Iran deal open for debate? Tehran presses new ayatollah demand

Thanks Mr. President

The Iranian government is pressing the U.S. and others to give even more ground to Tehran in the already-sealed nuclear agreement, posing a new headache as the Obama administration and others try to implement the deal. 
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei earlier this month demanded that sanctions be lifted entirely, not just suspended. A top Khamenei adviser reiterated that demand over the weekend -- ahead of potential informal talks on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly.
Secretary of State John Kerry plans meet in the coming days in New York with his Iranian counterpart, Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif. According to Iran's Fars News Agency, Iranian officials also plan to meet with all members of the P5+1 group, which negotiated the deal, in New York on Sept. 28.
These reported plans prompted one group, the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), to question whether talks were being "reopened," in order to address Khamenei's concerns.
Asked about the speculation, a State Department official said there is no further negotiation and the U.S. expects the deal to be implemented "in good faith."
"We've long said that we're not going to comment on or react to every statement attributed to the Iranian leadership," the official told FoxNews.com. "Our focus is on implementing the deal, and verifying that Iran completes its key nuclear steps under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. There is no renegotiation, and the nuclear-related sanctions relief that Iran will receive once the IAEA verifies that it has completed its nuclear steps is clearly spelled out in the text of the [agreement]."
But at the least, the ayatollah's demands show the post-deal debate shifting now from Washington back to Tehran, leaving some uncertainty in the air as the U.S. and U.N. prepare to move forward.
In Washington, congressional critics have been unable to muster the votes to even send President Obama a resolution disapproving the deal. But in Tehran, the ayatollah on Sept. 3 renewed concerns about the nature of the deal's sanctions relief.
He said in a statement that sanctions should be lifted entirely, not just suspended -- and said "there will be no deal" unless this is done.
According to MEMRI's translation, he warned that if sanctions are only suspended, Iran, in turn, will only "suspend" nuclear activities cited in the deal. He also called for a parliamentary vote on the deal, though it's unclear whether that will happen.
Iran's Fars News Agency over the weekend quoted ayatollah adviser Ali Akbar Velayati saying Khamenei's views "should be materialized." He added: "It is understood from the Supreme Leader's remarks that balance is necessary in the two sides' measures and in case of imbalance, nothing will be done."
The text of the Iran nuclear agreement actually refers to the "lifting" of sanctions. But the White House has said that sanctions "will snap back into place" if Iran violates its end, indicating they indeed see the sanctions relief as reversible.
MEMRI wrote that the upcoming meeting could be a forum for all parties to "discuss the Iranian demand for further concessions." MEMRI, though, warned that outright lifting sanctions "would constitute a fundamental change" to the deal. "This is because lifting the sanctions, rather than suspending them, will render impossible a snapback [of sanctions] in case of Iranian violations."
The nature of the discussions being held next week is unclear.
On Sept. 20, Kerry said he planned to meet with his Russian and his Iranian counterpart, "regarding Iran and other things." But he indicated the meeting would cover a range of topics, including the Syrian civil war.
While Fars reported that the Iranians will meet with P5+1 representatives in New York on Sept. 28, the State Department has not announced such a meeting.
Earlier this month, after Iran's Supreme Leader spoke out against the process for sanctions relief in the deal, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest put the onus on Iran to follow through with its end before sanctions relief is even implemented.
"We've been crystal-clear about the fact that Iran will have to take a variety of serious steps to significantly roll back their nuclear program before any sanctions relief is offered," he said. "... And only after those steps and several others have been effectively completed, will Iran begin to receive sanctions relief.  The good news is all of this is codified in the agreement that was reached between Iran and the rest of the international community."

