Thom Tillis wins North Carolina GOP Senate primary

Thom Tillis, the North Carolina House speaker, won the state's Republican Senate primary on Tuesday, setting up a battle against Democratic incumbent Sen. Kay Hagan in the fall.
Tillis, considered the GOP establishment's candidate, topped Tea Party-aligned candidate Greg Brannon and pastor Mark Harris. Four other Republicans also sought the nomination.
Tillis had the backing of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Right to Life Committee and former presidential candidate Mitt Romney. National party leaders have targeted Hagan as part of their effort to try to gain control of the Senate.
Hagan, whom Republicans have made a top target in their drive to win a Senate majority in the fall, won renomination over a pair of rivals with about 80 percent of the primary vote.
Tillis, giving his nomination victory speech, continued his criticism of Hagan, saying she's too closely aligned with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and has failed to halt President  Obama's most destructive policies, chiefly the federal health care overhaul. Hagan voted for the law.
"Our republic was founded on separate but equal branches, a system with checks and balances," Tillis told cheering supporters at a Charlotte hotel. "But Kay Hagan hasn't provided any balance whatsoever when it's come to having a check on Obama. She's done nothing but abandoned her post for the last six years."
Tillis scarcely had time to savor his victory before the Democrats unloaded on him Tuesday night.
"No one in the country has done more for the Koch brothers than Thom Tillis — cutting public education nearly $500 million, cutting taxes for the wealthy while refusing pay raises for teachers and killing an equal pay bill," the party's Democratic senatorial committee said in a statement referring to the billionaire businessman brothers whom party leaders hope to make into national whipping boys in the fall campaign.
The National Rifle Association countered for Tillis, saying in a statement of its own that "Thom has long been one of most effective gun rights advocates in North Carolina."
Hagan is among the Democrats' most vulnerable incumbents in a campaign season full of them, a first-term lawmaker in a state that is ground zero in a national debate over the health care law that she and the Democrats voted into existence four years ago. Americans for Prosperity, a group funded by the billionaire Koch brothers, has run about $7 million worth of television commercials criticizing Hagan for her position on the law.
Hagan has portrayed herself as a middle-of-the-road U.S. senator who fights for the middle class and veterans and would prevent out-of-state conservatives from essentially buying a Senate seat with their ads criticizing her.
"This election is a simple choice between two very different records. Thom Tillis has spent his time in Raleigh pushing a special interest agenda that has rigged the system against middle-class families," Hagan said in a news release. She added: "North Carolinians know that I am the only candidate in this race who will put our state's needs ahead of what the special interests want."
Tillis and other Republicans said Hagan and a PAC backing Senate Democrats were trying to torpedo Tillis' candidacy and get a perceived weaker nominee, pointing to similar schemes in Nevada in 2010 and Missouri in 2012. Tillis has benefited from millions of dollars in advertising from outside groups critical of Hagan, particularly for her support of the federal health care overhaul law.
By receiving endorsements from National Right to Life and the National Rifle Association, Tillis was able to advertise credentials seen as favorable by potential supporters of Harris and Brannon. Harris is the former president of the North Carolina Baptist State Convention and was a chief spokesman for a group that worked successfully to get the 2012 constitutional amendment passed banning gay marriage. But even Tillis had a role in the amendment, leading the House when it agreed to put the amendment on the statewide ballot.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Obama administration withholding full contents of emails over Fox News Benghazi report

