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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And it might work.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Donald Trump.

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

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

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

  First Lady Michelle Obama eating fries and a hamburger.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Dumb Ass

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

Fact Check: Which Republican candidates actually cut spending?

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

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

Related Image

Expand / Contract

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

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

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

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

More on this...

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

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

Biden 16 Cartoon

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related Image

Expand / Contract

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Megyn & Donald Cartoon

Pentagon watchdog probing whether anti-ISIS campaign analysis altered

The Defense Department's inspector general is investigating whether intelligence reports about the progress of the U.S.-led coalition's campaign against ISIS in Iraq have been "skewed" to be more optimistic.

The New York Times first reported that at least one civilian employee of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) told authorities that officials at U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) were improperly reworking intelligence assessments prepared for policymakers, including President Obama.
A senior military official confirmed to Fox News that an IG investigation has been initiated into the allegation.
The Times report did not say when the assessments were allegedly altered, nor did it say who may have been responsible. Officials told the paper the investigation was focused on whether military officials had changed the conclusions of draft intelligence reports during a review before passing them on.
Under federal law, intelligence officials can bring claims of wrongdoing to the intelligence community's inspector general. U.S. officials told the paper that the House and Senate Intelligence Committees were advised of the claims within the past several weeks, as is required if officials find the claims credible. At that point, The Times reports, the Pentagon's inspector general decided to look into the matter.
Government rules state that intelligence assessments "must not be distorted" by agendas or policy views. However, The Times reports that legitimate differences of opinion are both common and encouraged among national security officials.

More on this...

• New concerns ISIS threat at home is stronger than ever

• Were U.S.-trained rebels betrayed by an ally?

Central Command spokesman Col. Patrick S. Ryder said in a statement Wednesday that they welcome the IG's "independent oversight."
"While we cannot comment on ongoing investigations, we can speak to the process and about the valued contributions of the Intelligence Community (IC)," he said, adding that intelligence community members typically are able to comment on draft security assessments. "However," he said, "it is ultimately up to the primary agency or organization whether or not they incorporate any recommended changes or additions. Further, the multi-source nature of our assessment process purposely guards against any single report or opinion unduly influencing leaders and decision-makers."
The DIA is one of many intelligence agencies that has produced assessments about the progress of the Iraq campaign. According to The Times, analysts from one agency may make suggestions about another agency's draft analyses, but it is up to the authoring agency to decide whether to adopt those suggestions.
The U.S. began launching airstrikes against ISIS in Iraq in August 2014, and did the same in Syria the following month. Last month, however, U.S. intelligence concluded that the terror group was not fundamentally weaker than it was when the aerial campaign began. Officials said that while intervention by the U.S.-led coalition had prevented the collapse of the Iraqi government and resulted in the rollback of some gains made by ISIS in the summer of 2014, the extremist group remained a well-funded army able to replenish its ranks with foreign jihadis as quickly as the U.S. can eliminate them. The intelligence assessment also found that ISIS had expanded to other countries, including Libya, Egypt and Afghanistan.
However, earlier that month, retired Army Gen. John Allen, the White House's top envoy to other nations in the anti-ISIS coalition, told an audience at the Aspen Security Forum  that ISIS had been "checked strategically, operationally, and by and large, tactically," adding, more bluntly, "ISIS is losing."

Trump’s Planned Parenthood hedge brings risks, rewards

TRUMP’S PLANNED PARENTHOOD HEDGE BRINGS RISKS, REWARDS

One front of the ongoing feud between Donald Trump and Jeb Bush has been the question of defunding Planned Parenthood. In the wake of jarring videos of the group’s leaders discussing the value of the bodies of aborted babies, the issue has been intense among Republican voters.

Bush defunded the group in 2001 as governor of Florida and has been increasingly adamant about the need to do so nationally. Trump has said that that Bush is “terrible” about women’s health issues. The New York billionaire quickly backed off his initial support for cutting off all of the more than $500 million the group gets from federal taxpayers each year.