Watchdog: EPA official flew home nearly every weekend on taxpayer’s dime

An Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) official flew nearly every weekend from his office in San Francisco to his home in southern California, amassing $69,000 in “excessive trips,” according to the Office of Inspector General (OIG).
A new audit found that the former Region 9 Administrator also charged taxpayers nearly $4,000 for ineligible travel costs, as the official made 88 trips that he said were work related in just three years.
“The former Region 9 Administrator made excessive trips to Southern California and claimed ineligible travel costs,” the OIG said. “He made 88 trips in total from October 2006 through January 2009. For 51 of the 88 trips (58 percent), the former Region 9 Administrator traveled to Orange County/Los Angeles County (OC/LA), California, near the former Region 9 Administrator’s residence, at a cost of approximately $69,000.”
The former official lived in Aliso Viejo, Calif., in Orange Country, though he mainly worked out of the Region 9 headquarters in San Francisco. The audit found that the official “traveled almost every weekend” to Orange County.
“Our analysis noted that the former Region 9 Administrator traveled to the OC/LA area almost every weekend,” the OIG said. “Most of the time, his flight departed from Oakland International Airport (OAK) to John Wayne Airport (JWA), located approximately 11 miles from his Aliso Viejo residence.”
The official also claimed meal and mileage expenses while he was home. The OIG noted that junior employees were responsible for approving his travel and questioned whether “subordinates would adequately review their supervisor’s travel.”

Fox News Poll: Outsiders rule 2016 GOP field, support for Biden nearly doubles

Most Republicans feel betrayed by their party -- and show their displeasure by supporting outsiders over establishment candidates in the GOP presidential race. 
Real-estate mogul Donald Trump and retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson are the favorites in the Republican race in the latest Fox News national poll on the 2016 election.  Neither has held elected office before and yet the two of them -- together with businesswoman Carly Fiorina -- capture the support of more than half of GOP primary voters.
CLICK HERE TO READ THE POLL RESULTS
On the Democratic side, support for Vice President Joe Biden -- who is still considering a run -- has almost doubled since August.  But make no mistake: Hillary Clinton remains the frontrunner.
Trump stays on top with 26 percent among GOP primary voters, followed by Carson at 18 percent.  Fiorina and Florida Sen. Marco Rubio are next, tied at 9 percent.  All four have gained ground. After the August Fox News debate, Trump had 25 percent, while Carson had 12 percent, Fiorina 5 percent and Rubio 4 percent.
Trump holds his leader status even though he was once again rated in the poll as having done the worst job in the debate. Fiorina, Rubio and Carson receive positive marks for their performances.
The appeal of outsiders comes from significant dissatisfaction with the party establishment:  62 percent of Republican primary voters feel “betrayed” by politicians in their party, and another 66 percent say the recent Republican majorities in Washington have failed to do all they could to block or reverse President Obama’s agenda.  For comparison, 40 percent of Democratic primary voters feel betrayed by their party. 
Frustration with party leaders has been a recurring theme for one sitting GOP senator in the race, Ted Cruz of Texas, who is next in the poll at eight percent.  He was at 10 percent in August.
Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush garners seven percent, a new low for him in the Fox News poll.  He had 15 percent support as recently as early August.
New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie is up a couple ticks to five percent and Ohio Gov. John Kasich gets four percent.  Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee receives three percent and Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul two percent.  All other candidates receive one percent or less.
The favorites among white evangelical Christians voting in the Republican primary are Trump (29 percent), Carson (21 percent) and Cruz (12 percent).
The top picks among self-described “very” conservatives voting in the GOP primary are Carson (23 percent), Trump (22 percent), Cruz (13 percent) and Rubio (11 percent).
Straight talk is part of Trump’s outsider appeal -- but does he go too far?  Not for GOP primary voters: 65 percent of them say Trump just tells it like it is, compared to 30 percent who think he is “too mean and blunt” to be president.  Trump’s style may be a liability in the general election, though. Overall, 49 percent of voters find him too mean and blunt, while 44 percent say we need his directness.
Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker and former Texas Gov. Rick Perry dropped out of the race in the last two weeks.  In announcing his decision, Walker made clear his desire to oust Trump. He called on other Republicans to also get out so “voters can focus on a limited number of candidates who can offer a positive, conservative alternative to the current front-runner.”
But what would happen if the “current front-runner” aka Trump were out?  The Fox poll asks voters their second choice candidate, which allows us to look at what happens to the race if someone were to get out. For instance, if Trump gets out, Carson takes the top spot (24 percent), followed by Rubio (12 percent), Fiorina (11 percent), Cruz (11 percent) and Bush (10 percent).
Trump supporters go for Carson (23 percent), Bush (14 percent), Cruz (12 percent) and Rubio (10 percent) as their second-choice picks.
Among all GOP primary voters, the second choice favorites are: Fiorina (14 percent), Carson (13 percent), Trump (12 percent), Bush (10 percent) and Rubio (10 percent).
Clinton sits atop the Democratic pack with the support of 44 percent of primary voters.  Yet that’s a new low for her -- down five points since last month.  She was at 61 percent in June.  Clinton is holding on to her advantage despite 58 percent of all voters -- and 31 percent of Democratic primary voters -- believing she is lying about her emails.
Clinton’s closest rival is still Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, who holds steady at 30 percent. Biden gets a record high 18 percent.  A month ago he was at 10 percent.
The remaining Democratic candidates are at two percent or less, including the newest entrant -- Harvard Professor Lawrence Lessig -- who made it official September 9.
Without Biden in the race, it’s Clinton 56 percent and Sanders 32 percent.
Clinton also maintains her advantage over GOP front-runner Trump in a potential 2016 matchup: 46-42 percent.   Last month, it was Clinton over Trump by 47-42 percent.
Who do voters think will be the next president? When asked to name who will win next November, without the aid of a list, a plurality says Clinton (28 percent) followed by Trump (20 percent).  But the electorate isn’t always great at predicting the outcome (at least not this far out).  Eight years ago, by almost four-to-one, voters said Clinton would be the next president (44 percent), followed by former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani (12 percent).  Barack Obama came in third at six percent (October 2007).  The new poll finds Sanders third at five percent, with Biden and the remaining GOP candidates splitting the rest of the respondents.
This is fun: when all the names are tallied by party, about the same number of voters says the name of a Democrat they think will be the next president (37 percent) as says the name of a Republican (36 percent).

