Paying for Patriotism? Military takes heat for pricey soldier salutes at stadiums

WASHINGTON –  The Department of Defense and the National Guard are facing growing questions over why they spent millions of dollars on a promotional campaign to salute members of the military at professional football, baseball and basketball games around the country. 
“So far everybody’s just shocked to learn that this, that these feel-good moments are paid for by the U.S. taxpayer,” Sen. Jeff Flake told FoxNews.com on Tuesday.
Flake, R-Ariz., has sent a letter to Defense Secretary Ash Carter and National Guard Chief Gen. Frank Grass demanding to know the financial breakdown associated with the "Hometown Heroes" segments. 
Across several sports leagues, the segments typically are aired at home games, paying tribute to a member of the military on the Jumbotron. After reports first surfaced of taxpayer money going toward these salutes, a defense official initially claimed Monday that the military pays for recruitment advertising in sports stadiums, but not such "outreach." 
However, the New Jersey National Guard confirmed Tuesday that language in its contract with the New York Jets -- which play in New Jersey -- indeed includes the "Salute to Service" honor segment. Under the terms, during each of the Jets' eight home games in 2014, 40 soldiers would take the field in pregame ceremonies. 
Federal contracts show that the U.S. Department of Defense from 2011 to 2014 paid $5.4 million for sponsorship deals with 14 NFL teams. The size of the deals, which cover recruitment and other areas, differ, with more than $1 million going to the Atlanta Falcons and $115,000 going to the New York Jets. 

More on this...

• Paying the NFL to salute our troops?

But Flake said Tuesday "it goes deeper than the NFL. ... There are contracts with soccer teams, big contracts in the past with NASCAR, NASCAR sponsorship.”
Flake, who called the spending wasteful and the honors disingenuous, argued paying for patriotism “leaves a bad taste in your mouth.”
 “We’re hearing all kinds of numbers now with independent investigations and people who have viewed these contracts and so it’s a considerable amount of money, particularly at a time when the DOD is stretched considerably,” Flake said. “To find out money is being spent basically to honor people or salute doesn’t seem right.”
Flake, though, said he doesn’t blame the sports teams but instead blames the government for going about it the wrong way.
He said: “When everybody assumes when you have these feel-good moments, these salutes, that it’s because the NFL team just felt good about the military or about service and then to find out, no, it’s really the taxpayers paying for that. That just leaves you with an empty feeling.”
The New Jersey Army National Guard’s Recruiting and Retention Command defended the spending and said the agreements with sports teams helps educate and promote the military.
Aside from the Hometown Heroes segment, various agreements with teams include a kickoff video message from the National Guard, online advertising and digital marketing campaigns on stadium screens. 
Fox News' Lucas Tomlinson contributed to this report.

Clinton facing new ethics questions on role in Boeing deal

When Hillary Clinton was America's top diplomat, she also appeared at times like a top salesperson for America's biggest airplane maker, Boeing. 
Traveling abroad on official business as secretary of state, Clinton often visited Boeing facilities and made a pitch for the host country to buy Boeing jets. During one visit to Shanghai in May 2010, she boasted that "more than half the commercial jetliners operating in China are made by Boeing." 
A sales plug in Russia in 2009, though, may have proved especially fruitful. While touring a Boeing plant, Secretary of State Clinton said, "We're delighted that a new Russian airline, Rossiya, is actively considering acquisition of Boeing aircraft, and this is a shameless pitch." 
In 2010, Boeing landed the Russian deal, worth $3.7 billion. And two months later, the company donated $900,000 to the Clinton Foundation. 
This chain of events is raising new questions for Clinton, and Boeing, as the former secretary of state launches her 2016 presidential campaign. The Boeing deal only adds to a growing list of business deals involving Clinton Foundation donors now coming under scrutiny. 
Boeing shareholder David Almasi recently confronted CEO James McNerney about the ethics of it. 
"That opens the door to charges of honest services fraud, that there was a quid pro quo between the Clinton Foundation, the State Department and Boeing," Almasi said. 
In prepared answers to questions posed to Boeing by Fox News, a spokesman defended the company's actions. 
"Our contribution to the Clinton Foundation to help the people of Haiti rebuild was a transparent act of compassion and an investment aimed at aiding the long-term interests and hopes of the Haitian people," the spokesman said. The company also pointed out that it gave the American Red Cross $1.3 million after the devastating 2010 earthquake. 
Clinton defenders say there is no smoking gun. "There's zero evidence that Hillary Clinton went to bat for Boeing for any reason other than to benefit the U.S. economy and U.S. workers," said former Clinton/Gore adviser Richard Goldstein. 
But the financial connections don't end there. Boeing also paid former President Bill Clinton $250,000 for a speech in 2012. It was a speech that was approved by the State Department's Ethics Office -- which according to an Associated Press report often approved the ex-president's speaking engagements within days. 
And in another potential trouble spot, Boeing's chief lobbyist and former Bill Clinton aide Tim Keating hosted a fundraiser for Ready for Hillary, the political action committee raising money to help fund a run for the White House. Boeing took no issue with Keating doing so. 
"Employees are free on their personal time and with personal resources -- as was the case here -- to support candidates and causes of their choice," Boeing wrote in its statement. 
The Clinton campaign told Fox News in a statement, "She did the job that every Secretary of State is supposed to do and what the American people expect of them -- especially during difficult economic turmoil."

