Carson: 'Absolutely I stand by the comments' about Muslim president

Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson said Monday that he "absolutely" stood by his comments about not supporting a Muslim president, while also clarifying that he was referring to Muslims who had not rejected Islamic Sharia law.
"We don't put people at the head of our country whose faith might interfere with them carrying out the duties of the Constitution," the retired neurosurgeon told Fox News' Sean Hannity. "If you're a Christian and you're running for president and you want to make this [country] into a theocracy, I'm not going to support you. I'm not going to advocate you being the president."
"Now, if someone has a Muslim background, and they’re willing to reject those tenets and to accept the way of life that we have, and clearly will swear to place our Constitution above their religion, then of course they will be considered infidels and heretics, but at least I would then be quite willing to support them," Carson added.
Carson came under heavy criticism for his initial remarks, which were broadcast on NBC's "Meet The Press" Sunday. Carson, a devout Christian, told moderator Chuck Todd a president's faith should matter to voters if it runs counter to the values and principles of America. In response to a follow-up question about whether he would support a Muslim candidate for president, Carson said, "I would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation," Carson said. "I absolutely would not agree with that."
Carson also doubled down on his comments in a statement posted on Facebook late Monday, in which he fired back at his fellow Republican candidates who criticized him.
"Those Republicans that take issue with my position are amazing," the Facebook statement said. "Under Islamic Law, homosexuals – men and women alike – must be killed. Women must be subservient. And people following other religions must be killed. I know that there are many peaceful Muslims who do not adhere to these beliefs. But until these tenants are fully renounced ... I cannot advocate any Muslim candidate for President."

More on this...

• Donald Trump defends his remarks about Muslims

Carson added, jokingly, "I also can’t advocate supporting Hillary Clinton either by the way."
The GOP candidates who criticized Carson's initial statement included Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, who told Hannity, "I don’t believe anybody should be disqualified from the presidency because of their denomination or because of their faith." Earlier Monday, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush said the remarks were "not productive", and former New York Gov. George Pataki compared Carson's statement to anti-Catholic campaigning against John F. Kennedy in 1960.
Carson's comments were also attacked by Democrats, with Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Florida Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz saying Sunday, "It's hard to understand what's so difficult about supporting an American citizen's right to run for president.
"But unsurprisingly, this left Republicans scratching their heads. Of course a Muslim, or any other American citizen, can run for president, end of story."
Earlier Monday, Republican frontrunner Donald Trump said “it’s not my job to defend the president,” in response to the controversy sparked when he chose not to correct a town hall questioner who called President Obama a non-American Muslim.
“Somebody was asking a question and actually making a statement, and it’s not my job to defend the president,” Trump told Fox News' Greta Van Susteren. “The president is capable of defending himself.”
Trump was addressed by a man during a rally Thursday in New Hampshire who incorrectly said that President Obama is a Muslim.
"We have a problem in this country," the unidentified man said. "It's called Muslim. ... You know our current president is one."
Trump said he considered challenging the questioner at the time, but chose not to.
“President Obama will be able to defend himself if he wants to. I know one thing he’s not going to defend me. If somebody says something about me, Greta, he’s not defending me, that’s for sure,” Trump said.
Trump also commented on a similar controversy surrounding fellow 2016 hopeful Ben Carson, who said Sunday that a Muslim should not be president. However, Trump said while there “have been difficulties” with Islamic extremism, he would have no problem with a Muslim president.
“I would have no problem with it, no,” Trump said when asked if he could support a Muslim president if they agreed with him politically.