How many debates should there be?
Some of Clinton’s lesser-known competitors, as well as some high-profile Democrats like House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, think there should be more Democratic Presidential debates than the six currently scheduled.  Yet Democratic primary voters seem fine with that number: 58 percent say that’s “about right,” while another 25 percent think it’s “too many.” Just 14 percent say six is “too few.” Sanders supporters (20 percent) are more likely than Clinton supporters (13 percent) to want more debates.
Republicans plan to hold at least nine debates and 50 percent of GOP primary voters thinks that’s “about right.”  Another 41 percent say that’s “too many” and 7 percent say “too few.”
The poll also asks voters who did the best and who did the worst in the September GOP debates hosted by CNN in California.  Debate watchers give the highest net performance score (best job minus worst job) to Fiorina (+34 points), followed by Rubio (+7), Kasich (+2) and Carson (+1).  These are the only candidates to receive net positive scores for their debate performance -- and they are the same four who garnered the highest scores after the first GOP debate last month.
The lowest scores among debate watchers go to Trump (-13 points), Paul (-7 points) and Bush (-4 points).  Trump also got the lowest net score after the first debate (-13 points).
Fiorina received a score of +12 points in August, even though she was in the early debate for second-tier candidates.  She participated in the top tier debate this month and improved her net score by 22 points.

Pollpourri
In this year of the outsider, the poll asks voters what would make them more worried about the state of American democracy:  a November match-up between another Clinton and another Bush or a race between upstarts Sanders and Trump?
By a 53-39 percent margin, voters say Sanders vs. Trump would be a worse sign for our democracy.
The Fox News poll is based on landline and cell phone interviews with 1,013 randomly chosen registered voters nationwide and was conducted under the joint direction of Anderson Robbins Research (D) and Shaw & Company Research (R) from September 20-22, 2015. The poll has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points for all registered voters, and 5 points for Democratic and 4.5 points Republican primary voters.

Biden Cartoon

Biden’s running! (Or not!) But what is his rationale against Hillary?

