32,000 emails recovered in IRS targeting probe amid allegations agency chief may have lied

Investigators said Thursday they have recovered 32,000 emails in backup tapes related to the Internal Revenue Service targeting of conservative organizations.
But they don't know how many of them are new, and told a congressional oversight committee that IRS employees had not asked computer technicians for the tapes, as directed by a subpoena from House oversight and other investigating committees.
That admission was in direct contradiction to earlier testimony of IRS Commissioner John Koskinen.
“It looks like we’ve been lied to, or at least misled," said Rep. John Mica, R-Fla. at a congressional hearing Thursday evening,
J. Russell George, the IRS inspector general, said his organization was investigating possible criminal activity.
The emails were to and from Lois Lerner, who used to head the IRS division that processes applications for tax-exempt status. Last June, the IRS told Congress it had lost an unknown number of Lerner's email when her computer hard drive crashed in 2011.
At the time, IRS officials said the emails could not be recovered. But IRS Deputy Inspector General Timothy Camus said investigators recovered thousands of emails from old computer tapes used to back up the agency's email system, though he said he believed some tapes had been erased.
"We recovered quite a number of emails, but until we compare those to what's already been produced we don't know if they're new emails," Camus told the House Oversight Committee.
Neither Camus nor George would describe the contents of any of the emails at Thursday's hearing.
The IRS says it has already produced 78,000 Lerner emails, many of which have been made public by congressional investigators.
Camus said it took investigators two weeks to locate the computer tapes that contained Lerner's emails. He said it took technicians about four months to find Lerner's emails on the tapes.
Several Oversight committee members questioned how hard the IRS tried to produce the emails, given how quickly independent investigators found them.
"We have been patient. We have asked, we have issued subpoenas, we have held hearings," said Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, chairman of the Oversight Committee. "It's just shocking me that you start, two weeks later you're able to find the emails."
Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., questioned the significance of the recovered emails in an exchange with Camus.
"So as I understand it from your testimony here today, you are unable to confirm whether there are any, to use your own words, new emails, right?" she asked Camus.
"That is correct," Camus replied.
Maloney: "So what's before us may be material you already have, right?"
Camus: "That is correct"
Maloney. "So may I ask, why are we here?"
The IRS issued a statement saying the agency "has been and remains committed to cooperating fully with the congressional oversight investigations. The IRS continues to work diligently with Congress as well as support the review by the Treasury inspector general for tax administration."
The IRS estimated it has spent $20 million responding to congressional inquiries, generating more than one million pages of documents and providing agency officials to testify at 27 congressional hearings.
The inspector general set off a firestorm in May 2013 with an audit that said IRS agents improperly singled out Tea Party and other conservative groups for extra scrutiny when they applied for tax-exempt status during the 2010 and 2012 elections.
Several hundred groups had their applications delayed for a year or more. Some were asked inappropriate questions about donors and group activities, the inspector general's report said.
The week before George's report, Lerner publicly apologized on behalf of the agency. After the report, much of the agency's top leadership was forced to retire or resign, including Lerner. The Justice Department and several congressional committees launched investigations.
Lerner's lost emails prompted a new round of scrutiny by Congress, and a new investigation by the inspector general's office.
Lerner emerged as a central figure in the controversy after she refused to answer questions at two House Oversight hearings, invoking her Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate herself at both hearings. At the first hearing, Lerner made a statement saying she had done nothing wrong.
Last year, the House voted mostly along party lines to hold her in contempt of Congress for refusing to answer questions at the hearings.

Conservative media may be asking the questions, but presidential hopefuls shouldn't expect a walk in the park

NATIONAL HARBOR, Md .– Republicans said after the 2012 election that they wanted to radically change the model for presidential debates in 2016 and have conservatives do more of the question-asking, rather than the "liberal media."

Related Stories

1. Chris Christie: Some people need to be told to "shut up" CBS News
2. New Jersey's Christie to conservatives: 'I'm still standing' Reuters
3. [$$] Presidential Hopefuls Court the GOP Base The Wall Street Journal
4. With 2016 on horizon, US conservatives rally at CPAC AFP
5. GOP's Jeb Bush working to reassert conservative credentials Associated Press

On Thursday at the Conservative Political Action Conference, the GOP got a first look at how that might go.

Talk radio personality Laura Ingraham conducted a 20-minute question and answer session with New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, and Fox News host Sean Hannity queried Texas senator Ted Cruz, in a departure from the regular standard speeches that presidential hopefuls give to this annual gathering of activists.

Ingraham’s session with Christie heavily focused on Christie’s vulnerabilities – his recent political struggles, his volatile temperament, and his changes of position – while Hannity’s briefer interview with Cruz was marked by an awkward exchange over former President Bill Clinton’s libido. And Walker gave an ill-advised answer to a totally innocuous foreign policy question, an unforced error.

The takeaway: getting conservatives to ask the questions might not be as much of a pleasure cruise as Republicans think. The Republican National Committee made the change one of its top priorities and conservative radio talk show host Hugh Hewitt has already been named as part of a panel of questioners at CNN’s primary debate at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation and Library in California this September.
Hewitt is known as a tough interviewer, and former Florida governor Jeb Bush – considered the leader of the pack in the early days of the 2016 primary field taking shape – appeared on his radio show Wednesday. Hewitt asked Bush if he would be afraid of sending U.S. soldiers into combat over concerns it would be labeled “a third Bush war.”
Bush fended off the question, but it was similar in spirit to the ones that Ingraham threw at Christie on Thursday here. The irony may be that because there is no question about where interlocutors like Hewitt, Ingraham and Hannity stand on the ideological spectrum, political candidates may believe they are in for easier treatment, and will have far less ability to point a blaming finger at the media if things go awry, which in recent years has become an easy escape hatch.
Ingraham’s first question for Christie thrust his recent political struggles into his face, while several thousand conservatives watched from the floor of a darkened convention room floor.
“This has been a rough couple of months for you in the media,” Ingraham said, noting that many observers are saying to Christie, “You’re toast.” It gave Christie the opportunity to bash – who else – the media, and particularly the New York Times, but it was still a very public reminder of the many stories about Bush’s domination of the battle for donors and operative talent.
Ingraham then asked Christie why he had signed on to Common Core in 2010, forcing him to admit he regretted doing so. She pressed even further. “Not political regrets? These are regrets, real regrets?”
“Well these are implementation regrets,” Christie said.
Ingraham’s very next question went at him even harder: “Here are words used to describe you: explosive, short-tempered, hothead, impatient. And that’s just what your friends are saying.”
Christie said he was “passionate.” If a journalist from a mainstream TV network had been asking the questions, he or she might have been getting booed by the conservative audience by this point . Ingraham was not. She went on to attempt to draw Christie into criticizing Bush on his immigration positions, and then came back to his woeful standing in current polling.
“You were a frontrunner. Now you’re near the bottom,” she said. “Ben Carson is ahead of you.”
Christie could only point out that in February of 2007 “it was going to be Rudy Giuliani versus Hillary Clinton. That’s what the polls said then. So I feel pretty good.”
Ingraham asked a few more questions. One of them came back to Bush’s current strength, and her final question attempted again to pull Christie into a back-and-forth with his likely rival for the nomination.
It was an interview chock full of horse-race questions and attempts to spark intra-party fighting, two of the very things that RNC Chairman Reince Priebus and other Republicans have complained were problems mainstream media outlets had created in the past.
Wisconsin governor Scott Walker, by contrast, gave a pep rally of a speech to the conservative faithful that brought them out of their seats several times. It helped him continue the momentum he has built since a successful appearance in Iowa last month. But in the few moments that he was asked questions after his remarks, by American Conservative Union board member Ned Ryun, he gave a stumbling answer to a straightforward question about how he would deal with the Islamic State if he were president.
Walker said Americans want a president who does “everything in their power" to fight America’s enemies, and mentioned “confidence” as a key personality trait. He then cited his victory in a 2012 recall election spurred by pro-union activists as experience enough to prepare him for taking on terrorists.
“If I can take on 100,000 protesters I can do the same across the world,” Walker said.
Walker’s response was lambasted even by the conservative National Review. He denied afterward he was comparing Wisconsin protesters to Islamic radicals. “My point was just, if I can handle that kind of pressure, that kind of intensity, I think I’m up for whatever might come, if I choose to run for president,” Walker told Bloomberg News .
And he grew combative, accusing the media of wanting to “misconstrue” his comments. But in comments to CNN and the New York Times, he also backed off the substance of his assertion that facing down peaceful political protestors engaged in the democratic process of trying to oust him from office had prepared him for fighting an international menace. “I'm just pointing out the closest thing I have to handling a difficult situation, was the 100,000 protesters I had to deal with,” Walker said.
As for Cruz, he too gave a red meat speech to the crowd. But in a few minutes of questions from Hannity, it was a digression into Colorado’s legalization of marijuana that took the senator and the Fox News personality down a rabbit hole.
“I was told Colorado provided the brownies here today,” Cruz joked when Hannity asked him about the decision to legalize marijuana. Hannity responded by joking that he had eaten the brownies. “The magical mystery Hannity hour,” Cruz riffed.
Hannity then asked for one-word responses by Cruz to the names he would throw out.
“Hillary Clinton,” Hannity said.
“Washington,” said Cruz.