Welcome Refugees Cartoon

Kerry says US will take 85,000 refugees next year; 100,000 in '17

BERLIN –  Scrambling to address a growing Syrian refugee crisis, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry announced Sunday that the United States would significantly increase the number of worldwide refugees it takes in over the next two years, though not by nearly the amount many activists and former officials have urged.
The U.S. will accept 85,000 refugees from around the world next year, up from 70,000, and that total would rise to 100,000 in 2017, Kerry said at news conference with German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier after they discussed the mass migration of Syrians fleeing their civil war.
Many, though not all, of the additional refugees would be Syrian, American officials have said. Others would come from strife-torn areas of Africa. The White House had previously announced it intended to take in 10,000 additional Syrian refugees over the next year.
Asked why the U.S. couldn't take more, Kerry cited post-Sept. 11 screening requirements and a lack of money made available by Congress.
"We're doing what we know we can manage immediately," he said, adding that the U.S. cannot take shortcuts on security checks.
U.S. lawmakers immediately expressed concerns about the potential influx.
The Islamic State group (ISIS) and other terrorist organizations "have made it abundantly clear that they will use the refugee crisis to try to enter the United States. Now the Obama administration wants to bring in an additional 10,000 Syrians without a concrete and foolproof plan to ensure that terrorists won't be able to enter the country," said U.S. Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, and U.S. Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va.
"The administration has essentially given the American people a 'trust me.' That isn't good enough," according to a statement from the lawmakers, who head the congressional judiciary committees.
Conditions in Syria have been growing increasingly dire as the civil war grinds on. As many as 9 million people have been displaced, including more than 4 million who have fled the country, according to the United Nations.
A letter made public last week and signed by several former Obama administration officials urged the U.S. government to accept 100,000 Syrian refugees, and to put in place special rules to speed the resettlement process. Germany says it will accept as many as a million Syrians this year.
"Current (American) efforts are not adequate," according to the letter, signed by Michelle Flournoy, a former senior U.S. defense official who once was Obama's choice for Pentagon chief, and Harold Koh, the former State Department legal adviser. "Humanitarian aid has fallen short in the face of unspeakable suffering."
Syrian refugees to the U.S. would be referred by the U.N. refugee agency, screened by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and resettled around the country.
"This step is in keeping with America's best tradition as a land of second chances and a beacon of hope," Kerry said. Earlier, he and Steinmeier met with a group of refugees around a conference table on the wooded, lakeside resort-style campus of the foreign ministry's education center outside Berlin.
The Syrians, who Kerry asked reporters not to name for security concerns, said the uptick in migration five years into the civil war was being driven by a collapse of hope that the situation ever will improve.
"I personally came here in search of a future," said a mother of three daughters who made it to Germany with her five-year-old but left two others behind in Syria with her parents. She hopes they all can come, too.
Congressional approval is not required for the Obama administration to expand resettlement slots, though Congress would have to appropriate money to pay for the additional effort, Kerry pointed out. Intelligence officials and Republican lawmakers have expressed concerns that ISIS militants could seek to slip into Europe or the U.S. posing as refugees.
In 2011, two Kentucky residents who had been resettled as Iraqi refugees were accused of being Al Qaeda members. They were convicted of terrorism charges after their fingerprints were linked to roadside bombs in Iraq. That led to new steps to screen refugees, a process that has been criticized as slow and bureaucratic.
"Some of the 65,000 that came from Iraq actually were trying to buy stinger missiles in my hometown in Kentucky," said U.S. Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, a Republican presidential candidate, in a broadcast interview. "So we do have to be weary of some of the threat that comes from mass migration."
Even if the U.S. took in 30,000 Syrians over the next two years — an unlikely outcome, given that only 1,500 have been admitted since the start of the war — that number would pale in comparison to the hundreds of thousands that Germany is expected to accept, or the 800,000 Vietnamese that the U.S. resettled in the years after the Vietnam war.
In Washington, Democratic presidential candidate and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said in a television interview that the U.S. "has to do more and I would like to see us move from what is a good start with 10,000 to 65,000 and begin immediately to put into place the mechanisms for vetting the people we would take in, looking to really emphasis some of those who are most vulnerable."
Logistical and resource hurdles remain. For example, there is no suitable facility in Lebanon where Syrian refugees can be taken for interviews, so no interviews are occurring, according to the State Department.
Kerry said the refugee crisis must ultimately be solved by ending Syria's civil war and replacing President Bashar Assad.
On that score, Kerry made clear Saturday the U.S. was willing to negotiate the terms of Assad's exit with Russia, which is backing his government with a recent military buildup. The Russians brought in fighter jets and surface to air missiles that could threaten American plans, much to the dismay of American officials.
Critics have accused the Obama administration of passivity in the face of Russian aggression.
After holding out hope Saturday that Russia could help the U.S. fight the Islamic State, Kerry took a somewhat tougher line on Sunday, saying that he and the German foreign minister agreed that "support for the (Syrian) regime by Russia, or by any other country, risks exacerbating the conflict ... and only hinders future cooperation toward a successful transition."