House votes to block EPA from implementing new water-regulation plan

The House of Representatives on Tuesday voted to block the EPA from implementing a new plan that critics say could significantly broaden the agency's ability to impose environmental regulations over America's waterways.
Many farmers and landowners across the country say rules proposed last year by the Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers would give federal regulators even more say over waters. The issue had become a hotly contested one for many who say there are already too many government regulations affecting their businesses.
The House bill, approved by a 261-155 vote, would force the EPA to withdraw the rules and consult with state and local officials before rewriting them.
The rules would clarify which streams, tributaries and wetlands should be protected from pollution and development under the Clean Water Act.
EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy said one out of three Americans get their drinking water from sources that aren't clearly protected, and the rules would make sure those waters aren't polluted.
Some lawmakers said it was overreach and was aggravating longstanding trust issues between rural areas and the federal government.
The rule would "trample on private property rights and hold back our economy," read a memo sent out by the office of House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., before the House floor debate.
The White House has threatened to veto the legislation.

A bipartisan group of senators introduced a bill last month that would lay out what bodies of water should be covered and force the EPA to rewrite the rules by the end of next year.

"We've got a whole lot of pent-up frustration and concern because it seems like every time they turn around, there is a new set of regulations for farmers to be concerned about," says North Dakota Sen. Heidi Heitkamp, a Democrat who is backing the Senate bill. Heitkamp, narrowly elected in a competitive Senate race in 2012, says it's the number one issue she hears about from farmers.

"It's the perfect example of the disconnect between Washington and rural areas," says Indiana Sen. Joe Donnelly, another Democrat backing the legislation.

Lawmakers say they believe that the proposed "waters of the United States" rules would expand the government's reach over these smaller bodies of water. They say the proposal is too vague and could be subject to misinterpretation.

Under fire, EPA officials have acknowledged they may not have written the proposal clearly enough, and said final rules expected in the coming months will better define which waters would fall under the law.

"I want to tell you up front that I wish we had done a better job of rolling out our clean water rule," McCarthy told the National Farm Bureau Federation, a staunch opponent, in March.

Still, the agency argues the rules are necessary to make clear which waters are regulated in the wake of decades-long uncertainty and two U.S. Supreme Court rulings on the issue. The 2001 and 2006 decisions limited regulators' reach but left unclear the scope of authority over some small waterways, like those that flow intermittently.

Broadly, the EPA's proposed rules would assert federal regulatory authority over streams, tributaries, wetlands and other flowing waters that significantly affect other protected waters downstream. That means some operations that wanted to dump pollutants into those waters or develop around them would have to get a federal permit.

Senate Dems block key plank of Obama trade agenda

Own Party is weary of him.

President Obama suffered a defeat at the hands of his own party on Tuesday, as Senate Democrats blocked a key component of the president's trade agenda.
After fierce lobbying on both sides of the issue, the bid to start debate -- on expanding the president's authority to negotiate trade deals -- failed on a 52-45 vote. It needed 60 votes to advance.
The president's supporters will likely try again, but the vote nevertheless marks a stinging rebuke of a major Obama priority by members of his own party. Republicans mostly had aligned with Obama on the issue and, after the failed test vote, urged Obama's fellow Democrats to drop their resistance.
"What we just saw here is pretty shocking," Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said, accusing congressional Democrats of standing with "special interests."
At issue is Obama's push for so-called "fast track" authority -- which would let him negotiate trade deals that Congress can reject or ratify, but not amend. In the short-term, he wants to use this to pursue a broad trade pact with Japan and other Pacific nations.
But many Democrats aligned with labor unions in warning about the impact on U.S. jobs, and openly opposed the White House. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., recently told reporters he's a "hell no" on the proposal. And Obama and Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., for days have traded jabs on the matter, with the president calling Warren's claims "absolutely wrong."

