Bush, a former Florida governor, was the 2016 GOP presumptive frontrunner. And he had a superior fundraising advantage over essentially all of the other candidates in the party’s huge primary field, in large part because of his family name and connections with Washington Republicans.
Bush and the super-PAC Right to Rise raised a combined $114 million in the first quarter of this year, according to federal records, meeting often-talked-about expectations that the operation could indeed raise that much money.
However, Bush’s poll number have steadily declined since billionaire businessman and first-time candidate Donald Trump entered the race in mid-June.
"This is the time of year that campaigns make staffing changes before settling a final team going forward," Joe Desilets, a Republican strategist and managing partner at the Washington firm 21st & Main, said Saturday. "Jeb is far and away the fundraising leader in the race and has announced other major fundraisers joining his team. ... If Jeb starts dropping in fundraising, it may prove to be a bigger deal, but ... I don't see this as a major problem going forward."
Bush led the GOP field in mid-July with 17.8 percent of the vote, but is now at 9.8 percent, behind Trump at 23.5 percent and retired Dr. Ben Carson at 10.3 percent.
Trump has aggressively and consistently attacked Bush as the frontrunner, criticizing several of his positions including those on immigration and federal spending on women’s health.
Trump’s attacks have also been more personal, saying Bush is “low energy.”
Meanwhile, Bush appears to be taking a non-confrontational approach by largely not responding to the attacks and referring to himself as a “joyful tortoise."
Money, McCarley and Alexander will continue to work for Right to Rise, sources also told Fox News.

Sanders gains on Clinton in latest Iowa poll

Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders is continuing to gain on Hillary Clinton in Iowa, and is now within 7 points of the frontrunner in the Democratic presidential race, according to a newly released poll.

Clinton remains the first choice of 37 percent of likely Democratic caucus-goers, while sanders is the pick for 30 percent, according to the Des Moines Register/Bloomberg Politics Iowa Poll released Saturday.
"It looks like what people call the era of inevitability is over,” said Pollster J. Ann Selzer, president of Selzer & Co., which conducted the poll. “[Clinton] has lost a third of the support that she had in May, so anytime you lose that much that quickly it’s a wake-up call."
This is the first time the former secretary of state has seen her support fall under 50 percent among Democrats. The most recent Iowa Poll in May had Clinton leading the field with 57 percent, Sanders at 16 percent and Biden at 8 percent.
"What this new poll shows is that the more Iowans get to know Bernie, the better they like him and what he stands for," Sanders' spokesman Michael Braggs said. "We've seen the same thing in New Hampshire and across the country."
Vice President Joe Biden remains a choice among caucus-goers, even though he has yet to decide if he plans to run. Biden captured 14 percent of the vote, way ahead of candidates Martin O’Malley with 3 percent, Jim Webb at 2 percent, and Lincoln Chafee at 1 percent.
Biden also has the highest favorable rating among the field at 79 percent, compared with 77 percent for Clinton and 73 percent for Sanders.
Sanders’ poll numbers are also being buoyed by a group of voters similar to the ones attracted to President Obama in 2008: young people, liberals and first-time caucus-goers. In the latest poll, Sanders draws 50 percent of the support of those under the age of 45, well above Clinton’s 27 percent and Biden’s 8 percent.
While Clinton’s support has continually dropped among Iowa caucusgoers from 56 percent in January to 37 percent in the latest poll, Steve McMahon, a Virginia-based Democratic strategist told the Des Moines Register, "it's still early, and Hillary Clinton's done this before. She knows what it takes to win."

Cartoon

Why Donald Trump’s Fox News War May Make Viewers Rage Against the Network

It’s Donald Trump’s world, and Roger Ailes is just living in it.

That’s the message Trump sent the Fox chairman on Monday when he ended his ceasefire with the de facto king of conservative media. Trump’s latest round of figurative shots fired at network star Megyn Kelly — and Roger Ailes’ bold, forceful response — sets up what TheWrap previously reported as the real 2016 campaign: Trump vs. Ailes.

“It’s always hard to get inside the head of Donald Trump,” veteran reporter Mark Feldstein told TheWrap. “The irony is he’s almost taking a page from the Murdoch-Ailes playbook in his campaign in that Fox’s whole approach is ‘we’re the grievance-filled underdog against the establishment and elites; Trump is using Jiu-Jitsu to try and turn things against the very network that invented it.”

Also Read: Donald Trump vs. Roger Ailes: How Fox News Chief Used Debate to Strike Against GOP Frontrunner

While the media and political pundits collectively predict Trump’s war against Fox is suicidal for his White House hopes, Feldstein said not so fast.