Christian schools in Israel strike amid claims of discrimination

Teachers, staff and 33,000 students at Arab Christian schools in Israel have been on strike since Sept. 1, accusing the state of Israel of discrimination over funding cuts, Time reported.
Students, teachers and parents are setting up protest tents from Haifa to Jerusalem, the news site reported, as part of a nationwide strike over what many say is a “death blow” to the future of Christian schools in Israel.
According to Time, the Israeli government sees Christian schools as “recognized, but unofficial.” Over the past few years, funding for the schools has fallen to 29 percent, from the previous 75 percent once provided by Israel.

Related Image

Expand / Contract

In this May 26, 2015, photo, Arab Israeli Christian school children play soccer at the Terra Santa School in the mixed Jewish-Arab city of Ramle, Israel. (AP Photo/Oded Balilty, File)

The state also has imposed a cap on school fees, Time reported.
“So on the one hand, we have 45 percent cuts over these years, and on the other, they are putting limitation to raise tuition fees”, says Botrus Mansour, the general director of Nazareth Baptist school.
"I am aware that as an Arab there is a discrimination and racist law against us, which I am trying to hide from my children," Rula Azar, a 35-year-old mother of two and a teacher in Ramla, Israel, told NBC News. "It happens only to Christian schools. Meanwhile, Jewish Orthodox schools, which are also 'recognized, non-official schools,' get the full budget."

"It's my right to choose which school I want my children to go to . . ."
- Rula Azar

Officials at the Christian schools, Israeli NGOs and politicians also are accusing the government of discrimination. “We believe it is outrageous how the Israeli establishment is behaving with our schools,” says Wadie Abu Nassar, adviser to Catholic Bishops of the Holy Land.
“These schools are not asking for a lot of money,” Nassar said. “We are asking for about 200 million NIS ($50 million) per year [for all 47 schools.]”
The Economy Ministry and Education Ministry reportedly offered heads of the Arab Christian community an additional 50 million shekels ($12.8 million), but it was rejected.

Related Image

Expand / Contract

Arab Israeli Christians hold signs during a demonstration in front of the prime minister's office in Jerusalem, Sunday, Sept. 6, 2015, to protest the slashing of funds for Christian schools. (AP Photo/Mahmoud Illean)

"It's my right to choose which school I want my children to go to, and it's our right to have those schools... with full budget," Azar said. "We are Israeli citizens, respecting the law; we believe in equality and these are the values we teach in these schools."
Meanwhile, the online news site Arutz Sheva reports that it has unearthed videos showing students of some Arab Christian schools in Israel performing skits while wrapped in the flag of the Palestine Liberation Organization – an enemy of Israel -- or wearing the keffiyeh scarf synonymous with Yasser Arafat, the late former head of the PLO.
The Vatican has asked Russian President Vladimir Putin to intervene in the school budget fight when he meets with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu this week in Moscow, Israel’s Channel 10 reported Saturday.