Joe Biden is inching closer to a presidential run—or is he?
With media speculation raging out of control, perhaps the better question is: How would he fare against Hillary Clinton if he indeed jumps in?
I doubted the vice president would take the plunge, especially after he engaged in the public therapy of grieving for his late son and saying he didn’t have the emotional bandwidth for a White House campaign. Now it’s clear his team is setting up an operation that would give Biden the option of a late launch if he decides to hit the go button.
Perhaps the clearest indication is this leak to the moderator of “Meet the Press”:
“Jill Biden, sources tell NBC's Chuck Todd, is 100 percent on-board with a presidential run, despite reports indicating her hesitation is part of what's keeping Biden from jumping into the race.” The second lady’s office even put out a statement saying she is behind her husband if he chooses to make the race.
This followed a Wall Street Journal piece quoting “people familiar with the matter” as saying:
“Vice President Joe Biden’s aides in recent days called Democratic donors and supporters to suggest he is more likely than not to enter the 2016 race, and their discussions have shifted toward the timing of an announcement.” But there was a caveat: “Unless they change their minds.”
And that, in turn, followed a Journal piece in late August saying Biden “is increasingly leaning toward entering the race if it is still possible he can knit together a competitive campaign at this late date.”
But now Biden is telling the Catholic magazine America: “We’re just not there yet, and I may not get there in time to make it feasible to be able to run.”
So I’m a little dizzy. But I do know that Biden can’t wait much longer. A series of state filing deadlines is approaching, and if he’s going to run, he should be on stage at the first Democratic debate on Oct. 13.
A new CNN poll gives Hillary a nice bump to 42 percent among Democrats—maybe doing more interviews wasn’t such a bad move—with Bernie Sanders at 24 percent and Biden at 22. That’s impressive for a guy who isn’t running, but keep in mind it also reflects that he isn’t being attacked.
Let’s say Biden makes his third bid for the presidency. What is his rationale, other than that Hillary’s campaign is faltering?
As the veep complains about income inequality and the middle class getting screwed, how does he explain the Obama-Biden administration’s failure to do more for the last seven years?
Other than Hillary being a bit more hawkish, how does Biden differentiate his record from hers? Is he willing to personally attack the first potential female president—and if not, why is he running?
In a year when voters crave authenticity, Joe is the real deal, a great retail campaigner. But the flip side is that his big mouth has also gotten him into trouble again and again.
Biden knows the toll of the campaign ordeal, and he knows it’s time to decide. Either way it will be a BFD.

Clock controversy risks backfiring for Obama as critics cast doubt on narrative

President Obama’s public backing of a Texas high school freshman, who got national headlines last week when his homemade clock was mistaken for a bomb by teachers, could be causing a headache for the White House and other supporters as questions are being raised about the motives in the case. 
Fourteen-year-old Ahmed Mohamed’s father has said he now plans to withdraw the freshman from MacArthur High School, and said Monday that they intend to visit New York City where he says they will meet with dignitaries at the United Nations, before making a pilgrimage to Mecca and later visiting Obama at the White House, The Dallas Morning News reported.
It was not immediately clear which dignitaries had requested a meeting with Mohamed.
Mohamed had received praise and support from figures such as Obama and Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg in the wake of the incident, in which Mohamed was arrested on bomb hoax charges after bringing the device to school.
However, amid huge support online for the family, there also has been growing criticism and doubts about the motive behind the incident.
Evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins linked to a video posted to YouTube by electrical expert Thomas Talbot, which closely scrutinizes a photo of the controversial clock.
In the video, Talbot argues the clock is actually a commercial alarm clock, removed from its casing. Features of the clock such as the printed circuit boards and ribbon cables are indicative of a manufactured product, he explained.
Dawkins asked, “If this is true, what was [Mohamed’s] motive?”
Mohamed’s father has a colorful history of his own. Mohamed Elhassan Mohamed announced in February that he planned to run for president of Sudan, as he also did in 2010, the North Dallas Gazette reported. In 2011, he defended the Koran when controversial pastor Rev. Terry Jones put the book “on trial."
On HBO’s “Real Time with Bill Maher,” Dallas Mavericks’ owner Mark Cuban also expressed concerns about the family’s involvement. While calling Ahmed a “super smart kid,” he said that when he spoke to Ahmed, "his sister, over his shoulder, you could hear, listening to the question, giving him the answer.”
Maher, a left-wing comedian, also expressed skepticism, saying “the people at the school thought it might be a bomb, perhaps because it looks exactly like a [expletive] bomb.”
Fox News senior judicial analyst Judge Napolitano said that if the whole thing was a fraud, and the family was involved, they could be open to legal charges.
“It now appears as though this was a purposeful hoax," Napolitano told Fox News' Megyn Kelly Monday. “If the parents were involved now you have a fraud going on as you have funds going on for him right now,” he said, adding that the two funds to raise money for the family now amount to over $20,000.
Napolitano added that this could turn out to be a politically difficult issue for Obama.
"If this was part of a purposeful stunt and if the parents were involved in this and if everybody from Mark Zuckerberg to President Obama fell for this, this is not good," Napolitano said.
If so, it wouldn’t be the first time Obama has stepped into hot water after jumping into a local debate. In 2009, Obama reacted to initial media reports that black professor Henry Louis Gates had been arrested by Sgt. James Crowley for trying to get back into his own house after being locked out. Obama said at a press conference “the police acted stupidly” and cited a “long history in this country of African Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately.”
It later turned out the arrest was much more complex than it initially appeared, with it being alleged that Gates made offensive comments about Crowley’s mother. Obama came under criticism and later held a “beer summit” with the two in the Rose Garden.
Former Alaska governor Sarah Palin blasted Obama over his involvement in the clock controversy on Saturday, saying in a Facebook post his remarks were "about as presidential as a selfie stick."
"By the way, President Obama's practice of jumping in cases prematurely to interject himself as the cool savior, wanting so badly to attach himself to the issue-of-the-day, got old years ago," Palin wrote.