“He’s not doing this blindly; he knows what he’s doing and there’s a calculus behind everything he’s done and every time he says something that’s more and more wild, everyone predicts that’s the end of him, but he only grows stronger. The conventional wisdom is it’s suicidal, but everything Trump’s done that conventional wisdom said was suicidal has only helped him.”

Also Read: Donald Trump Hits Back at Roger Ailes: Megyn Kelly Is Not a 'Quality Journalist'

Feldstein, who teaches journalism at University of Maryland, suggested the latest Trump-Fox fight might be his big play for the angry, alienated white male vote. “He’s sort of criticizing Fox for employing Megyn Kelly and letting her get away with, as he put it, unfair treatment.”

Trump might be going after a particular slice of the electorate, but going against the voice of the GOP is much bigger than just angry, white men — it’s a shotgun pass for the growing anti-establishment Republican voter, whom Trump is betting big on by hoping they view Fox News as the personification of the establishment.

And it might work.

The Trump supporter is the Fox News viewer on steroids — fed up with the GOP congress and not-conservative-enough Republican presidential contenders. And sensing that Rupert Murdoch and Ailes have no interest in Trump’s candidacy being anything more serious than a short-term ratings boon, Trump made the calculated decision to fight the machine; a machine that aside from its brief romance with the Tea Party, is the establishment.

Also Read: Roger Ailes Fires Back at Donald Trump's 'Disturbing,' 'Crude' Megyn Kelly Attack

Just look down Fox News’ roster and you’ll see figures who represent a cardboard cutout Republican: Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly, former George W. Bush press secretary Dana Perino, former GOP campaign aide Andrea Tantaros, Daily Caller editor-in-chief Tucker Carson, Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer, frequent guest and editor of the Weekly Standard Bill Kristol. Oh, let’s not forget, GOP presidential contenders Mike Huckabee and John Kasich used to host programs at Fox News.

Hell, Fox News even dubbed Trump a one-man Tea Party machine (the network declined to comment for this story).

But Christopher Hahn, a radio host and former aide to Senator Chuck Schumer, believes Trump’s battle against Fox will backfire.

Also Read: Fox News Unleashes Angry Anchors on 'Totally Out of Control' Donald Trump

“Never pick a fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel or pixels by the freight car load,” he told TheWrap. “He’s picking a fight with a multimedia giant. You can never win that fight.”

But Trump has won every fight so far: against illegal immigrants, against war hero John McCain, against Fox News after the first GOP debate, and of course, against Jeb Bush and the rest of the Republican candidates who were supposed to be leading the pack.

And in the full-on war between Trump and Fox News, the Donald’s success or failure rests with Ailes.

What happens when Trump stops going on Fox News, like he did the last time around, and the ratings take a dip while other networks hosting Trump soar? Will the legendary ratings hound still stand with his star Kelly, or backpedal in order to squeeze every last ounce out of the Donald orange?

“In a way you can ask the same question about both Trump and Fox: Which really matters more, their business interest or their political advancement?” Feldstein said, concluding that the more Trump injects Fox into the 2016 arena, the more it legitimizes Fox as a political player rather than just a “marginal network of crazy ideologues.”

To find out which set of ideologues wins the war, one figure remains out front as a media star and the champion of fed-up voters.

Donald Trump.

Trashed: Study finds students toss veggies mandated by federal school lunch program

Public schools are continuing to serve the federally mandated fruits and vegetables, but a new study claims the fresh produce is going into trash cans more than tummies.

Since 2012, the U.S. Department of Agriculture has implemented a requirement – widely championed by First Lady Michelle Obama – that children must select either a fruit or vegetable for school lunches subsidized by the federal government. However, a new report published this week by researchers at the University of Vermont found that even though students did add more fruits and vegetables to their plates, as the “Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act” enforces, “children consumed fewer [fruits and vegetables] and wasted more during the school year immediately following implementation of the USDA rule.”
The report, entitled “Impact of the National School Lunch Program on Fruit and Vegetable Selection,” noted that average waste increased from a quarter cup to more than one-third of a cup per tray. Observing students at two northeastern elementary schools during more than 20 visits to each, researchers took photos of students’ trays after they chose their items, as they were exiting the lunch line and again as they went by the garbage cans.
“The architects of the Act want their children and schoolchildren across America to eat healthy, hearty meals," Joe Colangelo, director of the product testing and consumer advocacy organization Consumers’ Research, told FoxNews.com. "Unfortunately, our government does not have a perfect record of influencing the eating habits of American citizens.”

  First Lady Michelle Obama eating fries and a hamburger.