Carson says he does not agree with a Muslim being elected president

Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson suggested Sunday that a Muslim should not be president, extending the new and unexpected religion debate on the 2016 campaign trail.
“I would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation,” Carson, a Christian and retired neurosurgeon, said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “I absolutely would not agree with that.”
Carson, a top-tier 2016 candidate and popular among the GOP’s evangelical wing, made the statement after fellow Republican candidate Donald Trump was addressed by a man during a rally Thursday in New Hampshire who said President Obama is a Muslim.
“We have a problem in this country,” the unidentified man said. “It's called Muslim. … You know our current president is one."
Obama says he is a Christian. But Trump has declined to address the issue, saying he is not “morally obligated” to set straight the record.
Carson also described the Islamic faith as inconsistent with the Constitution. However, he did not specify in what way Islam ran counter to constitutional principles.
Carson said he believes Obama is a Christian and has “no reason to doubt what he says.”
He also said he would consider voting for a Muslim running for Congress, depending on “who that Muslim is and what their policies are.”
Congress has two Muslim members, Democratic Reps. Keith Ellison of Minnesota and Andre Carson of Indiana.
Trump on Sunday told ABC’s “This Week” that he doesn’t talk about other people’s faith and that Obama is “very capable of defending himself.”
He also said the politically correct statement is that Muslims are not a problem in the United States but the reality is that “some” associated with terrorism pose a worldwide threat.
“We can say … everything's wonderful,” Trump said. “But certainly it is a problem. … if I want to say no, not at all, people would laugh at me.”
Fellow GOP contender and Florida Sen. Marco Rubio told ABC about the Muslim debate: “This has nothing to do with the future of our country. These issues have been discussed ad nauseam over the last few years. It's a big waste of time. Barack Obama will not be president in a year and a half. It's time to start talking about the future of America and the people that are at home.”
Carson's comments drew strong criticism from the country's largest Muslim civil rights and advocacy organization, the Council on American-Islamic Relations.
"To me this really means he is not qualified to be president of the United States," said the group's spokesman, Ibrahim Hooper. "You cannot hold these kinds of views and at the same time say you will represent all Americans, of all faiths and backgrounds."
In a separate appearance on NBC, fellow 2016 GOP candidate Ohio Gov. John Kasich, was asked whether he would have a problem with a Muslim in the White House.
"The answer is, at the end of the day, you've got to go through the rigors, and people will look at everything. But, for me, the most important thing about being president is you have leadership skills, you know what you're doing and you can help fix this country and raise this country. Those are the qualifications that matter to me."
Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Florida Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz said, “It’s hard to understand what’s so difficult about supporting an American citizen’s right to run for president.
“But unsurprisingly, this left Republicans scratching their heads. Of course a Muslim, or any other American citizen, can run for president, end of story."