More on this...

• Obama and Warren have 'war of words' over trade deal

• Democrats divided over multi-nation trade deal

Several Democrats later said Obama erred by pointedly criticizing Warren, most recently in an interview with Yahoo News. Democratic senators said they also are tired of seeing the Democratic president cozy up to Republicans on trade.
The issue indeed has left Obama oddly aligned with Republicans, while trying to sway enough Democrats to join in support. With 54 Republicans in the Senate, the White House needed a handful of Democrats on board.
But labor unions, liberal groups and others vehemently oppose the legislation. It faces "poison pill" amendments, showdowns over "currency manipulation" and, eventually, similar confrontations in the House.
Lobbying for and against the legislation hit overdrive this week. Key groups scheduled almost hourly events on Capitol Hill ahead of Tuesday afternoon's vote. Obama devoted much of the weekend to trade, visiting a Nike plant in Oregon. Obama maintains that U.S. goods and services need better access to the 95 percent of world consumers who live in other countries.
If Obama can ultimately get the trade measure passed, he's likely to ask Congress to approve the Trans-Pacific Partnership being negotiated with 11 other countries, including Japan, Vietnam, Canada and Mexico. Other free-trade proposals could follow.
 But several Democrats say they will back fast track only if Republican leaders clear a path for three other trade measures. One, to renew the African Growth and Opportunity Act, is uncontroversial.
The second calls for Trade Adjustment Assistance, which provides federal aid to workers displaced by trade agreements. Republicans don't like it, but reluctantly acknowledge it's the price for winning even modest Democratic support.
The third bill, involving Customs enforcement, is the stickiest. It includes a measure to take actions against countries that keep their currency artificially low, which makes their exports more attractive. The Obama administration opposes the "currency manipulation" measure, saying it could invite international challenges to the Federal Reserve's policies meant to boost the economy.
Some Democrats also want to force Republicans to deal first with a surveillance measure that Democrats consider more pressing. That strategy suggests Obama might have better luck on trade in a month or so.

Brady Cartoon

Boston University condemns prof's racist tweets after Terrier alums bark

Boston University had a weekend change of heart about a new professor's angry tweets about white people, after FoxNews.com and others reported on the racially-charged comments -- and Terrier alumni threatened to stop writing checks.
Saida Grundy, an incoming assistant professor of sociology and African-American studies at the school, tweeted in recent weeks that "white masculinity is THE problem for america’s (sic) colleges," white men are a "problem population,” and that she tries to avoid shopping at white-owned businesses. On Friday, her new employer's spokesman, Colin Riley, told FoxNews.com that the tweets came from Grundy's personal Twitter account and that she was "exercising her right to free speech and we respect her right to do so.”

" ... we are deeply saddened when anyone makes such offensive statements.”
- Colin Riley, Boston University spokesman

Then, amid a deluge of angry emails from former students, the school sought to amend the comment.
“The University does not condone racism or bigotry in any form and we are deeply saddened when anyone makes such offensive statements,” Riley told FoxNews.com Saturday.
The tweets were first noticed by a student at University of Massachusetts Amherst, Nick Pappas, who posted them on his website “SoCawlege.com” and questioned how Grundy could teach a diverse classroom given the racial hostility in her tweets.

Related Image

Expand / Contract

Boston University Professor Saida Grundy's tweets deriding white men are her business, according to the school. (Boston University)