“It's this kind of micro-management of our lives that conservatives always warn about and new media claim won't happen."
- Dan Gainor, Media Research Center

The study's conclusions jibe with widespread complaints from school officials and parents that the program encourages food waste. It has also drawn criticism for cost, difficulty in implementing and lack of appeal for students.
Parents, not schools, should decide what their children eat, said Dan Gainor, of the Media Research Center
“Schools can't tell what eating disorders or personal preferences each student has,” Gainor remarked. “It's this kind of micro-management of our lives that conservatives always warn about and new media claim won't happen. Until it does.”
A spokesperson for the USDA emphasized that the observation that went into the Vermont study was conducted in 2013, only a year after the program was put into practice, and said several other studies since then have indicated that kids are indeed eating healthier as a result of updated nutrition standards for school meals. A 2014 study by Harvard University’s School of Public Health found that children actually consumed more fruits and vegetables in the wake of the government’s new guidelines.
“Ninety-five percent of schools are successfully serving healthier meals, and in 2014, schools saw a net nationwide increase in revenue from school lunches of approximately $450 million," the USDA spokesperson said in a statement to FoxNews.com. "For those schools still working to implement the standards, we’ve provided training, resources and flexibility."
While a large year-end spending bill passed by Congress last December didn’t pave the way for schools to completely withdraw from the USDA program, it did give them the green light to ease  standards slated to take effect in 2017 regarding whole grains and salt intake. Congress is set to vote next month on whether to re-approve the school lunch initiative.
Despite the backlash, the school lunch regulations have supporters who applaud it as a step in the right direction.
“Without guidelines, we had vending machines with soda, chips and gummy bears and fast food restaurants serving lunch in elementary schools too,” said Stacey Antine, a registered dietician and founder of HealthBarn USA, a program that teaches children to grow their own produce and the importance of healthy eating. “We know that good nutrition is important for learning, good behavior and healthy habits for weight maintenance, so it is important that all children have access to healthy foods.”

Call me 'ze,' not 'he': University wants everyone to use 'gender inclusive' pronouns

UPDATE: Rickey Hall, the vice chancellor for diversity and inclusion at the University of Tennessee-Knoxville, said their quest for gender neutral pronouns is not an official university policy.

 “It’s not policy,” he said. “It’s about inclusive practice.”

Hall told me the gender neutral pronouns were a way of “exposing our students (to an) increasingly diverse and global world.”
He said gender neutral pronoun usage is not new – and that as things change – people always have questions. Nevertheless, he stressed this is not a mandated university policy.

For all you folks who went to school back when there were only him and her – here’s a primer: some of the new gender neutral pronouns are ze, hir, zir, xe, xem and xyr.

“I reiterate, it’s not a mandate, it’s not an official policy, it’s not a policy from the board,” he told me. “It’s about education. We are (a) higher education institution and exposing our students to a lot of different things.”

Educators in the Volunteer State are very concerned that students might be offended by the usage of traditional pronouns like she, he, him and hers, according to a document from the University of Tennessee – Knoxville’s Office of Diversity and Inclusion.

“With the new semester beginning and an influx of new students on campus, it is important to participate in making our campus welcoming and inclusive for all,” wrote Donna Braquet in a posting on the university’s website. “One way to do that is to use a student’s chosen name and their correct pronouns.”
Click here to join Todd’s American Dispatch – a MUST READ for Conservatives!
Braquet, who is director of the university’s Pride Center, suggested using a variety of gender neutral pronouns instead of traditional pronouns.

 Dumb Ass

“There are dozens of gender-neutral pronouns,” she declared.
For all you folks who went to school back when there were only him and her – here’s a primer: some of the new gender neutral pronouns are ze, hir, zir, xe, xem and xyr.
“These may sound a little funny at first, but only because they are new,” Braquet explained. “The ‘she’ and ‘he’ pronouns would sound strange too if we had been taught ‘ze’ when growing up.”
Somehow I sincerely doubt that, but whatever. Anything goes for the sake of inclusivity, right?
“Instead of calling roll, ask everyone to provide their name and pronouns,” she wrote. “This ensures you are not singling out transgender or non-binary students.”
For example, the birth certificate might say that Big Earl is a male. But what if Big Earl identifies as a lady who wants to be called Lawanda?
According to the procedures outlined by the folks at the Office of Diversity and Inclusion, the professor is obligated to call Big Earl – Lawanda – or whatever name makes Big Earl feel more included.
“We should not assume someone’s gender by their appearance, nor by what is listed on a roster or in student information systems,” Braquet wrote. “Transgender people and people who do not identify within the gender binary may use a different name than their legal name and pronouns of their gender identity, rather than the pronouns of the sex they were assigned at birth.”
It’s all so confusing, right? So thankfully, the Office for Diversity and Inclusion has devised a way to prevent students and professors from calling “sir” a “ma’am.”
“You can always politely ask,” she wrote. “’Oh, nice to meet you (insert name). What pronouns should I use?’ is a perfectly fine question to ask.”
Let’s just say that not everyone is on board with the new gender neutral pronouns. Lots of folks in Big Orange Country are turning blood red.
“It’s the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard,” Republican State Sen. Mae Beavers told me. “If you must interview a student before you greet the student, that’s not acceptance – that’s just absurd.”
Beavers represents a “very conservative” district and she said her constituents are enraged over how their tax money is being spent by the university.
“The idea a child would want to be called by a gender neutral term is absolutely ridiculous,” she said. “It’s getting so crazy in this country.”
Julie West has two children at the university – not to mention a family dog named after the Volunteer’s revered coach – General Neyland.
“This isn’t inclusion,” she said. “This is the radical transformation of our lives and language.”
I reached out to the vice chancellor for tolerance and diversity (yes they really do have such a thing) – but I’m still waiting for him or her or ze or xyr to call me back.
There you have it, folks. His and Hers is no longer good enough at the University of Tennessee – where they are willing to sacrifice anything for the sake of gender inclusivity – including common sense.
I wonder if they’ve got a gender neutral word for idiot?