“Bill Clinton,” Hannity said, and then adopted a Clintonesque southern drawl, and began impersonating the former president ogling a member of the audience. “Hey, by the way, I want to say hi to that really hot chick in row seven over there,” Hannity said, pointing into the crowd as the audience laughed. “Hey, you know sweetheart, I’ll give you a tour backstage.”

Hannity stopped himself. “Sorry, he’s not responsible for this,” he said of Cruz, and then repeated Bill Clinton’s name.

Cruz paused, and then made a veiled reference that followed along with Hannity’s joke about the former president’s extramarital affairs.

“Youth outreach,” Cruz cracked.

Difference Cartoon

Iran hangs Obama in effigy even as it negotiates nuclear deal with US

Just weeks before Secretary of State John Kerry held new nuclear talks with Iran’s foreign minister in Geneva, Iranians were hanging Kerry's boss in effigy at a huge Tehran-sponsored rally marking the Islamic Revolution’s 36^th anniversary, an event that critics say underscores the absurdity of the ongoing diplomatic effort.
The U.S. and Iran are trying to reach a final nuclear agreement by a March 31 deadline against a backdrop of ongoing anti-American hatred in the Islamic republic. Photos posted by the Middle East Media Research Institute this week show Iranians marching in front of a display depicting President Obama hanging from a gallows and carrying signs of Kerry, portrayed as a devious fox.
Hundreds of thousands of Iranians took part in the Feb. 11 Revolution Day, which commemorates the 1979 overthrow of the U.S.-assisted Shah of Iran. The Iranians, as they have in past, chanted, “Death to America” and “Death to Israel.” They also burned and trampled an American flag.

“The Iranians on the one hand want to get as many concessions as they can from America during the nuclear talks but on the other hand they are not ready to give up their anti-Americanism.”- Ali Alfoneh, Foundation for Defense of Democracies

MEMRI said other photos from the rally show Iranians waving posters of Obama looking like Pinocchio.
The U.S. and other superpowers want to stop Iran from developing a nuclear bomb. Iran says its nuclear intentions are peaceful, a claim that experts dismiss.
“The Iranians on the one hand want to get as many concessions as they can from America during the nuclear talks but on the other hand they are not ready to give up their anti-Americanism,” said Ali Alfoneh, a senior fellow with the Foundation for Defense of Democracies in Washington.
Alfoneh said Iran’s 'anti-Americanism' gives the country some degree of legitimacy in the Muslim world.
“They’re using their hatred of America and their promotion of hatred of America to take over  the mantel of leadership in the Muslim world,” he said.
“This of course to me shows that even if a nuclear deal is reached between Iran and the U.S. it does not necessarily mean that Iran is going to change its ideological fundamental line against the U.S.”

Related Image

Expand / Contract

Presidents Bush and Obama were portrayed as being hanged in effigy. (MEMRI)

The Iran expert said the Feb. 11 rally doesn’t necessarily mean Iran doesn’t want a nuclear deal.
“But what they are demonstrating is that if there is a deal they are not going to change their view of the U.S. as an enemy,” Alfoneh said.
Another Iran expert, Ilan Berman, vice president of the American Foreign Policy Council, said the Revolution Day footage indicates that Iran still views the U.S. as the main enemy.
“And that is not going to change even if we make a deal,” Berman said. He said the problem for the White House is the expectation that a deal on the nuclear front will lead to a broader reconciliation with Iran, which is not going to happen.

Related Image

Expand / Contract

Secretary of State John Kerry was portrayed as a "devious fox" in the event, which took place even as the U.S. was in talks with Iran about its nuclear program. (MEMRI)

“What you have is an unreconstructed revolutionary regime and they’re not interested in relations with the U.S. in a long-term, meaningful way,” Berman said.
For months now, the U.S. and the world’s other superpowers have been trying to hammer out a deal with Iran that would freeze the Islamic republic’s nuclear program for a period of time. In exchange the U.S. would lift billions of dollars in sanctions that have damaged Iran’s economy. Last weekend Kerry flew to Geneva to join the negotiations and then on Tuesday went to Capitol Hill to make his case for a deal with Congress.
Also Tuesday an Iranian opposition group urged inspection of an "underground top-secret site" outside Tehran that it said was being used to enrich uranium intended for nuclear weapons beyond the detection of U.N. inspectors.
MEMRI said the day before Iran’s Revolution Day, the Facebook page of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei called on Iranians to participate to show the U.S. that sanctions had not harmed the country.
"A U.S. official said that sanctions have trapped Iranians; On (Feb. 11) they will receive a decisive answer, God willing," Khamenei said in his call-to-action poster.
MEMRI that at a Revolution Day event in Kermanshah, Basij commander Mohammad Reza Naqdi called the U.S. and the other superpowers at the nuclear talks—Britain, France, Russia, China and Germany, the 5 + 1 coalition—“a coalition against humanity and against Islam.”
“The enemies always fear Islam and the progress of the Iranian nation, but do not (openly) say so,” Naqdi said. “Iran’s significant regional and global role has put an end to their exclusive hegemony.”
MEMRI also found a sermon Assembly of Experts member Ahmad Khatami gave on Feb. 13 in which he said that “this year’s processions" produced two new slogans: "‘No to sanctions an no to humiliation, (yes to) dignified negotiations,’ and ‘(our) response to all the (American ) options on the table is: death to American that opposes Islam.’”
He added, "So the Iranian people's hatred for America grows from year to year."