After the hype: Why Walker wilted in the media spotlight

Since Scott Walker called for a Stop Trump effort in bowing out of the presidential race, it’s easy to conclude that he was vanquished by The Donald.
And that’s not quite right. The Wisconsin governor vanquished himself.
In the harsh glare of the national spotlight, he just wasn’t a very good candidate.
Walker was prematurely hyped by the media, boosting expectations to a level he had no hope of meeting. He peaked too soon and could never find his footing.
Walker is a competent governor but a boring guy who found himself trying to compete in a Trumped-up atmosphere. By the final weeks, the man who shops at Kohl’s was shouting at a crowd that he was “unintimidated,” and just looked uncomfortable on the trail, as he did taking questions from the Fox and CNN moderators.
I’ve never seen a presidential candidate drop out and urge others to do so, but that was Walker’s plea—perhaps to give meaning to his move and lash out at the “personal attacks” by Trump. Don’t hold your breath waiting for others to follow.
Walker didn’t have to quit on Monday, even though he had dropped below 1 percent in national polls and his fundraising had dried up. He could have hobbled along and hoped for an upturn in his fortunes. But he has a day job—an actual state to run—and for him to turn into a punchline would have hurt him at home. So he chose a dignified exit.
I watched with amazement as the media utterly hyped Walker’s chances based on a single punchy speech he gave in Iowa last January. That led to rising poll numbers, which in turn produced more good press. It was the worst thing that could have happened to Walker.
He soon started ducking questions, such as his stance on evolution, and complaining about “gotcha” questions. Then he dialed way back on interviews, took two overseas trips and didn’t talk to reporters. That signaled to me a candidate who wasn’t confident.
When Walker reemerged, it was clear that he wasn’t ready for prime time, especially on foreign policy. It didn’t help that he compared fighting ISIS to battling public employee unions in Wisconsin. Asked on CNBC about Rudy Giuliani’s remark that he didn’t think Barack Obama loved America, Walker said: “I’m not going to comment on what the president thinks or not.”
I wrote this in July: “When I met Walker, he struck me as a meat-and-potatoes guy: Solid, disciplined, earnest, the son of a Baptist preacher was not at all flashy. That means he could wear well over a long campaign, but could also be overshadowed on a debate stage.”
Things soon reached the point where Walker had trouble giving straight answers to media questions. After Trump called for repealing birthright citizenship, Walker took three different positions in interviews over seven days. He was so eager to appear tough on illegal immigration that he allowed himself to muse about the possibility of building a fence along the Canadian border.
Of course, running on a governor’s record in a year of fierce anger at politicians and politics as usual didn’t help.
Liz Mair, the GOP strategist who briefly worked for Walker’s campaign before being dumped over past controversial tweets, ripped her former boss:
“Things he got wrong: Misunderstanding the GOP base, its priorities and stances. Pandering. Flip-flopping…
“Becoming so invested in winning, no matter what it took, that he lost sight of his real identity as a political leader.”
So what does Walker’s exit mean for other single-digit candidates, beyond the usual scramble for donors and organizers?
It leaves John Kasich as the only Midwestern governor; Chris Christie as the tough-talking governor; Jeb Bush as the ex-governor running on his record, albeit with far more money; Marco Rubio as the fresh young face, and Ted Cruz as the anti-establishment senator.
It means if one or two contenders follow the lead of Walker and Rick Perry, we’ll be done with the undercard debates.
It leaves Trump, Ben Carson and Carly Fiorina, the non-politician brigade, at the head of the field, with Carson spending yesterday trying to explain away his comments about not advocating a Muslim for president.
Scott Walker was a strong candidate on paper. But elections, as we keep learning, aren’t won on paper.