US reportedly may abstain from UN vote condemning Cuba embargo

WASHINGTON –  For the first time, the United States may be willing to accept a United Nations condemnation of the U.S. trade embargo against Cuba without a fight, The Associated Press has learned.
U.S. officials tell the AP that the Obama administration is weighing abstaining from the annual U.N. General Assembly vote on a Cuban-backed resolution demanding that the embargo be lifted. The vote could come next month.
No decision has yet been made, said four administration officials who weren't authorized to speak publicly on sensitive internal deliberations and demanded anonymity. But merely considering an abstention is unprecedented. Following through on the idea would send shock waves through both the United Nations and Congress.
It is unheard of for a U.N. member state not to oppose resolutions critical of its own laws.
And by not actively opposing the resolution, the administration would be effectively siding with the world body against Congress, which has refused to repeal the embargo despite calls from President Barack Obama to do so.
Obama has been urging Congress to scrap the 54-year-old embargo since December, when he announced that Washington and Havana would normalize diplomatic relations. The two countries re-opened embassies last month, and Obama has chipped away at U.S. restrictions on trade and travel to Cuba, using executive authorities. But the embargo stands.
The latest U.S. easing of sanctions occurred Friday and was followed by a rare phone call between Obama and Cuban President Raul Castro. Pope Francis, who played a key role in the rapprochement between Havana and Washington, arrived in Havana a day later. He travels to the U.S. this week.
The White House said Obama and Castro discussed "steps that the United States and Cuba can take, together and individually, to advance bilateral cooperation." The Cuban government said Castro "emphasized the need to expand their scope and abrogate, once and for all, the blockade policy for the benefit of both peoples."
Neither statement mentioned the U.N. vote. Yet, as it has for the last 23 years, Cuba will introduce a resolution at the upcoming General Assembly criticizing the embargo and demanding its end.
The United States has lost each vote by increasing margins. Last year's tally was 188-2 in favor of Cuba with only Israel siding with the U.S. This year's vote will be the first since the U.S. shift in policy toward Cuba.
General Assembly resolutions are unenforceable. But the annual exercise has given Cuba a stage to demonstrate America's isolation on the embargo.
The administration has not yet decided how to vote, according to the U.S. officials. They said that at the moment the U.S. is still more likely to vote against the resolution than abstain.
However, the officials said the U.S. will consider abstaining if the wording of the resolution is significantly different than in previous years. The administration is open to discussing revisions with the Cubans and others, they added, something American diplomats have never done before.
"Our vote will ultimately depend on what's in the resolution," one of the officials said. "This resolution is no different than others in the sense that we won't prejudge it before it's final."
An abstention would have political ramifications in the United States, not least among several Republican presidential candidates who want the embargo maintained.
And in Congress, where top GOP lawmakers have refused to entertain legislation that would end the embargo, any administration action perceived as endorsing U.N. criticism of the United States could provoke anger -- even among supporters of the administration's position.
As White House spokesman Josh Earnest noted last week, the embargo remains the law of the land. "We still want Congress to take action to remove the embargo," he said.
The U.S. officials, however, said the administration believes an abstention could send a powerful signal to Congress and the world of Obama's commitment to ending the embargo. Obama says the policy failed over more than five decades to spur democratic change and left the U.S. isolated among its Latin American neighbors.
It's unclear what changes would be necessary to prompt a U.S. abstention.
Last year's resolution cited the "necessity of ending the economic, commercial and financial embargo" and took aim at the Helms-Burton Act. That 1996 law made foreign firms subject to the same restrictions U.S. companies face for investing in Cuba, and authorizes penalties for non-U.S. companies operating and dealing with property once owned by U.S. citizens but confiscated after Fidel Castro's revolution.
A report issued by Cuba last week in support of this year's resolution doesn't suggest Havana is toning down its approach.
It calls American efforts to ease the embargo "a step in the right direction but are limited and insufficient in the face of the magnitude and scope of the blockade laws for Cuba and the rest of the world."
But the 37-page document also claims the embargo has cost the Cuban people $833.7 billion -- a number the U.S. would never accept. Washington says the communist government has used the embargo as an excuse for its own litany of economic failures.

Muslim Cartoon

Poll: Guy Who Asked Trump Muslim Question Leads G.O.P. Race

ROCHESTER, N.H. Two days after asserting that President Barack Obama was a foreign-born Muslim, a guy who asked Donald Trump a provocative question at a New Hampshire rally is now the front-runner in the Republican race for President, according to a new poll.

The poll, which was conducted by the University of Minnesota’s Opinion Research Institute, shows Muslim Question Guy leading the G.O.P. field with thirty-four per cent as opposed to nineteen per cent for Trump.

In interviews with poll respondents, Republicans gave Muslim Question Guy high marks for stating that President Obama was neither Christian nor American and criticized Trump for not being more vocal in his agreement on those points.

Minutes after the poll was released, however, Trump was on the offensive, attacking Muslim Question Guy during an appearance on CNN.

“People who are supporting this guy haven’t done their homework,” the businessman said. “If you look back over the past seven years, no one has called Obama a foreign-born Muslim more often than I have.”