Donation to Clinton Foundation while Hillary was Secretary of State violated ethics agreement, report says

The Clinton Foundation was on the defensive Wednesday after disclosing that it had accepted millions of dollars from several foreign governments while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state, including one donation that violated the foundation's ethics agreement with the Obama administration.
Most of the contributions -- which had not previously been detailed by the foundation -- were possible due to exceptions written into the organizations's 2008 agreement with the White House that limited donations from foreign governments, according to The Washington Post, which first reported the contributions. 
But foundation officials acknowledged that they should have sought approval from the State Department's ethics office in one instance. In a statement to Fox News, the foundation said it had received an unsolicited donation of $500,000 to its Haiti earthquake relief fund from the Algerian government in 2010. 
"As the Clinton Foundation did with all donations it received for earthquake relief, the entire amount of Algeria's contribution was distributed as aid in Haiti," the foundation's statement read, in part. "This donation was disclosed publicly on our website, however, the State Department should have also been formally informed. This was a one-time, specific donation to help Haiti and Algeria had not donated to the Clinton Foundation before and has not since."
The statement did not make clear when foundation officials found out that the donation violated the ethics agreement or why the foundation did not alert the State Department at the time. 
At the time of the contribution, Algeria, which has sought a closer relationship with Washington, was spending heavily to lobby the State Department on human rights issues.
The revelation that foreign countries with interests before the U.S. government were allowed to donate millions of dollars to the foundation could raise questions about Clinton's impartiality while serving as secretary of state from 2009 to 2013. Earlier disclosures made on the foundation's website have revealed an increase in donations by foreign governments since Clinton left the State Department in 2013. 
The Post reported that rarely, if ever, has a potential presidential candidate been so closely associated with an organization that has solicited financial support from overseas. Clinton is widely expected to declare her candidacy for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination sometime in the coming months.

‘Locked and Loaded’: FCC primed for vote on Internet regs, amid 11th-hour drama

The Federal Communications Commission is driving toward a landmark vote Thursday on a sweeping plan that critics warn would impose a new era of regulation for how Americans use and do business on the Internet, even as 11th-hour appeals inject added drama behind the scenes. 
The so-called net neutrality proposal has been the subject of fierce debate, in part because the 332-page plan is being kept from public eyes. President Obama's vocal push for aggressive Internet rules also has raised questions on Capitol Hill over undue influence by the White House -- but House Republicans who had planned a hearing on that very subject said Wednesday they would postpone after Chairman Tom Wheeler allegedly refused to testify. 
"This fight continues as the future of the Internet is at stake," House oversight committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, and House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton, R-Mich., vowed, in a statement announcing the hearing delay. 
For now, the plan is in the FCC's hands. 
At issue is a proposal that proponents say would ensure an "open" Internet, by growing the government's power to oversee Internet service providers and establish new rules to bar companies from blocking or slowing data. 
But The Hill reports that a vital Democratic member, Mignon Clyburn, is now seeking last-minute changes to scale back Wheeler's proposal. 
This puts Wheeler in a tough spot because the FCC is composed of three Democrats and two Republicans. The Republicans are likely to oppose the plan, and Wheeler would need Clyburn on board to push it through. 
According to The Hill, Clyburn would leave alone the most controversial plank of the proposal -- a call to regulate broadband Internet as a telecommunications service, treating it much like telephones. 
But she reportedly wants to strip a new legal category that would give the FCC additional legal authority over certain deals over back-end Internet traffic. 
Her requests may be in the weeds, but they have the effect of potentially complicating Thursday's vote. The two Republican members, Ajit Pai and Mike O'Rielly, earlier this week already urged Wheeler to postpone that vote -- and to release the plan so the public can review it. Wheeler so far has not agreed to do so. Wheeler needs a three-member majority to approve the plan. 
Asked about the report in The Hill, Clyburn's office said she would not comment "on any potential changes to the Open Internet Order out of respect for the deliberative process." 
Her office said: "Any reports about policy or position shifts when it comes to the item have not been verified or confirmed by her office. Commissioner Clyburn continues to advocate for strong open Internet protections for consumers and looks forward to voting the item on Thursday." 
Still, Clyburn's supposed requests may not be a deal-breaker. 
One FCC official told FoxNews.com there appears to be little sign of the vote being delayed. 
"They are very locked and loaded with this whole thing," the official said. 
Pai and O'Rielly, meanwhile, have made their position clear. Pai tweeted a photo of himself with the proposal on Wednesday, announcing that he would oppose it. 
While Wheeler and consumer groups say the proposal is necessary to prevent providers from creating slow or fast Internet lanes in which content companies like Netflix can pay to jump to the head of the queue, Pai co-authored a Politico op-ed with Federal Election Commission member Lee Goodman describing the plan as "heavy-handed." 
They said it would allow the FCC to regulate broadband rates; "decree" whether companies can offer "consumer-friendly service plans" like unlimited access to streaming music; and claim the power to force companies to "physically deploy broadband infrastructure." 
The commissioners argued that the panel was conjuring the idea of "digital dysfunction" in order to "justify a public-sector power grab." 
Wheeler, though, has pushed back on the calls for a delay. 
He tweeted earlier this week that the future of the "open Internet" is at stake, and, "We cannot afford to delay finally adopting enforceable rules to protect consumers & innovators." He also noted that the commission received "more than 4 million comments on #OpenInternet during past year that helped shape proposal." 
"It's time to act," Wheeler tweeted. 
Asked Tuesday about the call for a delay, an FCC spokesperson also told FoxNews.com that the 4 million comments amounted to an "unprecedented" level of public response. 
"In accordance with long-standing FCC process followed in both Democratic and Republican administrations, Chairman Wheeler circulated his proposal to his fellow Commissioners for review three weeks before the scheduled vote. The Chairman has seriously considered all input he has received on this important matter, including feedback from his FCC colleagues," the spokesperson said. 
Even if the FCC approves the plan on Thursday, the next stop may be the courts. Industry lobbyists say it's likely that one of the major providers will sue and ask the court to suspend enforcement pending appeal. 
Meanwhile, The New York Times reports that efforts by Hill Republicans to fight the plan with legislation appear to be fading. 
''We're not going to get a signed bill that doesn't have Democrats' support," Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., told the newspaper, though his office later pushed back on the notion that Republicans were giving up on the issue.