FBI reportedly recovers deleted emails from Clinton server

Federal investigators reportedly have recovered work-related and personal emails from Hillary Clinton's time as secretary of state that the Democratic presidential front-runner claimed had been deleted from her personal server.
The recovery of the emails was first reported by Bloomberg News late Tuesday. The initial report, which cited a source familiar with the FBI investigation into Clinton's private email server, was corroborated by The New York Times, which cited two government officials.
It was not immediately clear whether all 30,000 messages Clinton said she had deleted from the server had been recovered, but one official told the Times that it had not been difficult to recover the emails that had been found so far.
The FBI is investigating whether classified information that passed through Clinton's so-called "homebrew" server during her time as secretary of state was mishandled. Clinton turned over approximately 30,000 copies of messages she deemed work-related to the State Department this past December. Clinton said earlier this year that the emails she deleted from the private server she kept at her Chappaqua, N.Y., home mostly pertained to personal matters such as her daughter Chelsea’s wedding and the secretary’s yoga routines.
An intelligence source told Fox News earlier this month that investigators were "confident" they could recover the deleted records. The source said that whoever had been deputized to scrub the server must "not be a very good IT guy.  There are different standards to scrub when you do it for government versus commercial."
It is not known when exactly Mrs. Clinton “wiped” her server, nor who was directed to do so. However, it seems the move came after October 2014,  when the State Department requested personal emails be returned as part of her business records.   
The source also told Fox News an FBI "A-team" is leading the "extremely serious" investigation into Clinton's server and the focus includes a provision of the law pertaining to "gathering, transmitting or losing defense information. The section of the Espionage Act in question is known as 18 US Code 793.
When asked about the report, Clinton’s presidential campaign spokesman Nick Merrill told Fox News that Clinton’s team “will always cooperate with the FBI,” and that Clinton and her staff “simply don’t know what the FBI has, and doesn’t have” in regard to the ongoing investigation.
Fox News’ Ed Henry said Tuesday that should the report of the newly-recovered emails prove true, some of the emails recovered would already be in investigators’ hands.
A separate source, who also was not authorized to speak on the record, said the FBI will further determine whether Clinton should have known, based on the quality and detail of the material, that emails passing through her server contained classified information regardless of the markings. The campaign's standard defense and that of Clinton is that she "never sent nor received any email that was marked classified" at the time.
It is not clear how the FBI team's findings will impact the probe itself. But the details offer a window into what investigators are looking for -- as the Clinton campaign itself downplays the controversy.