Trump’s comments did little to slow the momentum of Muslim Question Guy, who drew four thousand people at his first official campaign rally in Concord, New Hampshire, where he vowed to take back the country from Muslim clockmakers.

House GOP mum on defund Planned Parenthood plan, hints about waiting, skipping shutdown

A horde of reporters pursued Rep. Adam Kinzinger down a basement corridor of the U.S. Capitol Tuesday night. The Illinois lawmaker had just emerged from a rare, evening, closed-door confab of the House Republican Conference on government funding and efforts to slash money for Planned Parenthood.
The scribes hoped to learn from Kinzinger what approach Republican leaders would select to avoid a political calamity when the federal government’s operating authority expires October 1.
“There is no plan,” Kinzinger declared.
Which is kind of right because, well, no one in the Republican leadership ranks has officially endorsed a plan and probably won’t for a while, even though everyone technically knows what the plan is.
For now.
Got it?
GOP leaders didn’t announce a plan in that twilight assemblage because they’re still listening to members and letting them have their say. Allowing them to voice their views and ponder consequences of perusing one legislative avenue or the other. Nobody wants to get too far out in front and commit to a plan until they absolutely have to.
That’s because the plan will be the plan -- until it isn’t the plan.
Take a look at how House Republicans championed a seven-week-old “etched-in-stone” strategy on the Iran nuclear agreement -- only to hastily backpedal just moments from initiating a procedural debate on the floor last week.
Or consider the multiple and sundry tactics GOP leaders laid out in September, 2013 to keep the government funded or deal with the debt ceiling in 2011 -- only to dash them at the last second because of a lack of political support from rank-and-file Republicans.
In the GOP’s defense, some of that is just the bi-product of trying operate Congress and advance sticky legislative issues. But is there any reason to expect why this might go any differently on funding the government? Especially with an unprecedented level of internal volatility rattling the Republican ranks?
On Friday afternoon, North Carolina Rep. Patrick McHenry, the GOP’s chief deputy whip, hustled into the House chamber for a vote series to defund Planned Parenthood for a year and impose prison time on physicians who don’t assist babies who survive amid failed abortions.
Paul Kane of The Washington Post asked McHenry: “When will we get to see the plan?” McHenry paused and just nodded.
“I can’t quote a nod,” Kane protested.
But there is a plan for the time being. Maybe McHenry’s nod was telling because at this stage, it’s all done with a wink and a nod.
House Republican leaders called those two votes for Friday to isolate the Planned Parenthood issue from an interim spending bill they hope to advance in the next week-and-a-half.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., is teeing up a procedural vote on a bill next week that asserts that a fetus can feel pain at 20 weeks. Then the Pope visits Capitol Hill to deliver an historic address to a Joint Meeting of Congress. By then, there’s only a few of days left to fund the government.
Republicans are expected to then push what’s called a “Continuing Resolution” or “CR” in Congress-ese. A CR is a stopgap spending bill to fund the government for a temporary period -- perhaps until mid-December. House Appropriations Committee Chairman Hal Rogers, R-Ky., says the CR is ready to go except an end-date. But Rogers and other Republican leaders are trying to convince their members they can’t completely slash Planned Parenthood money in a CR or any other appropriations bill.
“Only about ten percent of what (Planned Parenthood gets) comes from appropriated monies,” Rogers said. “The balance of some $550 million is in an entitlement.”
Entitlements are federal programs such as Medicare and Medicaid. Planned Parenthood receives the bulk of its funding through those payments.
That’s why Republican leaders might angle to kill the rest of the Planned Parenthood funding through a measure later this year known as a “budget reconciliation” package. “Reconciliation” is a special budgetary process that sidesteps potential Senate filibusters and requires only a simple majority, not a supermajority, to pass.
In other words, if the GOP can convince its members to go the reconciliation route, it can at least pass a bill later that would do more to defund Planned Parenthood than an appropriations bill.
Such a measure would undoubtedly trigger a veto threat from President Obama. But this gambit removes the melee from the effort to fund the government and takes a more direct legislative route toward the Planned Parenthood funding.
“We are not going to engage in exercises in futility,” said McConnell of efforts to cut Planned Parenthood money via a CR, potentially prompting a government shutdown.
Republicans are walking a fine line here. Few Republicans support Planned Parenthood. Most oppose abortion. But Planned Parenthood scores wide overall support from the public at large for the health services it provides, particularly among female voters. Stumbling into a government shutdown over Planned Parenthood is a political loser for the GOP.
“If you don't know what to do, distract them with women's health care,” posited Sen. Patty Murray, a Washington Democrat.
Politically, it may help Republican leaders to abstain from announcing the definitive approach. Put it out now and conservative talk radio would rip it to shreds. That would also amp up a simmering movement among some conservatives to try to topple House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio.
This interregnum serves as a political steam release. It allows those who want to lay into Boehner to have their say. It also presses Congress right up against the October 1 deadline. With the Pope coming next week, the House is scheduled to conduct virtually no legislative business until Friday. The Senate has a procedural vote Tuesday. That punts any action on government funding until the week after next -- right at the deadline.
Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, voted “present” Friday in the House on a bill to suspend funding for Planned Parenthood. King argued that he voted that way instead of voting “aye” because he thinks the bill didn’t truly defund Planned Parenthood. And King’s skeptical of pushing off the entire government funding debate until the following week.
“Boehner has known the Pope is coming to town for a long time,” he said. “If it’s not a tactic to bring in the Pope in the third week of September with the deck stacked to get it all done by the fourth week of September, then it’s a huge overlook.”
With the calendar pressures, is McConnell losing sleep over the approaching deadline?