California Dems push to repeal 'welfare queen' law

WASHINGTON –  California Democrats are trying to reverse a decades-old state law that bars families from getting extra welfare money for having an additional child, describing the law as "sexist" and "classist" -- despite concerns that repealing it could compound the state's money woes. 
The so-called "welfare queen" law was passed two decades ago during the heyday of welfare reform. At the time, Democrats were in charge of the state legislature and Republican Pete Wilson was governor. 
Today, Democrats are still in charge, but the base of support for the law is fading.
State Sen. Holly Mitchell recently introduced a bill that would repeal the policy, which she says was initially engineered to discourage welfare recipients from having additional children. The problem, she argues, is that it didn’t work.
In fact, with the cap in place, California’s childhood poverty rate has climbed to the highest in the nation. For Mitchell, this is her third attempt at abolishing the “welfare queen” law.
“It is a classist, sexist, anti-democratic, anti-child, anti-family policy whose premise did not come to fruition,” Mitchell said in a written statement. “It did not accomplish what it set out to accomplish. So it’s appropriate to take it off the books.”
But Republican strategist Bradley Blakeman warned there could be repercussions to nixing the policy. 
“California is in serious financial difficulty,” Blakeman told FoxNews.com’s “Strategy Room.” “The law should stay as it is. It makes sense. It’s a good deterrent for parents to be responsible and not bring children into a world they cannot care for.”
Repealing the law indeed would cost California taxpayers. One analysis estimates that overturning it would cost an already cash-starved state close to $205 million just in the first year.
Coined in the 1970s when then-presidential candidate Ronald Reagan described the case of a Chicago welfare fraudster, the term “welfare queen” has evolved into shorthand for a poor woman with children she can’t support without government checks.
Nationally, President Clinton signed sweeping welfare reform legislation into law in 1996. The next year, then-California Gov. Wilson and state lawmakers collaborated on a program called CalWORKs which set grant levels, work requirements and other standards for people eligible for financial assistance. 
The family cap idea was pitched as a way to cut down on government dependency. But Mary Theroux, senior vice president of The Independent Institute, told FoxNews.com that the data doesn’t add up. 
She said the current policy "isn’t even a Band-Aid," and, “They are dealing with symptoms, not causes.” 
Theroux isn't pushing for repeal, but rather, believes a better way to reduce the poverty rate is to tear down economic and educational barriers. 
California is among 24 states that have put family cap policies in place over the past two decades, according to the California Berkeley Law Center on Reproductive Rights and Justice. There are currently 15 states that have family cap policies, including Arizona, Mississippi and Virginia.
Under California’s law, welfare assistance is denied for any child born into a family in which any parent or child was receiving aid 10 months prior to the birth.
California, though, is the only state that grants exemptions based on the failure of three specific forms of contraceptives: IUD, Norplant and sterilization. The law says families that want to challenge the restriction must provide proof that their birth control failed. There are also exemptions in place for children born from rape or incest.
Some anti-poverty advocates like the California Latinas for Reproductive Justice say the government is “using the threat of deeper poverty” if recipients don’t use contraception.

Kim Jong Cartoon

Netanyahu turns down meeting with Senate Democrats

WASHINGTON –  Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Tuesday turned down an invitation to meet privately with Senate Democrats next week during his visit to Washington, saying the session "could compound the misperception of partisanship" surrounding his trip.
Angering the White House and Democrats, Netanyahu accepted an invitation from Republican leaders to address a joint meeting of Congress on March 3 and speak about Iran. The GOP leaders did not consult with the Obama administration, which the White House called a breach of protocol.
Sens. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., and Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., on Monday invited Netanyahu to meet in a closed-door session with Democrats during his visit. He declined the invitation on Tuesday and expressed regret about the politically fraught tone of his trip.
"I regret that the invitation to address the special joint session of Congress has been perceived by some to be political or partisan," Netanyahu wrote. "I can assure you that my sole intention in accepting it was to voice Israel's grave concerns about a potential nuclear agreement with Iran that could threaten the survival of my country."
Netanyahu said to meet with Democrats "at this time could compound the misperception of partisanship regarding my upcoming visit."
More than a half dozen House and Senate Democrats have said they will skip the speech, calling it an affront to President Barack Obama and the administration as they engage in high-level negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program. Vice President Joe Biden will be traveling and has no plans to attend the speech.
Obama has no plans to meet with Netanyahu, with the administration saying such a session would break with past practices of engaging with world leaders close to elections. Israel's elections are set for March 17.
Durbin said in a statement that he regretted that Netanyahu could not meet with the Democrats.
"We offered the Prime Minister an opportunity to balance the politically divisive invitation from Speaker (John) Boehner with a private meeting with Democrats who are committed to keeping the bipartisan support of Israel strong," Durbin said. "His refusal to meet is disappointing to those of us who have stood by Israel for decades."

African-American media group sues Comcast, Time Warner, Al Sharpton for $20 billion

LOS ANGELES –  A group representing black-owned media companies said two media conglomerates paid off Al Sharpton to make their merger look good.
While the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has yet to decide whether media giants Comcast and Time Warner Cable can merge as proposed, the National Association of African-American Owned Media group has filed an explosive $20 billion lawsuit against the companies – and MSNBC host Al Sharpton -- for allegedly discriminating against black-owned media.
The complaint, filed in California on Friday, also names an array of African-American advocacy organizations for partaking in the “devious” discrimination. The plaintiff says it is a group that seeks to “unite voices across the communications and entertainment industries to fight for economic inclusion, including equal access to distribution, investment capital, sponsorship, and other critical resources.”
The suit alleges that Comcast’s memoranda of understanding (MOUs) with non-media civil rights groups, including the NAACP, National Urban League, Sharpton and Sharpton’s National Action Network, further “facilitate Comcast’s racist practices and policies in contracting – or, more accurately, refusing to contract – with 100 percent African American-owned media companies.”
It claims that, to date, the only 100 percent African American-owned channel Comcast has agreed to broadcast is the Africa Channel, “with only limited distribution and channel carriage fees.”
“To obtain support for the NBC-Universal acquisition and for its continued racist policies and practices, Comcast made large cash ‘donations’ to the non-media groups that signed the MOUs. For example, Comcast has paid Reverend Al Sharpton and Sharpton’s National Action Network over $3.8 million in ‘donations’ and as salary for the on-screen television hosting position on MSNBC that Comcast awarded Sharpton in exchange for his signature,” the suit continues. “Comcast spent millions of dollars to pay non-media civil rights groups to support its acquisition of NBC-Universal, while at the same time refusing to do business with 100 percent African-American owned media companies.”
According to the suit, such payments contained an ulterior motive – “to make Comcast look like a good corporate citizen while it steadfastly refused to contract” with fully African-American owned channels, and also claims that the media conglomerate refuses to treat these channels “the same as similarly-situated white-owned media companies.”
“White-owned media in general – and Comcast in particular – has worked hand-in-hand with governmental regulators to perpetuate the exclusion of 100 percent African American-owned media from contracting for channel carriage and advertising,” the suit alleges. “This has been done through, among other things, the use of ‘token fronts’ and ‘window dressing’ – African American celebrities posing as ‘fronts’ or ‘owners’ of so-called ‘Black cable channels’ that are actually majority owned and controlled by white-owned businesses.”
The suit goes on to note that Comcast is a “major player in Washington, D.C. and has used its clout and money to buy approval for its acquisitions and sweep its racist practices under the rug,” alleging that Comcast’s chief lobbyist and executive vice president, David Cohen, is the “mastermind behind Comcast’s many conflicts of interest.”
A representative for Comcast told FOX411 that while they do not generally comment on pending litigation, this complaint represents “nothing more than a string of inflammatory, inaccurate, and unsupported allegations.”
“We are proud of our outstanding record supporting and fostering diverse programming, including programming from African American owned and controlled cable channels. We currently carry more than 100 networks geared toward diverse audiences, including multiple networks owned or controlled by minorities,” continued the statement. “Comcast has engaged in good faith negotiations with this programmer for many years.  It is disappointing that they have decided to file a frivolous lawsuit.  We will defend vigorously against the scurrilous allegations in this complaint and fully expect that the court will dismiss them.”
The National Action Network told The Hollywood Reporter that they have yet to be served with court papers, but dismissed the claims against them as “frivolous” and declared their intention to “gladly defend our relationship with any company as well as to state on the record why we found these discriminatory accusations.”
California-based attorney, Leo Terrell – who is not connected to the suit – says it has “no merit whatsoever.”
“The plaintiffs have no direct evidence of discrimination. The lawsuit is nothing but accusations without factual support of racial motivation,” he told FOX411. “Had the plaintiffs approached me for representation, I would not take their case.”   
In December, the National Association of African-American Owned Media also filed a similar $10 billion racial discrimination lawsuit against AT&T and DirecTV.
"It is appalling, deeply upsetting and totally unacceptable now and moving forward that economic exclusion of 100 percent African American-owned media continues to be perpetuated by these behemoth media conglomerates and their persistent, rigid refusal to contract with 100 percent African American owned media," Mark DeVitre, President of NAAAOM, said in a statement at the time.