Fact Check: Which Republican candidates actually cut spending?

Every Republican presidential candidate has promised to keep government spending in check -- but which ones actually have a track record of doing that? 

All say they would cut. In the last debate, Jeb Bush said people in Florida called him "Veto-Corleone" because he vetoed so much spending. Mike Huckabee said the federal government "is not too big to shrink." Chris Christie says he "balanced budgets."
Is it true? There are an almost infinite number of ways that records can be spun. Some focus on cuts in one small program or on small tax cuts. But governors have actual records. So what do they show?
The "Stossel" show crunched the numbers on that -- adjusting them for inflation and population growth. Here's what the data on governors and ex-governors show:
The chart above shows that Bush cut spending the most. Though he's criticized by conservatives as "too moderate," the former Florida governor cut spending by an average of 1.39 percent each year he was in office. Most cuts came from "public assistance," higher education, and state discretionary spending.
But the above chart isn't perfect for comparing candidates, because governors serve terms in very different time periods. Some served during recessions, when most states must cut spending.
We adjusted for that by doing another comparison -- how much each governor spent compared with other governors in office at that same time:

Related Image

Expand / Contract

This chart, at right, shows that Bush was indeed the biggest budget cutter. During his tenure, Florida's spending shrunk by 3.6 percentage points more than the average. He cut spending by 1.39 percent per year in his state, while other states increased theirs by 2.3 percent during that same period. Kasich was also conservative by this measure, cutting spending 1.76 percentage points more than other states did.
But both charts show spending grew by the most under New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and former Arkansas Gov. Huckabee.
Asked for comment, a Huckabee spokeswoman said: "Having had to face the most Democrat legislature in the country, and a state controlled almost entirely by the Clinton Political Machine, Governor Huckabee is proud of his record of cutting taxes almost 100 times and leaving Arkansas with an almost $1 billion surplus."
Still, if a tax cut isn't accompanied by a fall in government spending, then taxes may have to go up in the future to pay for that.
Christie's spokesman said the growth of the budget under the Garden State governor is mostly driven by state entitlements, which the governor has little control over, and that he has cut the "discretionary" parts of the budget:
"When you scratch below the surface, the governor's fiscal discipline over the budget is more dramatic, with discretionary spending cut to $2.3 billion below where it was in 2008 [a 9 percent cut.] Non-discretionary spending in public employee entitlements and debt service have driven spending and we continue working to reform these programs and control those costs."
Christie's spokesman also notes, "Governor Christie has done this with a legislature controlled overwhelmingly by Democrats."
Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker's spokesman also said that entitlement spending made up most of the budget increases under Walker.
But Florida's entitlement spending also increased. Yet Bush made cuts in other areas deep enough to overtake that.
Kasich's spokesman said the chart shows the governor's good record.
"The governor has worked hard to manage the state efficiently, to rein in costs and to cut taxes, and as a result, the state workforce is the lowest it's been in 30 years," Kasich spokesman Rob Nichols said.
The senators running for president have no precise budget track record to nail down, but there are ratings that indicate whether they were fiscally conservative or reckless. The National Taxpayers' Union gives Texas Sen. Ted Cruz a 95 percent rating, Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul 94 percent, and Florida Sen. Marco Rubio 87 percent. Citizens Against Government Waste gives them all 100's -- putting them among the top 9 out of 100 senators when it comes to spending less.
DATA SOURCE: Raw spending data is from the National Association of State Budget Officers and includes all forms of state government spending, excluding federal grants and bond purchases. The data go through FY2014. The spending data were adjusted for inflation and population using BLS and Census data.

Emails show Bill Clinton asked State Dept. for OK on N. Korea, Congo invites

WASHINGTON –  Newly surfaced emails show the Clinton Foundation asked the State Department about proceeding with two presumably paid speeches for former President Bill Clinton in North Korea and the Republic of the Congo, despite each engagement’s ties to repressive regimes.