Trump’s position that the group “has to stop with the abortions” but provides other worthwhile services could yield long-term political benefits.

Poll results from Quinnipiac University today say that stout majorities in the swing states of Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania oppose efforts to cut off federal funds. That’s a help if he is facing a likely Democratic nominee who strongly supports and is supported by Planned Parenthood.

But Trump’s stance poses some serious primary problems for the GOP frontrunner. Drill down on the data from Quinnipiac and you see just how much. While 52 percent of Ohio voters overall oppose defunding the group, just 23 percent of Republicans agree. It’s 24 percent in Florida and 30 percent in Ohio.

This is a huge issue on the right. Sen. Ted Cruz hosted a conference call Tuesday with what he said were 100,000 faith leaders about shutting down the abortion provider. And other candidates have taken similarly aggressive stances. Trump’s hedging on Planned Parenthood may be good politics for the general election but poses serious peril for the primary.

‘We’re left to the wolves’: Videos allegedly show Memphis VA leaving disabled vets unattended

Video footage allegedly showing veterans -- many of whom are quadriplegics or paraplegics -- being left unattended at a Memphis Veterans Affairs hospital during staff meetings is reviving concerns about how VA hospitals treat American servicemembers. 

The videos, first reported by Communities Digital News (CDN) and said to be filmed at the Memphis VA Medical Center, show patients being left alone for about 30-45 minutes each evening during a staff meeting attended by all hospital staff, whistleblower and former Memphis VA employee Sean Higgins told FoxNews.com.
Higgins said the videos, filmed by a close friend of his, show a breach of hospital policy, which dictates that even during meetings, there should be a nurse at the nurse’s station. He said the videos all show the spinal injury ward, which contains quadriplegics and paraplegics.
“If there was an emergency, we’re screwed,” the unnamed patient filming the video says, as he films various empty hospital corridors.
Another video also shows the ward during a staff meeting, apparently empty, with the patient saying: “Once again, we’re left to the wolves.”
“Not a soul in sight,” he says.
Another video appears to show a nurse in a spinal injury ward not wearing the appropriate gown or gloves while treating a patient.
"You have a video there of a nurse in an isolation word, she’s feeding him and she takes a bite out of that cake," Higgins said. "As hospital policy, if his food was too hot she's not even allowed to blow on it."
The VA has been trying to overhaul its treatment of claims and patients after last year's scandal over patient wait-times. The VA said Monday it has cut down its disability claims long-term backlog to under 100,000 -- from over 600,000.
But complaints keep surfacing at the local level.
"The fact that they're videotaping this is indicative of clearly they don't have a good relationship with the staff," Pete Hegseth, of Concerned Veterans for America, told Fox News regarding the videos. "The Memphis hospital has been cited for some of the longest wait times, poor care, and yet administrators have continued to receive bonuses."
The videos, filmed in July of this year, did not come as a surprise to Higgins. He claimed that after the videos were uploaded to YouTube, a hospital official went to the patient's bedside, accompanied by police, and told the veteran it’s against policy to film in the hospital.
“She was more concerned that the guy violated hospital policy, than what he was filming,” Higgins said.
The Memphis VA did not respond to FoxNews.com's request for comment. A spokesperson for the Department of Veterans Affairs defended the hospital's policies:
“Caring for our Veterans is our highest priority. Often times when staff are working at the bedside with patients, it might appear that no one is at the nurses’ station.  We have technology in all patient wards in the spinal cord injury unit, which includes the assistive call button at the bedside for patient use to alert staff if the need for assistance arises. Activating the call button triggers a sound alert throughout the spinal cord unit and a light over the patient’s doorway. Nursing staff in rooms caring for patients are nearby and are able to respond to calls for assistance.  At no time should our Veterans be left unattended or without access to trained medical staff.”
Higgins is a well-known whistleblower and has been involved in exposing a number of alleged problems within the Memphis VA center. In 2014, he met with VA Secretary Robert McDonald and discussed the problems and scandals plaguing the VA, MyFoxMemphis reported.
“I don’t do it for notoriety,” Higgins told FoxNews.com. “I’m a veteran, that could be me one day.”