The Obama administration is withholding the full contents of a "media strategy" discussion over a Fox News report on Benghazi, claiming that releasing them would have a chilling effect on their "frank deliberations."
The seven-page email chain was in reference to a Fox News report on Sept. 27, 2012, that the intelligence community knew within 24 hours that Benghazi was a terrorist attack.
The emails, with the subject line "Fox News: US officials knew Libya attack was terrorism within 24 hours, sources confirm,” was circulated at senior levels of the administration. Denis McDonough, the president's deputy national security adviser during Benghazi; John Brennan, the former White House counterterrorism adviser; and presidential communications adviser Ben Rhodes, whose Sept.14 email linked the anti-Islam video to Benghazi, were all part of the discussion.
CLICK HERE TO READ THE EMAILS
"A seven-page dialogue concerning one Fox News report to me demonstrates an alarm bell situation where they are reacting to and trying to shape a response," senior Judicial Watch investigator Chris Farrell told Fox News. “There was a contrarian news report that didn't align with their position and they were clearly reacting to it in a way that would help reinforce their position."
While originally designated "SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED," Justice Department lawyers told a federal court May 1 that the State Department rightfully withheld "...comments, opinions and assessments related to the formulation of a media strategy with respect to an ongoing sensitive matter....The release of this information could reasonably be expected to chill the frank deliberations that occur when State Department and other U.S. government officials are formulating public responses to address sensitive issues."
Two days after the emails, a spokesman for the nation's intelligence chief, the director of national intelligence, released a lengthy statement explaining the evolution in the intelligence community’s thinking from the assault being a spontaneous attack to it being pre-meditated terrorism.
The statement does not mention a video originally cited by then-U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice as being behind the attack. It also does not, on its face, constitute the "media strategy" that was the subject of the seven-page email chain.
An DNI spokesman told Fox he could not comment on what may or may not be in the redacted emails. 
When previously asked about the Sept. 28, 2012 release, the DNI spokesman said the suggestion to “develop the statement came from within the intelligence community.”
Catherine Herridge is an award-winning Chief Intelligence correspondent for FOX News Channel (FNC) based in Washington, D.C. She covers intelligence, the Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security. Herridge joined FNC in 1996 as a London-based correspondent.

Lawmakers fight to cut red tape for terminally ill patients seeking experimental drugs

Should people fighting for their lives have to battle red tape?
That’s the question lawmakers are considering in four states where the “Right to Try” act is moving forward – proposed legislation aimed at giving terminally ill people access to experimental, but potentially life-saving, drugs before they have FDA approval.
Americans like Keith Knapp, of California, have fought hard for this kind of legislation.
Keith Knapp married his high school sweetheart Mikaela. He and Mikaela thought they had their whole lives ahead of them --- until last year, when she was diagnosed with a terminal form of kidney cancer. This began a fight that the two of them never imagined, as they tried to gain access to a promising, but not-yet-FDA-approved, drug that was doing well in clinical trials. The couple learned that without being in one of these trials, current law would not allow them access to the experimental treatment. 
From her hospital bed, Mikaela said recently: “People die from not being able to access these drugs all the time. I don't want to be one of them.”
But sadly, she was. Despite her husband’s passionate efforts to lobby members of Congress, pharmaceutical companies and the FDA -- and a huge media campaign -- Mikaela lost her battle just two weeks ago.
“The amount of effort you have to put into doing this is just far too much at this time in our life when you really just want to slow things down and enjoy being together,” Keith said.
Currently, it takes the FDA about 10 years to complete a clinical trial on a new drug -- and while many try, only 3 percent will gain access to a trial during that time. Meanwhile, 500,000 Americans died last year from cancer alone, with thousands more dying of other illnesses.
In states where the “Right to Try” act has been introduced, bill sponsors often have personal reasons for pushing the issue. In Missouri, state Rep. Jim Neely is trying to save his dying daughter. In Colorado , the law is sponsored by a clinical pharmacologist fighting for her dying brother. In Arizona, the driver of the bill is a man who lost his wife. A similar bill also has been introduced in Louisiana.
For many people who get a terminal diagnosis, they’re willing to try anything -- but once a clinical trial is closed, patients cannot get access to the potentially life-saving medication until it is approved by the government.
A family in Vermont is facing a similar situation. Jennifer McNary’s two young sons Max and Austin have the same disease. Max got into a clinical trial for an experimental drug called eteplirsen and is doing better. Austin did not get into the trial, and is getting worse.
“If Austin is never given the chance to get on eteplirsen, we know with 100 percent certainty that he will die,” she said.  
Austin wants access to the drug that he’s seen make a big difference for his little brother. “My brother Max can run and walk, I can only sit in my wheelchair and watch him. He’s been on eteplirsen for two years -- it’s safe and effective and I want access,” he said.
Despite the heart-wrenching stories, many doctors warn against this -- saying these drugs could actually lessen quality of life and heighten the risk of side effects.
“You don't know that it's better than nothing,” UCLA endocrinologist Dr. Stanley Korenman said. “You don't know that this won't reduce your life expectancy rather than increase your life expectancy because you don't know what the side effects are.” 
Other doctors agree, saying that many of these drugs turn out to be useless and give false hope. They also say it can lead to “snake-oil salesmen” taking advantage of desperate, dying people.
But the Goldwater Institute’s Darcy Olsen believes it’s time for a change. “Every day thousands of Americans are dying when there are potentially life-saving drugs that they could be taking if we simply got this regulatory process up to date and modernized,” Olsen said.
And Keith Knapp agrees.
“This is one area in which policy just does not match what the American people would want, and I would love to see that change so people don't have to go through this in the future,” he said.