Fiorina to Clinton: ‘Flying is an activity, not an accomplishment’

Carly Fiorina, the former Hewlett-Packard CEO who is flirting with a Republican presidential bid in 2016, took some tough shots Tuesday at the likely Democratic front-runner – effectively accusing Hillary Clinton of running for office on a record of air travel.
"Like Hillary Clinton, I too have traveled hundreds of thousands of miles around the globe,” Fiorina said. “But unlike Hillary Clinton, I know that flying is an activity, not an accomplishment.”
Fiorina spoke in Atlanta at a luncheon hosted by Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp. It marked at least the second time in as many months she has gone hard after Clinton; Fiorina previously criticized Clinton during an address last month at the Iowa Freedom Summit in Des Moines.
On Tuesday, Fiorina said that despite Clinton’s extensive travel as secretary of state, “every place in the world is more dangerous today than it was six years ago."
She also went after Clinton over recent reports on how the Clinton Foundation had lifted its own ban on foreign donations, and potential conflicts of interest that could arise from that should Clinton run for the White House.
“Really? This is the best we can do is to have yet another decade of campaign finance scandals?" Fiorina said.
Fiorina, who ran unsuccessfully for Senate in California in 2010, is often overshadowed by other big-name GOP presidential hopefuls, like former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush. But she has been making the moves to prepare for a potential candidacy. 
Later Tuesday, Fiorina supporters announced they were launching a SuperPac entitled Carly for America to "help lay the groundwork for a potential presidential candidacy."
Fiorina's searing criticism was delivered shortly before Clinton herself spoke at a Silicon Valley women's conference, her first U.S. speech of the year.
Tuesday’s speech opens a stretch of public appearances in the next month ahead of an all-but-certain launch of her bid for the Democratic nomination.
The former secretary of state until now has steered clear of the spotlight -- her only two speeches in 2015 came in Canada last month -- choosing instead to huddle with advisers as a large field of Republican presidential hopefuls compete for attention.
Clinton was speaking Tuesday at the Watermark Silicon Valley Conference for Women in Santa Clara, Calif., an appearance before 5,000 attendees.
Clinton is scheduled to step up her public appearances in March, appearing at a gala for EMILY's List, which supports female Democratic candidates who support abortion rights, an awards ceremony in Washington for political journalists and a United Nations meeting on women's rights.

Former Marine found guilty in 'American Sniper' trial

A former Marine was found guilty late Tuesday of the 2013 shooting deaths of former Navy SEAL Chris Kyle, the author of "American Sniper," and his friend Chad Littlefield.
It took an Erath County, Texas jury less than two hours to convict Eddie Ray Routh of capital murder. State District Judge Jason Cashon sentenced Routh to life in prison without the possibility of parole. Prosecutors had not sought the death penalty in the case. Routh's defense team said they would appeal the conviction.
"We have waited two years for God to get justice on behalf of our son," Littlefield's mother, Judy, told reporters outside the courthouse. "And as always, God has proven to be faithful, and we're so thrilled that we have the verdict that we have tonight."
Chris Kyle's widow, Taya, was not in the courtroom when the verdict was read. Earlier in the day, she had stormed out of the courtroom in the middle of the defense's closing arguments, whispering an expletive and slamming her hand on the wall as she walked out the door. At the time, attorneys were discussing how useful it would have been for Routh's mother to have told Chris Kyle about her son's history of violence. 
Routh showed no visible emotion as the verdict was read, while Kyle's brother and parents were among a group of the victims' families and friends who cried and held hands. They did not issue a statement.
Jerry Richardson, Littlefield's half-brother, told Routh that he "took the lives of two heroes, men who tried to be a friend to you, and you became an American disgrace." Routh had no reaction.
Texas Gov. Greg Abbott tweeted "JUSTICE!" in response to the verdict.
Routh, 27, had admitted to killing Kyle and Littlefield at a gun range on Feb. 2, 2013 but pleaded not guilty. His attorneys and family members asserted that he suffers from psychotic episodes caused by post-traumatic stress disorder and other factors.
But prosecutors said Tuesday that whatever episodes Routh suffers are self-induced through alcohol and marijuana abuse.
In front of a packed courtroom, Erath County assistant District Attorney Jane Starnes and three defense attorneys made their case.
"That is not insanity. That is just cold, calculated capital murder," Starnes said. "(Routh) is guilty of capital murder and he was not by any means insane."
But defense attorneys contended that Routh could not have realized what he was doing.
"He didn't kill those men because of who he wanted to be, he killed those men because he had a delusion," Warren St. John said. "He thought that they were going to kill him."
Kyle and Littlefield took Routh, who had deployed to Iraq and earthquake-ravaged Haiti, to a shooting range after Routh's mother asked Kyle to help her son cope with PTSD and other personal demons. Interest in the trial had been partially driven by the blockbuster Oscar-nominated film based on Kyle's life.
Routh's attorneys also pointed to the gunman's use of Kyle's pickup truck after the shooting to purchase tacos at a drive-through window and run assorted errands as evidence of delusional behavior.
Had Routh been found not guilty by reason of insanity, the state could have moved to have him committed.
Routh's attorneys pointed out that they needed only a preponderance of evidence for jurors to conclude Routh was insane at the time of the shootings and therefore not guilty, a standard of proof well below what would be required to convict him of capital murder.
But prosecutors also noted that Routh had apologized to Kyle's family -- evidence, they said, of a guilty mind.
"This defendant gunned down two men in cold blood, in the back, in our county. Find him guilty," Erath County District Attorney Alan Nash said.
Kyle made more than 300 kills as a sniper for SEAL Team 3, according to his own count. After leaving the military, he volunteered with veterans facing mental health problems, often taking them shooting.