Clinton addresses Biden 2016 buzz, says he 'should have the space' to decide

Hillary Clinton addressed the speculation over a possible entry by Vice President Biden into the 2016 race, saying he should be given the space to make the best decision for him and his family but she would press on with her campaign regardless.
“He should have the space and the opportunity to decide what he wants to do,” Clinton said in a press conference in Iowa Wednesday. “I’m going to be running for president regardless.”
The comments are among the first by the 2016 Democratic front-runner regarding the vice president’s potential entry into the party's presidential primary.
Clinton said she has a “great deal of admiration and affection” for Biden and noted they have worked together in the Senate, during the Clinton administration and in President Obama’s first term when Clinton served as secretary of state.
“I just want the vice president to decide to do what’s right for him and his family,” Clinton said. "I don’t think it’s useful to be behind the scenes asking this or saying that. I’ve done none of that.”
Clinton said she understood it would be a hard decision for the 72-year-old to run, especially considering the death of his son Beau in May after a long fight with brain cancer.
“I was at his son’s funeral, and I cannot even imagine the grief and the heartbreak. Joe has had more terrible events than most people can even contemplate, losing his first wife, losing his first daughter, now losing his son,” Clinton said.
“But I’m just going to continue with my campaign, I’m going to do what I believe I should be doing and he will have to decide what he should be doing,” she said, adding that she expected it to be a competitive race.
Rumors have intensified in recent weeks about a potential Biden 2016 run. On Monday, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest left the door open to President Obama even endorsing a candidate in the primary.
"He's going to collect all the information that he needs to make a decision," Earnest said when asked about a potential Biden bid for the White House.
Earnest reiterated that Obama believes picking Biden as his running mate was his smartest political decision. But he also said Obama has a deep appreciation for Clinton's service as secretary of state.
Without tipping his hand as to whether Obama was encouraging Biden to enter, Earnest said the VP was well-positioned to make the decision himself, as a two-time presidential candidate who's been on the Obama ticket twice.
"You could make the case that there's probably no one in American politics today who has a better understanding of exactly what is required to mount a successful national presidential campaign," Earnest said.

Biden Cartoon

Hot and Heavy: What the media’s flirtation with Biden is missing

The press is suddenly showing the love for Joe Biden—but may be painting a misleading picture in the process.

Most of the stories on the vice president weighing a late-in-the-game challenge to Hillary Clinton have an undertone of excitement, because the media want a contest and not a coronation.
Journalists are casting Biden as the anti-Hillary, the authentic pol who’s got the very shot-and-a-beer qualities that she lacks.
Nearly all seasoned political reporters have known Biden for decades—I first covered him as the Senate Judiciary Committee chairman in the 1980s—and they genuinely like him. Whatever his political shortcomings, he’s a warm and backslapping guy. So the temptation to contrast him with the cautious Clinton, who’s been wary of the press since her husband started running in 1991, may be too great to resist.
But one reason that Biden scores so well on trustworthy questions in the polls is precisely that he hasn’t been a candidate since 2008.
Sure, he gets criticized for what he says and does as VP, but he’s not the subject of regular political attacks and investigative reporting.
That would change the moment he jumped into the presidential race. And only a few journalists, in capturing the current snapshot, have made that clear.
The chatter surrounding Biden’s flirtation, if that’s the right word, has been amplified by the media. In fact, it’s become obvious that the Biden folks are cleverly orchestrating this boomlet to build interest in his potential candidacy.
The initial trial balloon seemed generated mainly by people around the former Delaware senator, but it soon became clear that the veep’s office was authorizing many of these leaks—particularly when Maureen Dowd reported in intimate detail conversations between Biden and his late son Beau, who wanted him to run.
Then came stories over the weekend that Biden is gaming out what it would take in terms of fundraising and early-state strategies. And this Wall Street Journal report on Sunday reverberated around the world as quickly as the stock market plunge:
“Vice President Joe Biden, who has long been considering a presidential bid, is increasingly leaning toward entering the race if it is still possible he can knit together a competitive campaign at this late date, people familiar with the matter said.”
Yet that was followed immediately by these caveats:
“Mr. Biden still could opt to sit out the 2016 race, and he is weighing multiple political, financial and family considerations before making a final decision. But conversations about the possibility were a prominent feature of an August stay in South Carolina and his home in Delaware last week, these people said. A surprise weekend trip to Washington to meet with Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.), a darling of the party’s liberal wing, represented a pivot from potential to likely candidate, one Biden supporter said.”