Walker Cartoon

Walker suspends 2016 campaign, urges party to find Trump alternative

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, once a leading candidate in the Republican presidential race, suspended his struggling 2016 campaign on Monday -- while issuing an appeal to his party to counter the rise of front-runner Donald Trump. 
At a hastily called press conference in Madison, Walker confirmed the news that by that point had leaked out: "I will suspend my campaign immediately."
But the governor also lamented that the contest has "drifted into personal attacks" and urged other contenders to consider following him out of the race, if only to help elevate those who can compete against the front-runner. Without naming Trump, Walker warned that he thinks the billionaire businessman could damage the party.
"I believe that I am being called to lead by helping to clear the field in this race so that a positive, conservative message can rise to the top of the field," Walker said. "... I encourage other Republican presidential candidates to consider doing the same so that the voters can focus on a limited number of candidates who can offer a positive, conservative alternative to the current front-runner."
The decision marks a swift reversal in fortunes for Walker, who over the summer was seen as the candidate to beat in the key state of Iowa. But the governor who forged a national reputation on his record battling union power in his home state saw his position slide in recent months.
Walker was plagued by a series of missteps, and was seen as performing poorly in the first two primary debates, generally struggling to stand out amid a crowded and boisterous 2016 field.

More on this...

• The rise and quick fall of Scott Walker

The 47-year-old had told Fox News before last Wednesday's debate at the Reagan Library that he planned to "be aggressive" and show the kind of "passion" that brought him to victory in the past. Walker did have a few notable moments -- including telling Trump "we don't need an apprentice in the White House ... we have one right now.” But he was arguably outshined not only by Trump but Carly Fiorina and others.
For Walker, much was riding on his performance in that debate. In the aftermath, a CNN/ORC poll released Sunday showed Walker polling nationally at less than 1 percent.
Throughout his campaign, Walker cast himself as an "aggressively normal" conservative, campaigning as a fighter who had a number of victories in a state that hasn't voted for a Republican president since 1984.
Walker was elected governor in 2010, before winning a tough recall election in 2012 against a labor-backed effort to remove him from office, becoming the first governor to survive a recall election. Walker was elected to a second term in 2014.
However, when campaigning for president, he appeared to struggle in stating his policy positions. He appeared to flip-flop on whether he supported ending birthright citizenship in August, and showed interest in building a wall between the U.S. and Canada, only to later laugh it off as ridiculous.
Immediately after the decision to suspend the campaign was reported, fellow 2016 candidate Ben Carson called Walker "an outstanding leader with a strong record of fighting for conservative principles."
"I wish him the very best," Carson said.
Trump also praised Walker on social media ahead of the formal announcement.
While Walker may be leaving the race, his well-known feud with major labor unions showed no sign of fading away. AFL-CIO boss Richard Trumka released a scathing and brief statement: "Scott Walker is still a disgrace, just no longer national."
The move may have come to a surprise to supporters following Walker on Twitter, as he tweeted Monday he was "here to fight and win in Iowa."
A Walker donor told Fox News that even large donors were kept in the dark about the decision. A Monday afternoon conference call with donors gave no hint that this was coming, the donor said.
The announcement makes Walker the second GOP candidate to suspend his campaign, following former Texas Gov. Rick Perry. Walker's exit leaves 15 major candidates remaining in the race for the Republican nomination.

Report: Obama administration seeking Vatican help on American prisoners in Iran

The Obama administration reportedly is seeking help from Pope Francis in negotiating the release of three American prisoners held in Iran. 
Politico reported Monday that Washington and the Vatican have had discussions in recent months about the prisoners. Pope Francis will visit Washington and other American cities this week, though it's unclear whether the Iranian matter will come up.
The purported discussions follow Pope Francis playing an integral role in the normalizing of relations between the United States and Cuba. The pope personally wrote letters to President Obama and Cuban leader Raul Castro urging them to repair the broken bond between their countries. The Vatican later hosted talks, and played a role in the eventual release of American prisoner Alan Gross from Cuba.
Whether the Vatican, though, can exert that kind of influence in Tehran is a very open question. Cuba is a mostly Catholic nation, giving the Vatican some natural sway in the country and with the Castros. Pope Francis would hold no such influence in Tehran, run by Muslim theocrats.
Still, Politico noted that the pope met in February with a delegation of influential Iranian women. One of them, Shahindokht Molaverdi, told a Catholic-issues publication she'd be open to the pope helping improve ties between the U.S. and Iran as he did with the U.S. and Cuba.
"Certainly this pope has an ability to bring people together, which can also influence governments," Molaverdi, Iran's vice president for women and family affairs, told the publication Crux.