The emails, obtained by FoxNews.com, surfaced as part of a records request by the group Citizens United.
In both sets of 2012 emails between the foundation led by Bill Clinton and the department led by wife Hillary Clinton, the former president’s team acknowledged the invitations could raise concerns. But they asked the State Department, which screened all such speeches by the ex-president, anyway.
In one May 14, 2012 email, Clinton Foundation staffer Amitabh Desai forwarded an email with the subject line “North Korea invitation” to Cheryl Mills, Clinton’s then-chief of staff at the State Department.
“Dear Cheryl, we’d welcome your feedback on the attached invitation – would USG have concerns?” Desai wrote.
Four days later, Desai sent Mills another email. “Is it safe to assume USG would have concerns about WJC accepting the attached invitation related to North Korea? Thanks, Ami.”

More on this...

• Bill Clinton a drag on Hillary's presidential ambitions?

Mills responded, “Decline it.”
ABC News first reported on the emails.
Hillary Clinton, on the sidelines of the Democratic National Committee meeting in Minneapolis Friday, defended the process for vetting these requests.
Clinton admitted receiving “some unusual requests” but said “they all went through the process” and, ultimately, the invitations in question were declined.
Though in a curious aside, the 2016 Democratic presidential frontrunner noted her husband went to North Korea in 2009 to rescue reporters.
“You might not recall but [President] Obama sent Bill to North Korea to rescue journalists who were captured,” Clinton told reporters. “Every offer we made was rebuffed and we offered many people to go and finally North Koreans said if Bill comes, we will give him two journalists.”
Clinton left the podium before any follow-ups could be asked.
In the case of the North Korea invite, while the foundation acknowledged potential concerns, the official followed up in early June after Mills said to decline it. Desai said the matter came from Tony Rodham, Hillary Clinton’s brother, and they would like to relay “any specific concerns” as Rodham was about to meet with Bill Clinton.
Mills responded on June 9, 2012: “If he needs more let him know his wife knows and I am happy to call him secure when he is near a secure line.”
The email exchange does not include much detail on the invitation, in contrast with the messages on the Congo request.
They show the speaking engagement in Brazzaville came with a hefty $650,000 speaking fee – one of numerous such engagements through which the former president has made millions since leaving office.
The catch: the event included the leaders of not only the Republic of the Congo but Democratic Republic of the Congo, Joseph Kabila – whose government has an abysmal human rights record. And Clinton, under the terms of the invite, would have to stay after the speech to greet Kabila and other dignitaries.
The Harry Walker Agency, which worked with the Clinton Foundation on coordinating speeches, recommended in a June 6, 2012 email declining the invitation.
“I anticipate the location for the event and the parties involved might give you pause,” Don Walker, the agency’s president, wrote in an email to the foundation.
“We have gently asked if the venue must be in the Congo, and if the Head of State involvement is necessary,” Walker wrote in the email. “They tell us that both are mandatory. For that reason we anticipate you will want us to quickly decline.”
From there, Desai forwarded the email to Mills, Clinton aide Huma Abedin and other State Department officials saying despite the issues, “WJC wants to know what state thinks of it if he took it 100% for the foundation. We’d welcome your thoughts.”
Ultimately, the engagement did not go forward.
“The emails speak volumes to the ongoing undercurrent that Bill Clinton would take money from anyone,” David Bossie, president of Citizens United, told FoxNews.com on Friday. He disputed Hillary Clinton’s claims that the State Department vetted every request the foundation made and argued the emails show “a pattern.”
Bossie said that while some Clinton supporters might use the emails to show the system set up by the State Department and the Clinton Foundation worked, the emails speak to a seedier side of the Clinton Foundation.
“If this was a one-and-done issue, I’d be like, it’s only once and they handled it correctly,” Bossie said, adding, “If their pushback is that the speeches didn’t happen and that it’s a great example of them doing a good job, I’d say, it doesn’t mean that they didn’t try.”

Biden 16 Cartoon

What if Hillary Clinton has been pulling the wool over our eyes for years?

What if former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has been pulling the wool over our eyes for years?

What if, while she was secretary of state, she ran two secret wars, one in Libya and one in Syria? What if there already were wars in each of those countries, so she used those wars as covers for her own?
What if President Obama gave permission for her to do this? What if the president lacks the legal authority to authorize anyone to fight secret wars? What if she obtained the consent of a dozen members of Congress from both houses and from both political parties? What if those few members of Congress who approved of her wars lacked the legal authority to authorize them?
What if her goal was to overthrow two dictators, one friendly to the U.S. and one not? What if the instruments of her war did not consist of American military troops, but rather State Department intelligence assets and American-made military-grade heavy weapons?