Obama vetoes Keystone XL pipeline bill

President Obama on Tuesday followed through on his vow to veto bipartisan-backed legislation authorizing the Keystone XL pipeline, marking his first veto of the Republican-led Congress and only the third of his presidency. 
The president, in a brief statement, claimed the bill would "circumvent" the existing process for reviewing the pipeline, which would extend from Canada to Texas. 
"The Presidential power to veto legislation is one I take seriously," Obama said. "But I also take seriously my responsibility to the American people. And because this act of Congress conflicts with established executive branch procedures and cuts short thorough consideration of issues that could bear on our national interest -- including our security, safety, and environment -- it has earned my veto." 
The decision, while expected, was met with tough criticism from Republicans -- and tees up another showdown with Congress in the coming days as GOP leaders try to override. 
"It's extremely disappointing that President Obama vetoed a bipartisan bill that would support thousands of good jobs and pump billions of dollars into the economy," Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said in a statement. "Even though the President has yielded to powerful special interests, this veto doesn't end the debate." 
House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, called the veto a "national embarrassment." 
McConnell's office said the Senate plans to vote on overriding sometime before March 3. 
But so far, congressional leaders have not demonstrated they have the votes to override, which takes a two-thirds majority in both chambers. 
The Keystone bill garnered 62 yeas in the Senate, but they would need 67 to override. In the House, the bill got 270 votes -- but they would need 281 to override. 
It remains unclear whether moderate lawmakers could be swayed to switch in the coming weeks. 
While Tuesday's veto marked only the third of Obama's presidency -- fewer than any U.S. president since the 19th century -- his sparing use of the presidential tool is likely to change. With Republicans now in control of Congress, their efforts to chip away at the president's health care law and other legislative accomplishments are just as likely to be met with Obama's veto pen. 
To date, Obama rarely has used the veto in part because Democrats for six years controlled at least one chamber in Congress -- acting as a buffer to prevent unwanted bills from ever reaching the president's desk. That buffer is now gone. 
A look back at past presidencies, especially where control of the White House and Congress was split during at least one point, shows far more liberal use of that presidential power. 
In the Clinton presidency, the president issued 37 vetoes in his two terms. President Ronald Reagan issued 78. President George W. Bush issued 12. His father issued 44. 
Not since the Warren G. Harding administration has the number of vetoes been in the single digits; Harding issued six. 
The Keystone bill is as contentious an issue as any for Obama to fire his first veto shot of the new Congress. 
First proposed in 2008, the Keystone pipeline would connect Canada's tar sands to Gulf Coast refineries. 
The White House has said repeatedly it would wait to make its decision about whether to let the project go forward until after a State Department review. It regards the legislation as circumventing that process.

Islamists Cartoon

Alaska becomes third state to legalize recreational marijuana as ballot measure takes effect

Mother's Proud.

JUNEAU, Alaska –  Alaska on Tuesday became the third U.S. state to legalize the recreational use of marijuana, but organizers don't expect any public celebrations since it remains illegal to smoke marijuana in public.
In the state's largest city, Anchorage police officers are ready to start handing out $100 fines to make sure taking a toke remains something to be done behind closed doors.
Placing Alaska in the same category as Washington state and Colorado with legal marijuana was the goal of a coalition including libertarians, rugged individualists and small-government Republicans who prize the privacy rights enshrined in the Alaska state constitution.
When they voted 53-47 percent last November to legalize marijuana use by adults in private places, they left many of the details to lawmakers and regulators to sort out.
That has left confusion on many matters.
The initiative bans smoking in public, but didn't define what that means, and lawmakers left the question to the alcohol regulatory board, which planned to meet early Tuesday to discuss an emergency response.
That's left different communities across the state to adopt different standards of what smoking in public means to them. In Anchorage, officials tried and failed in December to ban a new commercial marijuana industry. But Police Chief Mark Mew said his officers will be strictly enforcing the public smoking ban. He even warned people against smoking on their porches if they live next to a park.
But far to the north, in North Pole, smoking outdoors on private property will be OK as long as it doesn't create a nuisance, officials there said.
Other officials are still discussing a proposed cultivation ban for the Kenai Peninsula.
In some respects, the confusion continues a four-decade reality for Alaskans and their relationship with marijuana.
While the 1975 Alaska Supreme Court decision protected personal marijuana possession and a 1998 initiative legalized medicinal marijuana, state lawmakers twice criminalized any possession over the years, creating an odd legal limbo.
As of Tuesday, adult Alaskans can not only keep and use pot, they can transport, grow it and give it away. A second phase, creating a regulated and taxed marijuana market, won't start until 2016 at the earliest. That's about the same timeline for Oregon, where voters approved legalizing marijuana the same day as Alaska did but the law there doesn't go into effect until July 1. Washington state and Colorado voters legalized marijuana in 2012 and sales have started there.
And while possession is no longer a crime under state law, enjoying pot in public can bring a $100 fine.
That's fine with Dean Smith, a pot-smoker in Juneau who has friends in jail for marijuana offenses. "It's going to stop a lot of people getting arrested for nonviolent crimes," he said.
The initiative's backers warned pot enthusiasts to keep their cool.
"Don't do anything to give your neighbors reason to feel uneasy about this new law. We're in the midst of an enormous social and legal shift," organizers wrote in the Alaska Dispatch News, the state's largest newspaper.
Richard Ziegler, who had been promoting what he called "Idida-toke" in a nod to Alaska's Iditarod Trail Sled Dog Race, reluctantly called off his party.
There's no such pullback for former television reporter Charlo Greene, now CEO of the Alaska Cannabis Club, which is having its grand opening on Tuesday in downtown Anchorage. She's already pushing the limits, promising to give away weed to paying "medical marijuana" patients and other "club members."
Greene -- who quit her job with a four-letter walkoff on live television last year to devote her efforts to passing the initiative -- plans a celebratory toke at 4:20 p.m.
Meanwhile, Alaska Native leaders worry that legalization will bring new temptations to communities already confronting high rates of drug and alcohol abuse, domestic violence and suicide.
"When they start depending on smoking marijuana, I don't know how far they'd go to get the funds they need to support it, to support themselves," said Edward Nick, council member in Manokotak, a remote village of 400 that is predominantly Yup'ik Eskimo.
Both alcohol and drug use are prohibited in Nick's village 350 miles southwest of Anchorage, even inside the privacy of villagers' homes.
But Nick fears that the initiative, in combination with a 1975 state Supreme Court decision that legalized marijuana use inside homes -- could open doors to drug abuse.
Initiative backers promised Native leaders that communities could still have local control under certain conditions. Alaska law gives every community the option to regulate alcohol locally. From northern Barrow to Klawock, 1,291 miles away in southeast Alaska, 108 communities impose local limits on alcohol, and 33 of them ban it altogether.
But the initiative did not provide clear opt-out language for tribal councils and other smaller communities, forcing each one to figure out how to proceed Tuesday.

Flower Power: Christian florist rejects attorney general’s offer, won’t betray her religious beliefs

Barronelle Stutzman, a Washington State florist who declined to provide flowers for a gay wedding , has rejected a deal by the attorney general’s office that would’ve forced her to betray her religious beliefs – much like Judas betrayed Jesus.
“You are asking me to walk in the way of a well-known betrayer, one who sold something of infinite worth for 30 pieces of silver,” Stutzman wrote in a letter to state Attorney General Bob Ferguson. “That is something I will not do.”

Stutzman said she never imagined the day when what she loved to do would become illegal.