So he’s leaning toward running, but might not. What Biden is doing, in other words, is gearing up his machinery so he’ll have the option to run if he decides to jump in.
Some cautionary notes, from ABC’s Rick Klein:
“We know Biden would bring name recognition, deep experience, and a zeal for running that couldn't be matched. We also know that he's 0-2 in presidential races already, and that his own worst enemy tends to speak for himself -- literally.”
The Washington Post’s Daily 202: “Many observers think he’s already too late. Recent history has not been kind to late-entry candidates (Rick Perry, August 2011; Fred Thompson, early September 2007; Wesley Clark, mid-September 2003). None of them, however, were a sitting vice president with universal name recognition. So, we wait for Biden.”
The Huffington Post is practically trying to draft him, with Howard Fineman and two colleagues doing a listicle titled “YOLO: 11 Reasons Why Biden Should Jump In Already.”
Number 8 is kinda self-referential: “THE MEDIA WILL LOVE IT.
“You know, at least until you either get yourself into trouble…or emerge as the frontrunner.”

Obviously, Hillary’s email debacle and sinking polls have created a sizable vacuum, so Biden may take another month to assess whether she’s weathering the storm.
Reality check: The Real Clear Politics average puts Clinton at 49 percent, Bernie Sanders at 25 and Biden at 12.
If he became a candidate, would Biden run as the man to carry on Barack Obama’s third term? Would Biden, who’d take office at 74, pledge to serve one term? How would he distinguish his agenda from Hillary’s? Would he be willing to attack her?
For now the vice president, still grieving for his son, has a difficult and very personal decision to make. And no amount of media boosterism will change the fact that this would be a very tough race for him to win.

Ailes calls on Trump to apologize for 'unprovoked attack' on Megyn Kelly

Unprovoked Attack??

Fox News CEO and Chairman Roger Ailes on Tuesday called for Donald Trump to apologize for his "unprovoked attack" against host Megyn Kelly, after the Republican presidential candidate made a series of disparaging comments about "The Kelly File" host on Twitter the previous evening. 