What if Hillary Clinton just doesn’t care whether she has broken any federal laws, illegally caused the deaths of thousands of innocents, and profoundly jeopardized and misled the American people?

What if under federal law the secretary of state and the secretary of the Treasury are permitted on their own to issue licenses to American arms dealers to sell arms to the governments of foreign countries? What if Clinton secretly authorized the sale of American-made military-grade weapons to the government of Qatar? What if Qatar is a small Middle Eastern country, the government of which is beholden to and largely controlled by the Muslim Brotherhood?
What if the Muslim Brotherhood is a recognized terrorist organization? What if the U.S. has no lawful or military purpose for putting military hardware into the hands of a government that supports or is controlled by a terrorist organization?
What if the real purpose of sending military hardware to Qatar was for it to end up in the hands of rebels in Syria and Libya? What if it got there? What if some of those rebels are known Al Qaeda operatives? What if some of those operatives who received the American military hardware used it to assault Americans and American interests?
What if among those assaulted was the U.S. ambassador to Libya? What if Ambassador Christopher Stevens was assassinated in Benghazi, Libya, by Al Qaeda operatives who were using American-made military-grade hardware that Clinton knowingly sent to them?
What if the U.S. had no strategic interest in deposing the government of Libya? What if Congress never declared war on Libya? What if Col. Qaddafi, the then-dictator of Libya who was reprehensible, was nevertheless an American ally whose fights against known terrorist organizations had garnered him praise from President George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair?
What if the U.S. had no strategic interest in deposing the dictator of Syria, President Assad? What if Congress never declared war on Syria? What if the government of Syria, though reprehensible, has been fighting a war against groups and militias, some of whom have been designated as terrorist organizations by the secretary of state? What if that secretary of state was Hillary Clinton?
What if Clinton had a political interest in deposing the governments of Libya and Syria? What if her goal in fighting these secret wars was to claim triumph for herself over Middle Eastern despots? What if it is a federal crime to fight a private war against a foreign government? What if it is a federal crime to provide material assistance to terrorist organizations? What if these are crimes no matter who consents or approves?
What if, when asked about this while testifying to the Senate Armed Services Committee, Clinton professed ignorance? What if it is a federal crime for a witness to lie to or mislead Congress?
What if the outcome of Clinton’s war in Libya has been the destruction of the Gadhafi government and ensuing chaos? What if that chaos has brought terror and death to many thousands of innocents in Libya? What if Clinton has failed to achieve any noticeable result with her secret war in Syria?
What if she managed these wars on an email system that was not secured in a government venue? What if she did that to keep her thoughts and actions secret from the president and from the State Department in case she failed to win the wars? What if she used a BlackBerry she bought at Walmart instead of a secure and encrypted government-issued phone?
What if her management of these wars on the private email system exposed national security secrets to anyone who could hack into her server or her router? What if the server or the router had been kept in the bathroom of an apartment of an employee of a computer company in Denver, Colo., and not under lock and key and armed guard in her home in New York as she has represented?
What if Clinton just doesn’t care whether she has broken any federal laws, illegally caused the deaths of thousands of innocents, and profoundly jeopardized and misled the American people?
What if the American people do care about all this? What will they do about it?

Evidence mounts that soon-to-be flush Iran already spurring new attacks on Israel

HAIFA, Israel –  An unsettling surge in terrorism by Iranian proxies has many Israelis convinced the release to Tehran of tens of billions of dollars in frozen funds is already putting the Jewish state in danger.

In recent days, rockets have rained down on Israel from Gaza in the south and the Golan Heights to the north, Israeli forces foiled a bomb plot at the tomb of biblical patriarch Joseph, and Gaza-based terrorist groups that also have a presence in the West Bank have openly appealed for aid on Iranian television. Israeli officials fear the terrorist activity is spiking as groups audition for funding from Tehran, which is set to receive the long-frozen funds as part of its deal to allow limited nuclear inspections. They say the international focus on Iran's nuclear ambitions has left its more conventional methods of attacking regional adversaries unaddressed.
"The nuclear context is just one aspect of the negative Iranian activities in the region," Emmanuel Nahshon, senior Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman, told FoxNews.com. "We can see the demonstration of this on a daily basis in Syria, in Yemen, and in Iraq. We see it also when we see the [Iranian] support of Hezbollah and other groups who operate against Israel."
Last month, National Security Adviser Susan Rice admitted that some of the money due to be released as part of the deal negotiated by the U.S. led P5+1 “would go to the Iranian military and could potentially be used for the kinds of bad behavior that we have seen in the region.”