Ferguson had offered to settle the case if she paid a $2,000 penalty for violating the Consumer Protection Act, a $1 payment for costs and fees, and agreed not to discriminate in the future.
“My primary goal has always been to bring about an end to the defendant’s unlawful conduct and to make clear that I will not tolerate discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation,” Ferguson said in a prepared statement.
CLICK HERE TO FOLLOW TODD ON FACEBOOK!
On Feb. 18 a judge ruled Stutzman had violated the law by refusing to provide flowers for the same-sex wedding of a longtime customer. The state had not only gone after the flower shop but also Stutzman personally.
Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), the religious liberty law firm representing Stutzman, said legal bills could be as high as seven figures.
“He’s using the full power of his office to personally and professionally destroy her,” ADF attorney Kristen Waggoner told me.
But the 70-year-old Southern Baptist grandmother said she will not violate her religious beliefs – no matter what. If that means losing her house – so be it.
“I certainly don’t relish the idea of losing my business, my homes and everything else that your lawsuit threatens to take from my family, but my freedom to honor God in doing what I do best is more important,” Stutzman wrote in a letter to the attorney general. (You can read my earlier story on Stutzman’s case here.)
She said the attorney general simply does not understand her or what the conflict is all about.
“It’s about freedom, not money,” she said. “You chose to attack my faith and pursue this not simply as a matter of law, but to threaten my very means of working, eating and having a home.”
Stutzman’s attorneys said they plan to appeal the judge’s decision – meaning she won’t have to fork over any money just yet to Washington State.
In the meantime, she said she would continue to gladly serve the customer who filed the lawsuit.
“I truly want the best for my friend,” she wrote. “I’ve also employed and served many members of the LGBT community and I will continue to do so regardless of what happens with this case.”
Stutzman said she never imagined the day when what she loved to do would become illegal. And that in the state of Washington using your God-given talents and abilities would be against the law.
The Seattle Times reported that Judge Ekstrom determined that “while religious beliefs are protected by the First Amendment, actions based on those beliefs aren’t necessarily protected.”
In other words – it’s OK to believe in God – so long as you don’t follow the tenets of your faith.
“Our state would be a better place if we respected each other’s differences, and our leaders protected the freedom to have those differences,” she wrote. “Because I follow the Bible’s teaching that marriage is the union of one man and one woman, I am no longer free to act on my beliefs.”
This is one granny that you don’t want to dig in the dirt with.
Todd Starnes is host of Fox News & Commentary, heard on hundreds of radio stations. Sign up for his American Dispatch newsletter, be sure to join his Facebook page, and follow him on Twitter. His latest book is "God Less America."

Senate Dems block GOP effort to tie DHS funding to Obama immigration actions

Senate Democrats blocked legislation Monday that would have rolled back President Obama's executive actions on immigration in exchange for funding the Department of Homeland Security through September.
But soon after the early evening vote -- the fourth Senate attempt to block Obama's controversial decision to grant work permits to millions of illegal immigrants -- Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., suggested separate legislation to combat Obama's executive actions.
"The new bill I described offers another option we can turn to. It's another way to get the Senate unstuck from a Democrat filibuster and move the debate forward," McConnell said on the Senate floor after a vote to advance the House-passed bill failed 47-46, short of the 60 votes needed. Three previous attempts earlier in the month had yielded similar results.
It was not clear whether McConnell's gambit would succeed ahead of Friday's midnight deadline to fund the department or see it shut down. It was far from certain whether it would win any Democratic support, and House conservatives remain firmly opposed to any funding bill for the Homeland Security Department that does not also overturn Obama's executive actions on immigration.
If no funding deal is reached by the deadline, the DHS could partially shut down, resulting in the furloughs of roughly 30,000 DHS employees. About 200,000 others would continue to work, but they would receive no pay until Congress authorizes funding.
It's a reality that was on display during the 16-day government-wide shutdown in the fall of 2013, when national parks and monuments closed but essential government functions kept running, albeit sometimes on reduced staff.
Earlier in the day, Obama again warned that failing to act before Friday increases the risk of a domestic terror act.
At a White House gathering of governors, Obama accused Congress of creating “self-inflicted” wounds and said failing to pass the funding bill within the next several days “will have a direct impact on America’s national security.” Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson appeared on all five Sunday talk shows to make a similar case.
The Tea Party Patriots group is suggesting that Senate Republicans are backing down because they fear Americans will blame them for a partial DHS shutdown.
“Senate Republicans are about to cave in to President Obama,” the group said Monday. “It’s time … to ratchet up the pressure on wobbly Senators.”
A federal district court judge in Texas last week temporarily blocked the administration's plans to carry out an executive action that protects millions of illegal immigrants from deportation.
The Justice Department on Monday asked a federal judge to lift the judge’s temporary block and make a decision by Wednesday. If the judge fails to rule in the administration’s favor, the department is expected to turn to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals.
Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson, who leads the Senate committee that oversees the DHS, was not calling Monday for the immigration provision to be removed from the funding bill, but suggested that the courts, not Congress, will resolve the issue.
“Now that the judiciary branch is involved, the courts ultimately will decide the constitutionality of the administration’s ‘deferred action’ memorandum,” he said.

'NO EXCUSE': VA secretary admits special forces service claim was a lie

Veterans Affairs Secretary Robert McDonald has admitted that he lied about serving in the special operations forces in a conversation with a homeless veteran that was caught on camera earlier this year.
McDonald made the claim in January while he was in Los Angeles as part of the VA's effort to locate and house homeless veterans. During the tour, a homeless man told McDonald that he had served in the special operations forces. 
"Special forces? What years?" McDonald responded. "I was in special forces." The exchange was broadcast on "The CBS Evening News" Jan. 30. McDonald's misstatement was first reported by The Huffington Post.
McDonald graduated from the U.S. Military Academy at West Point in 1975 and completed Army Ranger training before being assigned to the 82nd Airborne Division until his retirement in 1980. According to the Huffington Post, while McDonald was formally recognized as a graduate of Ranger School, he never actually served in a Ranger battalion or other special operations unit.
"I have no excuse," the website quoted McDonald as saying in its report. "I was not in special forces."
In a statement released Monday by the VA, McDonald said: "While I was in Los Angeles, engaging a homeless individual to determine his veteran status, I asked the man where he had served in the military. He responded that he had served in special forces. I incorrectly stated that I had been in special forces. That was inaccurate and I apologize to anyone that was offended by my misstatement."
McDonald told the Huffington Post that he had "reacted spontaneously and ... wrongly" in response to the homeless man's claim. 
"As I thought about it later, I knew that this was wrong," McDonald said of his false statement. 
The White House released a statement Monday evening saying that it had accepted McDonald's explanation.
"Secretary McDonald has apologized for the misstatement and noted that he never intended to misrepresent his military service," the statement said. "We take him at his word and expect that this will not impact the important work he’s doing to promote the health and well-being of our nation’s veterans."
After leaving the Army, McDonald went on to a successful corporate career, eventually becoming Chairman, President, and CEO of Proctor & Gamble. He became VA secretary this past July, as the agency was dealing with the fallout from the scandal of long patient wait times at VA hospitals.

Biden Cartoon

John McCain: 'I'm ashamed of my country'

 Sen. John McCain says he's ashamed of the United States, President Obama and himself for how America has failed to help Ukraine defend itself from Russia.
"I'm ashamed of my country, I'm ashamed of my president and I'm ashamed of myself, that I haven't done more to help these people," the Arizona Republican and former presidential nominee, who spent six years as a prisoner of war in Vietnam, said on CBS' "Face the Nation." "It is really, really heartbreaking."
McCain, who is chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, decried American and European leaders' unwillingness to provide Ukrainians with weapons they can use to stave off the Russian advance.
The senator predicted that Russian President Vladimir Putin will pull back some, but said Putin's next goal will be to establish a stronger land route into Ukraine, a move that would allow for an easier attack on that country.