California school district cancels lesson plan that involved Holocaust denial

Following a storm of criticism – and at least one death threat – a California school district Monday canceled a lesson plan that instructed middle school students to make arguments denying the Holocaust happened.
The assignment, aimed at eighth-grade students in Southern California’s Rialto Unified School District, sought to teach children to learn the nature of propaganda.
“Some people claim the Holocaust is not an actual event, but instead is a propaganda tool that was used for political and monetary gain,” the assignment said, according to a document posted by The Daily Bulletin. “You will read and discuss multiple, credible articles on the issue, and write an argumentative essay, based upon cited textual evidence, in which you explain whether or not you believe this was an actual event in history, or merely a political scheme created to influence public emotion and gain wealth.”
But critics said the assignment risked misleading the 13- and 14-year-old students into believing that propaganda about the Holocaust bears factual legitimacy.
“Whatever (the district’s) motivation, it ends up elevating hate and history to the same level,” Rabbi Abraham Cooper, the associate dean of the Los Angeles-based Simon Wiesenthal Center, told FoxNews.com on Monday. “We should train our kids to have critical thinking, but the problem here is the teacher confused teaching critical thinking with common sense, because common sense dictates you don’t comingle propaganda with common truth.”
Cooper added that although teaching children about the nature of propaganda is a worthy lesson plan, the district would have been better off having children research Holocaust denial, while meeting with local survivors of the genocide.
In a statement, the district said Monday afternoon the interim superintendent will be speaking with its educational services department to “assure that any reference to Holocaust ‘not occurring’ will be stricken on any current or future argumentative research assignments.”
“The Holocaust is and should be taught in classrooms with sensitivity and profound consideration to the victims who endured the atrocities committed,” the statement reads. “We believe in the words of George Santayana, ‘Those who cannot learn from history are bound to repeat it.’”
Rialto police said one person made a number of calls to police with specific death threats directed at a district spokeswoman and the interim superintendent. Two officers were at the campus on Monday and authorities are investigating the incident.
The Holocaust, which began in 1933 and ended in 1945 with the defeat of Nazi Germany in World War II, was the mass extermination of up to 11 million people, including six million Jews, resulting in the murder of nearly two-thirds of Europe’s Jewery.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Teachers unions get Discovery Channel to cancel 'Bad Teachers' show

After a pressure campaign by teachers unions, the Discovery Channel has knuckled under and canceled the program "Bad Teachers." The true-crime series, which examines cases where teachers became sexually involved with their students, aired its only episode last week.
Steve Dembo, director of social media for the cable channel's Discovery Education website, said in a statement Tuesday to the "millions of dedicated professionals" in education that "we share your concerns" with the Investigation Discovery program "Bad Teacher."
"We appreciate the support of the educational community for bringing [their objections to the show] to our attention and we are pleased to share that Discovery Communications has decided to immediately cancel this program, removing it from ID's on-air and online schedule," Dembo said.
The National Education Association touted the news of the cancelation, and American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten celebrated it:

I was surprised to learn, through a barrage of tweets Sunday night after "Bad Teacher" aired, that Discovery would use its brand to promote such an offensive program. However, I am heartened that it has taken steps to cancel the show and publicly affirm that Discovery Education's mission is to celebrate and support educators.

Every day, educators go into the classroom to make a difference in the lives of our children. Their work should be honored and valued, not bashed, and we hope to work with Discovery to showcase the real work teachers do every day to help kids achieve their dreams.

The network presumably feared that a backlash from the unions would hurt sales of the many educational products that it provides to schools.