“No, I’m not,” he replied emphatically. “We’re going to fund the government. Hopefully into late fall.”
But how is McConnell so confident a shutdown isn’t looming?
“I just am,” he intoned.
The majority leader’s Alfred E. Neuman “What? Me worry?” stance didn’t impress White House spokesman Josh Earnest.
“We’ve been seeking to find a way to get Republicans in Congress to accept an invitation from Democrats for months to engage in bipartisan talks on the budget,” Earnest said. “Republicans put it off for so long that it’s difficult to imagine a bipartisan budget agreement before the deadline.”
Rogers knows it’s a bear of a public relations campaign to explain to the public why Congress simply can’t defund Planned Parenthood via an appropriations bill and could use reconciliation to get at it from the entitlement side of the ledger, sometimes referred to as “mandatory” spending.
“Most people don’t have any understanding between appropriated spending and mandatory spending,” he said. “This issue is so explosive and emotional and has been so publicly discussed across the country that it is difficult to come to a conclusion.”
Even while House Republicans met Tuesday night in the Capitol basement to consider various scenarios, several GOPers relayed that some of their colleagues already carried a sense of dread. Dejection. Defeat.
The abortion and Planned Parenthood bills approved by the House weren’t going anywhere. The Senate probably can’t break a filibuster on its abortion bill Tuesday. The gig is already up. They’ll have to wait for budget reconciliation to truly cut Planned Parenthood money. And then Obama will veto that bill this fall.
“We need a president who has a similar view,” said McConnell about prospects for really slashing Planned Parenthood’s money.
And so this is the plan for now. Which, at least officially, really isn’t the plan. Until it is the plan. And then isn’t the plan.