Johnson warns about Congress not funding homeland security, gets support from GOP senators

A top Obama administration official warned several times Sunday about the potential, far-reaching perils of Congress allowing the Department of Homeland Security to run out of funding in several days and got some Republican support in the Capitol Hill stalemate.
Congressional Democrats and Republicans are in a standoff over legislation that will fund the agency through late September but also roll back President Obama's executive action on immigration.
Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson said allowing the agency to lose its federal funding after Friday could jeopardize the U.S efforts to thwart a domestic terror attack by the Islamic State and will result in 30,000 employees being furloughed.
“It including people I depend on every day to stay one step ahead of" the Islamic State, he told NBC’s “Meet the Press.”
He also appeared on “Fox News Sunday” and the three other major Sunday shows, arguing that failing to reach a deal would go beyond cutting off funding for the president’s efforts to defer deportation for millions of illegal immigrants to include cuts to the Federal Emergency Management Agency while parts of the country are still dealing with severe winter weather.
The legislation has already been passed by the GOP-controlled House but is stalled in the Senate.
Johnson disagreed with the argument that Senate Democrats have blocked the bill by filibustering, saying the problem is the legislation should be presented “clean” of any immigration language.
“I’m talking to every member of Congress who will listen,” Johnson told NBC. "It's absurd that we're even having this conversation about Congress' inability to fund Homeland Security in these challenging times."  
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has suggested that the House pass a bill on which Senate Democrats can agree.
However, the leaders of the lower chamber have been steadfast for weeks about having already done their job.
Kevin Smith, a spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner, repeated that message Sunday by saying in an email: "The House has acted to fund the Homeland Security Department. Now it's time for Senate Democrats to stop blocking legislation that would do the same."
GOP Sens. Lindsey Graham, South Carolina, and John McCain, Arizona, said Sunday they would oppose linking the two issues in one bill.
Graham told ABC’s “This Week” that he was “willing and ready” to pass a funding bill, then let the immigration issue play out in court.
Last week, a federal district court judge in Texas temporarily blocked the administration's plans to protect immigrant parents of U.S. citizens or legal permanent residents from deportation. The decision came as part of a lawsuit filed by 26 states claiming Obama had overstepping his authority in taking the executive action.
Johnson repeated Sunday that the administration will appeal the ruling.
Even if Congress fails to fund their agency, the remain roughly 200,000 Homeland Security employees would continue to work.
However, they would receive no pay until Congress authorizes funding.
It's a reality that was on display during the 16-day government-wide shutdown in the fall of 2013, when national parks and monuments closed but essential government functions kept running, albeit sometimes on reduced staff.
Johnson on Sunday also linked the purported Mall of America warning from the Africa-based al-Shabaab terror group and other recent terror alerts to what he described as a "new phase" of challenges by extremist groups abroad that have used alarming Internet videos and social media to gain adherents in the U.S. and potentially prod some to action.
"This new phase is more complex, less centralized, more diffuse," he said, adding: "It encourages independent actors who strike with very little notice."

Homeland Secretary Johnson suggests term 'violent extremism' used at behest of Muslim leaders

Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson said on Sunday that President Obama’s decision not to say the actions of the Islamic State is a form of “radical Islam” is at the behest of the Muslim community.
“The thing I hear from leaders in the Muslim community in this country is ISIL is attempting to hijack my religion,” Johnson told “Fox News Sunday,” referring to the terror group also known as Islamic State, or ISIS.
Johnson said the leaders argue their religion is about peace and brotherhood and “resent” that Islamic State is “attempting to hijack that from us.”
Obama is facing sharp criticism, even from within his own party, for instead using the term “violent extremism” to describe the actions of ISIS and other terror groups that are based on a form of Islam.
“If we don’t identify our enemies, we cannot defeat them,” Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, D-Hawaii, told Fox News on Wednesday. “Unless you accurately identify who your enemy is, then you can’t come up with an effective strategy, a winning strategy to defeat that enemy.”
Obama on the same day defended his choice of words by saying the term "radical Islam" gives such groups religious legitimacy they don't deserve.
“I want to be very clear about how I see it: Al Qaeda and ISIL and groups like it are desperate for legitimacy. They try to portray themselves as religious leaders, holy warriors in defense of Islam,” he said. “We must never accept the premise they put forward.”
Johnson, who appeared on all of the major Sunday talk shows, also made a similar argument.
“To refer to ISIL as occupying any part of the Islamic theology is playing on a battlefield that they would like us to be on,” he said. “I think that to call them some form of Islam gives the group more dignity than it deserves frankly. It is a terrorist organization.”
Johnson also said he was more focused on the potential for Islamic State, with an estimated 30,000 fighters in Iraq and Syria, to recruit Americans and inspire them to carry out terror acts.
“Whether it's referred to as Islamic extremism or violent extremism, what it comes down to is ISIL is a terrorist organization that represents a serious potential threat to our homeland, which has to be addressed,” he said. “I’m more concerned about that frankly than I am about what two words we use to refer to them.”
Johnson also supported some of the arguments put forth last week at a White House summit on terror extremism including ones about having to defeat Islamic State and other groups through social media.
In addition, State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf said, “We can't kill our way out of this war. We need to go after the root causes that lead people to join these groups -- the lack of opportunity and jobs among them.''
Johnson said Sunday the U.S. is attempting to defeat terror groups “militarily” through an international coalition.
However, the U.S. must also use social media and get involved in Muslim communities to thwart such groups' successful efforts to use the Internet to recruit foreign fighters, he said.
“We need to be involved in the relevant communities in this country to thwart their recruitment efforts and to help build the counter-narrative to the one that is being put out by ISIL right now," Johnson said. ... "It does involve a whole of government approach.”

Disney Cartoon

US considering slowing down troop withdrawal from Afghanistan

During his first visit to Afghanistan, U.S. Defense Secretary Ash Carter said the U.S. is considering slowing its military exit from the embattled country by keeping a larger troop presence in the country than previously planned because the new Afghan government is proving to be a more reliable partner.
President Obama plans to discuss a range of options for U.S. military withdrawal when Afghan president Ashraf Ghani visits the White House in March, Carter said at a news conference with Ghani. The two presidents plan to “rethink” the counterterrorism right in Afghanistan, he said.
There are 10,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan, down from 100,000 from 2011. Carter did not say Obama was considering keeping troops in the country beyond 2016, but was only considering the pace of troop withdrawal for the next two years.
While the White House recently acknowledged it was reconsidering the exit plan, Carter's remarks were the most direct explanation by a Pentagon official amid criticism from opposition Republicans that the Democratic commander in chief is beating a hasty and risky retreat.
Ghani shad requested “some flexibility in the troop drawdown timeline” in February. The day after the request, Gen. John Campbell, a top U.S. commander in Afghanistan told the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee he had presented U.S. leaders with options that would allow him to continue training and advising Afghan forces through the summer.
Carter said the new thinking about the mission in Afghanistan has to do with the stabilized government in Afghanistan between Ashraf and Chief Executive Abdullah Abdullah. The unity offers new promise for a more effective partnership in stabilizing the country, Carter said.
Ghani has made it clear he thinks a slowdown of troop withdrawal would offer better support for Afghan forces battling the Taliban. Obama’s current plan calls for troop levels to cut in half from 10,000 by the end of the year.
Carter lauded the progress that Afghanistan has made during the 13 years since U.S. forces invaded and toppled the Taliban rule. Obama's goal, he said, is to "make sure this progress sticks" so that Afghanistan does not again become a launching pad for terrorist attacks on the U.S.
Carter also met in the Afghan capital with Campbell and Gen. Lloyd Austin, the commander of U.S. Central Command, which has responsibility for U.S. operations in Afghanistan and across the Middle East.