More on this...

• Pope Francis criticized for not meeting Cuban dissidents

Politico cited an unnamed source familiar with the cases in saying the U.S. and Vatican have been in contact regarding the American prisoners in Iran, and at least one prisoner's family has appealed to the pope for assistance.
The status of the imprisoned Americans has loomed over the talks over the Iran nuclear deal. While some lawmakers urged the Obama administration to demand their release as a condition of any agreement, the State Department and White House resisted -- saying they needed to keep the issues separate.
With the nuclear deal now expected to be implemented, though, the prisoners' fate remains unresolved. Iran continues to hold Christian pastor Saeed Abedini, former Marine Amir Hekmati and Washington Post journalist Jason Rezaian on what their supporters say are bogus charges.

Drug's price changed overnight to $750 a tablet ... from $13.50

"This isn't the greedy drug company trying to gouge patients, it is us trying to stay in business. It really doesn't make sense to get any criticism for this." The "this" Martin Shkreli is referring to is the price hike his company instituted after it last month acquired Daraprim, a 62-year-old drug that the New York Times describes as "the standard of care" for treating those suffering from the potentially deadly parasitic infection toxoplasmosis.
The overnight change made by start-up Turing Pharmaceuticals: from $13.50 a tablet to $750 a tablet. USA Today points out that's a 5,000 percent increase. Shkreli justified the move by saying the overall impact will be a minor one as there are only 12,000 or so prescriptions for the specialized drug a year, and because the proceeds will go toward developing a newer treatment with fewer side effects.
A professor of infectious diseases at Emory University isn't so sure about that plan. She tells the Times that while the drug is accompanied by potentially serious side effects, they're manageable.
"I certainly don't think this is one of those diseases where we have been clamoring for better therapies," says Dr. Wendy Armstrong. The Times charts the drug's price history: Its 2010 acquisition by CorePharma saw its price hiked from $1 a tablet; that raised sales of the drug from $667,000 in 2010 to $6.3 million in 2011.
The most recent price increase could push those sales into the hundreds of millions. As for what Daraprim treats, the CDC describes toxoplasmosis as "a leading cause of death attributed to foodborne illness" in the US.
While some 60 million Americans are thought to carry the Toxoplasma parasite, it causes illness in those with weakened immune systems.

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

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

More on this...

• Donald Trump defends his remarks about Muslims

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

Welcome Refugees Cartoon

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

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

Christian schools in Israel strike amid claims of discrimination

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

Related Image

Expand / Contract

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

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

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

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

Related Image

Expand / Contract

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

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

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

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

US reportedly may abstain from UN vote condemning Cuba embargo

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

Muslim Cartoon

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Crowd at Democratic event shouts over Wasserman Schultz 'more debates'

Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz was heckled at an event Saturday in New Hampshire by crowd members calling for “more debates” for their party’s presidential candidates.
Crowd members shouted "more debates" and "we want debates" throughout Wasserman Schultz's remarks. Signs that spelled out "more debates" also were spotted in the crowd.
The event was the Democratic state party’s annual convention. And the incident was the latest in series in which the committee has been called on to have more than six sanctioned debates.
Critics of the debates, which begin October 3, suggest the schedule was conceived when Hillary Clinton was the clear frontrunner and by Clinton supporters who didn't think subjecting her to challengers was a good idea.
Wasserman Schultz has been criticized before, perhaps most notably by Democratic challenger Martin O’Malley. The former Maryland governor's polls numbers are in the single digits, and he needs the exposure of the debates, considering he has little campaign money and name recognition.
Wasserman Schultz has steadfastly said the committee, not her alone, has decided on the number of debates.
Clinton has said the debate scheduled is a matter for the DNC, not her, to decide. Her closest primary challenger, Vermont Independent Sen. Bernie Sanders, has also called for more debates.
Clinton, O'Malley and Sanders are all scheduled to speak at the convention in Manchester, N.H.
The GOP has 11 sanctioned primary debates.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said in a Los Angeles Times interview published Friday that she thought her party should have more primary debates this election cycle.

Obama Cartoon