Obama administration urged by police, GOP candidates to be more outspoken on cop killings

Obama administration officials are being urged by law enforcement and Republican presidential hopefuls to be more outspoken about police officers being targeted and shot, amid a recent series of fatal attacks. 
"This is the president's problem because he has not shown law and order to be the rule of the day," Republican presidential candidate and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie recent told Fox News.
He specifically pointed to the estimated 200 or more so-called "sanctuary cities" that do not enforce federal immigration law and Colorado and Washington where the Justice Department essentially does not enforce federal marijuana laws.
"And … the president says little or nothing about these issues where police officers are being hunted," Christie said. In just the past three weeks, two officers were ambushed and another was shot in a police chase, resulting in two deaths.
On Aug. 28, Texas sheriff deputy Darren Goforth was ambushed while filling up his cruiser at a suburban Houston gas station, after responding to a traffic accident. He left behind a wife and two children.
Obama called Goforth's widow two days later, offering condolences and prayers and saying the 10-year veteran was “contemptibly shot and killed," according to the White House.
"Targeting police officers is completely unacceptable -- an affront to civilized society," the president also said in a statement. "We've got to be able to put ourselves in the shoes of the wife who won't rest until the police officer she married walks through the door at the end of his shift. That comfort has been taken from Mrs. Goforth."
However, another 2016 GOP presidential candidate, firebrand Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, suggested Goforth's death was in part the result of efforts by the president and others in his administration to "vilify law enforcement."
Other administration critics argue officials were more outspoken over roughly the past 12 months when several black males died in police custody. They also argue that a lack of support following those incidents has made police more of a target.
About two weeks after Goforth's death, Kentucky State Trooper Joseph Cameron Ponder was killed by a suspect in a car chase. And later that day, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, another 2016 GOP presidential candidate, also suggested Obama needed to do more.
"He has been silent on this. And that's an outrage," Walker told CNN.
In between Goforth and Cameroon's deaths, Attorney General Loretta Lynch condemned the fatal shootings, saying, "This violence against all of us, regardless of what uniform any of us wear, has to end. … The Department of Justice stands ready to support law enforcement around this country as they continue to fight every day."
She also announced a summit later this month in Detroit with law enforcement officials on the issue of violence.
A total 30 officers have so far this year been killed while on duty by gunfire or another form of assault, according to the online Officer Down Memorial Page.
Some people argued the recent police deaths have been exaggerated and over-politicized, considering the number killed by gunfire is down by about 26 percent, compared to the FBI number of 51 killed in 2014.
However, others point out that last year’s number was an 89 percent increase compared to 2013 and that one slain officer is too many. 
An average 64 law-enforcement officers a year were intentional killed from 1980 to 2014, according to the FBI.
The debate about whether the administration has said enough essentially started in August 2014 when unarmed black teen Michael Brown died when in contact with an officer in Ferguson, Mo.
The incident sparked protests and rioting in which officers were injured and property, including businesses, was damaged or destroyed.
Within days, Obama issued a statement calling Brown’s death “heartbreaking” and said that he and first lady Michelle Obama sent their “deepest condolences.”
In the weeks after, then-Attorney General Eric Holder went to Ferguson to talk with civil right leaders and Brown’s family. He also said the Justice Department would use “all the power” it has to reform the Ferguson police department, if needed.
And in April, the death of 25-year-old black male Freddy Gray while in police custody in Baltimore sparked protests, looting and rioting, resulting in dozens of arrests, stores torched and at least 15 police officers being injured.
Police were purportedly told to stand-down during the violent protests. And six city police officers are now on trial in connection with Gray’s death, which has law enforcement officials saying officers are afraid to do their job.
Obama said there was “no excuse” for “criminals and thugs” tearing up the city. And Lynch visited Baltimore in the aftermath.
A third high-profile death of a black make while in police custody over roughly the past year also sparked anger at officers.
In July 2014, Eric Garner died in New York City after he resisted arrest for a nuisance crime and was put in a chokehold.
The deaths of Brown, Gray and Garner gave rise to the group BlackLivesMatter, which has tried to push the issue to the forefront of the 2016 presidential race.
However, the group and its affiliates were sharply criticized and accused of fueling attacks on police offices when some members chanted at the Minnesota State Fair in late-August: “Pigs in a blanket. Fry ’em like bacon.”
"Stop trying to fix the police, fix the ghetto,” Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke, who is black, recently told Fox News. "We don’t have any support from the political class."