“The amount that Iran gives Hezbollah is not very much - around $200 million - not even 1 percent of Iran’s budget last year.”
- Meir Javedanfar, an Iranian-born Israeli expert

Aside from the soon-to-be-released billions, Iran’s finances will also be strengthened by the easing of trade embargoes that have seen a horde of major international business - many from P5+1 countries – rushing to sign lucrative deals with the ayatollahs. Earlier this week, British Foreign Minister Philip Hammond scoffed at the fears of Israel and many Arab countries in the Middle East, saying the deal would “slowly rebuild their sense that Iran is not a threat to them.” Less than 24 hours later, the spokesman for Iran's top parliament member said, “Our positions against [Israel] have not changed at all; Israel should be annihilated.”
If that remains Iran's intention, terror groups Hezbollah, Hamas, and Palestinian Islamic Jihad are showing a renewed eagerness to continue as its proxies. Four rockets apparently fired by the PIJ from Syria into northern Israel last week – two into the Golan Heights and two more into the Upper Galilee – were the first such attacks since the start of Syria’s bloody civil war more than four years ago. Israel responded with targeted missile strikes, including one which hit a car killing “five or six PIJ terrorists.”

Related Image

Expand / Contract

Joseph's Tomb, in the West Bank, was the target of a recently foiled bomb plot. (Reuters)

On Aug. 18, Iranian state TV broadcast images of a new, 2.5-mile tunnel leading from Gaza into Israel. Dug by the Fatah-linked terror group the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, and seemingly competing with arch-rivals Hamas for a share of the imminently unfrozen Iranian funds, the terrorists made an unabashed appeal for more cash. In a segment translated by Palestinian Media Watch, the terror group's representatives said, "This is why we are asking [for money]… especially [from] Iran, which is a known long-time supporter of the resistance and the Palestinian cause."

On Tuesday, Israeli officials revealed that a joint Israeli internal security and military operation thwarted a potentially lethal bomb attack planned by the Islamic Jihad on visitors to Joseph’s Tomb in Shechem in the Palestinian-controlled West Bank, the resting place of the biblical figure revered by Jews, Christians and Muslims alike.

The pace of attacks, as well as the diversity of their perpetrators, has prompted speculation that terrorist groups are competing for Iranian funding, and trying to show they are capable of giving Tehran bang for its buck. The terrorist groups however operate on budgets that are tiny given the scale of Iran's financing capability.

“The amount that Iran gives Hezbollah is not very much - around $200 million - not even 1 percent of Iran’s budget last year,” Meir Javedanfar, an Iranian-born Israeli expert on the region who writes at www.middleastanalyst.com, told FoxNews.com. “If you want to stop Iranian support of Hezbollah you would need to have inspectors on the ground in Syria and Lebanon, the most dangerous of places, checking Hezbollah’s arsenal, bank accounts, bases, and Syrian bases which Hezbollah uses. I don’t see any UN force, or anyone else volunteering to do that.”
Paul Alster is an Israel-based journalist. Follow him on Twitter @paul_alster and visit his website: www.paulalster.com.

Anti-abortion groups demand Portrait Gallery remove Planned Parenthood founder bust

WASHINGTON –  Anti-abortion activists held a rally Thursday outside the National Portrait Gallery to demand the Washington museum remove a bust of Margaret Sanger, a controversial eugenicist who founded the organizations that later became Planned Parenthood. 

The modern-day abortion provider has come under scrutiny following the release of undercover videos that allegedly show employees brokering the sale of fetal tissue. Days after widespread protests against the group, E.W. Jackson, a conservative Christian minister and Virginia lawyer, led the rally in Washington urging the removal of the Sanger bust.
“You must remove the bust!” Jackson said at the rally in front of the Smithsonian museum. He later added, “If Margaret Sanger had her way, MLK and Rosa Parks would never have been born.”
The event also was organized by conservative group ForAmerica and a group of black pastors.
Sanger, who died in 1966, founded two companies that eventually led to the creation of Planned Parenthood.
GOP 2016 presidential candidate Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, has publicly supported the movement to remove Sanger’s bust from the gallery. Cruz along with Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, circulated a letter to lawmakers calling the sculpture’s display “an affront broth to basic human decency and the very meaning of justice.”
Sanger, born in 1879, spent much of her life working to change federal and state statutes that had criminalized contraceptives. She was at the leading edge of the birth control movement. Her bust is part of the museum’s “Struggle for Justice” exhibit, which honors Americans who fought for the civil rights of groups that were disenfranchised.
But she was controversial because of her work in eugenics – the science of altering human population through controlled breeding and forced sterilization.
The Portrait Gallery, which has displayed the tribute to Sanger since 2010, said it would not take it down. A spokesperson for the gallery told The Associated Press that the museum’s displays include some people with “less than admirable characteristics.”
It also defended its decision to CNSNews.com and said the bust is in keeping with the museum’s goal to “see the past clearly and objectively.”
“Margaret Sanger is included in the museum’s collection, not in tribute to all her beliefs, many of which are now controversial, but because of her leading role in early efforts to distribute information about birth control and medical information to disadvantaged women, as well as her later roles associated with developing modern methods of contraception and in founding Planned Parenthood of America,” the statement read.
“Nonetheless, Sanger’s alliance with aspects of the eugenics movement raises questions about her motivations and intentions. The museum’s intent is not to honor her in an unqualified way, but rather to stimulate our audiences to reflect on the experience of Americans who struggled to improve the civil and social conditions of 20th-century America,” it added.
Earlier this month, demonstrators gathered outside the Margaret Sanger Center in New York, holding signs and demanding Planned Parenthood be defunded. The rally was part of a nationwide day of protest.