"Donald Trump rarely apologizes, although in this case, he should," Ailes said in a statement. "We have never been deterred by politicians or anyone else attacking us for doing our job, much less allowed ourselves to be bullied by anyone and we're certainly not going to start now."
Trump targeted Kelly after she asked him a number of tough questions during a Fox News-hosted debate by GOP presidential candidates on Aug. 6. A series of subsequent remarks by Trump led to a clear-the-air conversation with Ailes, and the candidate has since made a number of appearances on Fox News programs.
But Trump renewed his attacks on Monday night, during Kelly's show. In a series of tweets, Trump criticized Kelly's handling of an interview segment on her show, claimed her just-concluded and long-planned summer vacation with her family was in fact unscheduled, and retweeted a tweet referring to her as a "bimbo."
Trump issued a response later Tuesday afternoon, saying "I totally disagree with the Fox statement." Trump also repeated his claims that Kelly's questioning of him during the debate "was very unfair."
Some of Kelly's Fox colleagues also came to her defense on Tuesday. Bret Baier, who moderated the debate with Kelly and Chris Wallace, tweeted that "this needs to stop." Brian Kilmeade said on "Fox & Friends" that Trump's comments bothered him personally.
"We are all friends with Donald Trump, but he is totally out of bounds reigniting that fight," Kilmeade said. "I don't know if he's trying to get ratings out of that or poll numbers, but he's not going to be successful."
Fox News' Sean Hannity also tweeted: "My friend @realDonaldTrump has captured the imagination of many. Focus on Hillary, Putin, border, jobs, Iran China & leave @megynkelly alone."
The full Ailes statement reads as follows:
"Donald Trump's surprise and unprovoked attack on Megyn Kelly during her show last night is as unacceptable as it is disturbing. Megyn Kelly represents the very best of American journalism and all of us at FOX News Channel reject the crude and irresponsible attempts to suggest otherwise. I could not be more proud of Megyn for her professionalism and class in the face of all of Mr. Trump's verbal assaults. Her questioning of Mr. Trump at the debate was tough but fair, and I fully support her as she continues to ask the probing and challenging questions that all presidential candidates may find difficult to answer. Donald Trump rarely apologizes, although in this case, he should. We have never been deterred by politicians or anyone else attacking us for doing our job, much less allowed ourselves to be bullied by anyone and we're certainly not going to start now. All of our journalists will continue to report in the fair and balanced way that has made FOX News Channel the number one news network in the industry."

Trump has Univision anchor tossed from news conference

DUBUQUE, Iowa –  Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump engaged in a prolonged confrontation with the anchor of the nation's leading Spanish-language network during a news conference Tuesday, first having the well-known news personality removed before allowing him back in.

Jorge Ramos, the Miami-based anchor for Univision, stood up and began to ask Trump about his immigration proposal, which includes ending automatic citizenship for infants born in the United States to parents in the country illegally.
As Ramos began to speak, Trump interrupted him, saying he hadn't called on Ramos before repeatedly telling him to "sit down" and then saying, "Go back to Univision."
As one of Trump's security detail approached Ramos, the anchor continued to speak, saying, "You cannot deport 11 million people." Ramos was referring to Trump's proposal to deport all people in the country illegally before allowing some of them to return.
As he was taken from the room, Ramos said, "You cannot build a 1,900-mile wall," another proposal in Trump's plan.
Moments later, Trump justified Ramos' removal, saying: "He just stands up and starts screaming. Maybe he's at fault also."
The billionaire businessman's immigration proposal has sparked intense debate within the 2016 Republican field. Several candidates, including former Gov. Jeb Bush, have called it "unrealistic," and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker bobbled his answer on whether he supports ending birthright citizenship.
Ramos was later allowed back into the news conference. Trump greeted him politely, though they quickly resumed their argument, interrupting each other during an extended back-and-forth.
"Your immigration plan, it is full of empty promises," Ramos began. "You cannot deny citizenship to children born in this country."
"Why do you say that?" Trump replied. "Some of the great legal scholars agree that's not true."
During the five-minute exchange, Ramos claimed that 40 percent of people in the country illegally enter through airports, not over the Mexican border. "I don't believe that. I don't believe it," Trump responded.
A 2006 report by the Pew Hispanic Center found that as much as 45 percent of the people in the U.S. illegally entered with legal visas but overstayed them.
Trump said he did not believe that a majority of immigrants in the U.S. illegally were criminals, or in the country to commit crimes. "Most of them are good people," he said. But he described recent cases where people had been killed by assailants later determined to be in the country illegally.
Finally, Trump reminded Ramos that he was suing Univision, which dropped Trump's Miss Universe pageant after he described immigrants in the U.S. illegally as "criminals" and "rapists."
"Do you know how many Latinos work for me? Do you know how many Hispanics work for me?" Trump said. "Thousands. They love me."
Isaac Lee, chief executive officer of Univision, responded to the confrontation with a written comment: "We'd love for Mr. Trump to sit down for an in-depth interview with Jorge to talk about the specifics of his proposals."