Discrepancies between Benghazi emails released to Congress, watchdog group

EXCLUSIVE: Documents reviewed by Fox News show there are differences between Benghazi emails released through the federal courts to the conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch and emails released to the House oversight committee as part of its investigation into the attacks.
The discrepancies are fueling allegations the administration is holding back documents to Congress.
"The key question is whether Congress now has all the documents," Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, a member of the oversight committee, said. As for differences between the two sets of documents, Chaffetz alleged: "They are playing games. The classification and redactions are different. Why should Judicial Watch get more than Congress after issuing a subpoena?"
The emails published by Judicial Watch last week, which showed additional White House involvement in shaping the public explanation of what happened, helped trigger the announcement Friday by House Speaker John Boehner of a select committee to investigate.
Two of the emails, from Sept. 14, 2012, appear to be part of the deliberations in advance of then-U.N. ambassador Susan Rice's Sunday show appearances were she linked an anti-Islam video to the Benghazi attacks. The emails released to Judicial Watch include the names of those who participated in the email chain.
The same emails provided to the House committee do not include names.
While the text and subject line are redacted in full for both Judicial Watch and Capitol Hill, there are unexplained differences in the classification. The emails, originally marked "unclassified," were retroactively classified in February by the Department of State.
The email released to Judicial Watch is now marked "SECRET," and the same email released to the Oversight Committee is marked "Confidential." Both are marked to "DECLASSIFY" on Sept. 13, 2037 -- 25 years after the terrorist attack which killed four Americans.
Fox News also reviewed an email from Sept. 12, 2012 from Rice to members of the U.S. team at the United Nations where Rice was U.S. ambassador at the time. This unclassified email, whose subject line and text are also redacted in full, was retroactively classified on April 16, 2014, one day before it was released. While the contents and subject line were redacted in both versions, the email released as a result of the federal lawsuit to Judicial Watch does include the names, while the other does not. 
Fox News does not have access to all the emails released to the House committee to assess whether this is part of a broader pattern. A spokesman for the oversight committee said they are still reviewing the 3,200 pages.  
The spokesman said: "By withholding information, this Administration has only itself to blame for the continued questions about the before, during, and after of the Benghazi attacks. Removing information from documents subpoenaed by Congress, while the same documents with more information are released publicly, underscores the games the State Department continues to play as Congress presses for full and truthful answers about the deaths of four brave Americans."
When asked about reported differences in the released emails, White House spokesman Jay Carney said last week that the administration was forthcoming.
"We have, again, in a rather unprecedented way, provided documents that normally White Houses and administrations have not or would not provide because they were being mischaracterized," he said.
State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf said there was no effort to slow-walk the release of the emails.
"The notion that we are somehow deliberately doing any of that is just false. We've produced tens of thousands of documents. We've done nine hearings, 46 briefings. Everything we've seen come out in these document releases and on the Hill has underscored the exact same set of facts as we talked about yesterday about what happened in Benghazi and what happened since," Harf explained.
Catherine Herridge is an award-winning Chief Intelligence correspondent for FOX News Channel (FNC) based in Washington, D.C. She covers intelligence, the Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security. Herridge joined FNC in 1996 as a London-based correspondent.

Economy

NLRB rules workers must pay year's worth of dues to decertified union

If you are a worker trying to sever your relationship with a union, you have to make extra certain you didn't make even the tiniest error when you do it. That's what the National Labor Relations Board said Tuesday when it ruled that nine workers who decertified their union in 2012 still had to pay it another year's worth of membership dues because they sent in some of the paperwork too early.
The case involved nine workers for a Brooklyn condo complex who voted unanimously on Sept. 26, 2012, to get rid of United Workers of America Local 621 as their bargaining representative. The following week, the workers individually sent the union letters announcing that they "elected to terminate any and all such membership obligations" with it.
However the NLRB did not officially recognize the decertification vote until Oct. 11, 10 days after the union received the workers' letters. On the basis of that, Local 621 claimed it never received proper termination letters. The union was able to get the workers' employer to continue to deduct membership dues from their paychecks for another full year after they had voted to get rid of it.
The workers filed a complaint, and an administrative NLRB judge ruled in their favor in July, finding that the letters should not have been invalidated just for being a few days early.