Emails show top Clinton aide discussed work for foundation, consulting firm while at State Dept.

The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee raised questions Thursday about how a top Hillary Clinton aide's fundraising for the Clinton Foundation and job at a corporate advisory firm intersected with her work at the State Department.

Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, questioned whether Huma Abedin's status as a Special Government Employee (SGE), which enabled her to hold four positions simultaneously, created conflicts of interest.
"How can the taxpayer know who exactly SGEs are working for at any given moment?" Grassley asked in a letter to Abedin and Secretary of State John Kerry. "How can the ethics officer at the State Department know?"
Grassley's letter was prompted by emails from Abedin's official State Department account obtained by Fox News that include messages sent ahead of a December 2012 visit to Dublin and Belfast by Clinton, who was then secretary of state. In those emails and others, Abedin discusses diplomatic matters as well as issues related to her work for both the Clinton Foundation and Teneo, a firm co-founded by a longtime aide to former president Bill Clinton.
In one e-mail, dated Sept. 21, Abedin was among the recipients of a message from Amitabh Desai, the Clinton Foundation's foreign policy director, about fundraising for a charity supporting a museum honoring former President Bill Clinton in Northern Ireland.
The message said that Hillary Clinton had instructed Stella O'Leary, the head of a pro-Clinton PAC to form a 501c3 organization that would be "flexible" enough to raise funds to be used in "whatever manner WJC and HRC wish in Ireland and Northern Ireland and not restricted to support only the current iteration of the Clinton Centre in Enniskillen."
Abedin responded, "HRC said she made no commitments to her."
O'Leary told The Washington Post that she had set up the charity, but it was currently "stagnant", and she could not recall discussing the matter with Hillary Clinton.
In another message, sent Nov. 30, Abedin attempted to arrange a get-together in Dublin for a small group of people on the evening of Dec. 6.
"Maybe we can all gather for drinks/dinner and HRC can come join for as long as she can?" Abedin asked in her e-mail. The dinner was ultimately attended by Clinton campaign donors, Clinton Foundation donors, and Teneo's CEO.
In another case, the Post reported that in July 2012, the assistant to a New York banking executive wrote to Abedin to ask for her input on whether the executive should take a job at Teneo. The paper reported that Abedin agreed to meet with the executive, who later accepted the position.
Grassley wrote that the emails, which were disclosed through a Freedom of Information Act request by the conservative group Citizens United, "raise a number of questions about the intersection of official State Department actions, private Teneo business, and Secretary Clinton’s personal interest in fundraising for the Clinton Foundation and related entities."
Abedin's role as Hillary Clinton's main confidante during the Democratic presidential front-runner's time as America's top diplomat has made her a key player in the ongoing investigation into Clinton's personal server and whether classified information was sent, received, or passed through it. Earlier this week, Fox News reported that an April 2011 e-mail from Abedin contained intelligence from the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), the National Security Agency (NSA), and the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA), which oversees aerial imagery, including satellites. That e-mail was later declassified by the State Department, in possible violation of an executive order signed by President Barack Obama.
Abedin has denied any wrongdoing related to Clinton's server or her status as a Special Government Employee. Earlier this week, Abdein's lawyer responded to another letter from Grassley with a missive of his own claiming the senator had "unfairly tarnished Ms. Abedin’s reputation by making unsubstantiated allegations that appear to flow from misinformation ... provided by an unnamed — and apparently unreliable — source."
Abedin herself issued a more diplomatic denial in a July 2013 letter to Grassley: "I was not asked, nor did I undertake, any work on Teneo’s behalf before the Department (and I should note that it is my understanding that Teneo does not conduct business with the Department of State). I was also not asked, nor did I provide, insights about the Department, my work with the Secretary, or any government information to which I may have had access."
"The bottom line has always been and still is whether the taxpayers are well-served by agency practices and spending," Grassley said in his letter Thursday. "No one will know for sure until the State Department is more transparent about how it operates."