Exclusive: State Dept.-released Clinton email had classified intel from 3 agencies, possibly violating Obama order

One of the emails that triggered the FBI probe into Hillary Clinton’s server contained classified intelligence from three different agencies, Fox News has learned – which could mean the State Department violated a President Obama-signed executive order by authorizing its release.

That 2009 order, EO 13526, lays out the rules for "classifying, safeguarding and declassifying national security information." It states that the authority to declassify rests with the intelligence agency that originated the information.
"Information shall be declassified or downgraded by … the official who authorized the original classification ... [or] the originator's current successor," the order says.
One of the two emails that sparked the FBI probe was an April 2011 email from Clinton confidant Huma Abedin that, Fox News has learned, contained intelligence from the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), the National Security Agency (NSA), and the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA), which oversees aerial imagery, including satellites.
Despite this fact and despite the executive order, the State Department publicly released the email and its intelligence -- which was not theirs to declassify -- onto its website in May as part of the initial release of documents on the 2012 Benghazi attack.
Fox News is told that in late spring, all three agencies confirmed to the intelligence community inspector general that the intelligence was classified when it was sent four years ago by Abedin to Clinton's private account, and remains classified to this day.
Clinton’s campaign and the State Department have maintained that the email was not classified and have framed the issue as a difference of opinion.
"What you're seeing now is a disagreement between agencies saying, 'You know what, they should've.' And the other saying, 'No they shouldn't.' That has nothing to do with me," Clinton told reporters last week.
The State Department spokesman also said last Wednesday they are seeking a second opinion on the classification of some emails from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, who leads the intelligence community.
“I made clear that we’ve asked the Director of National Intelligence for another assessment of those two, the two that the ICIG had determined should have been classified – or at least portions of which should have been classified top secret. So we’ve asked the DNI to look at that and we’ll see what happens,” spokesman John Kirby said.
But a source close to the email investigation emphasized there is no such appeals process, and the finding that the intelligence was classified by the agencies who owned it is "not negotiable."
A spokesman for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence declined to comment and referred questions to the FBI.
Separately, Fox News has learned that a senior State Department official, Under Secretary Patrick Kennedy, who was deeply involved in the Benghazi controversy, is running interference on the classified email controversy on Capitol Hill.
Two sources confirmed that Kennedy went to Capitol Hill in early July and argued the 2011 Abedin email – which as Fox News first reported kick-started the FBI probe along with a second 2012 email from Clinton aide Jake Sullivan -- did not contain classified material.
To make his case, Kennedy cited a 2011 Irish Times newspaper report about the Libyan revolution, to claim the information was already out there.
One participant found it odd Kennedy insisted on having the discussion in a secure facility for classified information, known as a SCIF, though Kennedy said the Abedin email was unclassified, and the Irish Times story did not contain comparable details.
Also, to defend the State Department's decision to release the email without redactions, Kennedy said a contact at the CIA was in agreement, according to two sources with direct knowledge of the claims, though the intelligence did not come from the CIA.
An agency spokesman declined to comment.
While not directly responding to Fox's questions about Kennedy, and its declassification of intelligence owned by other agencies, a state department spokesman said the department "thoroughly reviewed all of documents we have released on our website and appropriately redacted information exempted from release under the Freedom of Information Act."
"We have taken unprecedented steps to collaborate with the Intelligence Community in that regard and have engaged proactively with Congress to answer their questions," the spokesman told Fox News late Tuesday.
Since the initial tranche of 296 Benghazi emails was released in May, a government official said all of the intelligence agencies have reviewers at the State Department to identify emails that may contain classified material that came from them, in order to avoid a repeat of the Abedin situation.

Mexican Border Cartoon