“You have to teach college-aged white males eventually, no?... this seems like you are unqualified to grade their work as you clearly demonstrate some kind of special bias against them,” he wrote.
After the news broke, some alumni and donors wrote the school to complain.
“It is truly a sad day to be a BU alum,” one Boston University graduate from the class of 2008 told FoxNews.com, and shared a letter he had sent to University President Robert Brown and the dean of students.
“In light of the university’s willingness to invite vile rhetoric onto a campus that I spent four wonderful years at, I commit to never donate to Boston University,” he wrote in his letter.
Another wrote, “As a Boston University alumnus and a father of a son who will graduate from BU next week, I am deeply saddened by this revelation. It has become apparent that BU no longer supports a value system in line with human decency.”
Although Riley's condemnation of the racist tweets was new, he reiterated that Grundy had a right to sound off against white males.
“ ... the opinions expressed by Dr. Grundy, in what were seemingly private electronic messages, constitutes her opinion and we must recognize her right to have that opinion whether or not we agree,” Riley said.
Grundy did not respond to requests for comment from FoxNews.com, and has made her twitter account private. She will start working at the university in June.
Those who follow campus politics say they are not shocked.
"I'm not surprised that Boston University is hiring a racist to teach African-American Studies," David Horowitz, author of “Reforming our Univerisities,” told FoxNews.com. "Anti-white racism is rampant in Black Studies programs."
Horowitz added that the university’s reaction betrays double-standards on race.
“If she were a white racist rather than an anti-white racist, she would never be hired. Professors are supposed to be experts in some scholarly field, and professionals in their classroom discourse. They don't have a license to indoctrinate students in their prejudices -- whether those prejudices are right or left,” he said.
Grundy posted a number of other controversial tweets, for instance incorrectly claiming that only whites enslaved entire generations of people. “Deal with your white sh*t, white people. slavery is a *YALL* thing,” she said.
Free speech advocates say that Grundy should have a right to her speech, but say the university speech policy is hypocritical because it allows the university to censor offensive or bigoted speech if it wanted to.
“Professor Grundy should and must have the freedom to publicly express her opinions on controversial topics. Unfortunately, though, [she] could be punished if she were to send such tweets through the BU computer network, as the university bans ‘transmitting...offensive’ material,” Robert Shibley of Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) told FoxNews.com.
“In addition, if she were a student, she could also potentially be punished for violating policies banning ‘bigotry, hatred, and intolerance,’ and for not expressing her opinion ‘in good taste and decency.’ … [BU] should eliminate these policies so that it can defend every student and faculty member's right to free speech – not just Professor Grundy's.”

Jeb Bush dismisses dip in polls, defends immigration stance

Jeb Bush, in an exclusive interview with Fox News’ “The Kelly File,” rejected the suggestion that the momentum behind his likely presidential bid has slowed – calling recent polls “irrelevant” and urging those closely watching them to “take a chill pill.”
Bush, though widely expected to run for the Republican nomination, has held back as several other Republicans have officially announced their 2016 campaigns in recent weeks. As they dominate the headlines, some – notably, Bush’s presumed home-state rival, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio – have enjoyed a surge in the polls.
But Bush stressed in the interview with Fox News that he’s not a candidate yet.
“The polls are totally irrelevant,” the former Florida governor told show host Megyn Kelly. “I’m not a candidate yet. So … everybody needs to take a chill pill on the polls until it gets closer.”
In the roughly 22-minute interview, Bush addressed Common Core, immigration reform and his family’s political dynasty – all issues posing early challenges for him in a potential GOP primary. And he defended his 2016 exploratory efforts – first announced in mid-December – while taking a swipe at the campaign for Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton.
“I godo town hall meetings, don’t screen the questions, don’t have a protected bubble like Mrs. Clinton does, don’t have town hall meetings or roundtable discussion where I pick who gets to come and I screen the questions, and the press has to behave a certain way,” he said in his first full, on-camera TV interview this year.
While Bush continues to stay visible, his poll numbers have jumped around since he emerged as an initial GOP frontrunner earlier this year.
Fox News polling released late last month showed Rubio enjoying a bump after his mid-April campaign announcement, polling at 13 percent in the race for the GOP nomination. Bush slipped down to 9 percent in that survey.
The average of polling on RealClearPolitics.com shows Bush slipping only slightly, but his advantage over the rest of the field slimming considerably. He now pulls 16 percent of the vote but leads Rubio by just 1 percentage point, according to RealClearPolitics.com.
Bush, in the Fox News interview, continued to defend his stance on the English and math standards known as Common Core while acknowledging conservative criticisms.
He argued that schools must be held to higher standards and pointed to the program’s success in Florida, where he was governor from 1997 to 2007.
“I respect people having a view,” Bush said. “But the simple fact is, we need higher standards. They need to be state driven. The federal government should play no part in this either, either in the creation of standards, content or curriculum.”
He argued that only one-third of U.S. students are college or career ready and that Florida under his leadership led the country in learning gains, includes vastly improved graduation rates.
In response to criticism by conservatives that he supports a form of amnesty for illegal immigrants, Bush said he backs legal status -- but not citizenship -- for those who have entered the country illegally.
“A practical solution of getting to fixing the legal system is also allowing for a path to legalized status, not necessarily citizenship,” he said.
Nevertheless, he suggested that the country must take some kind of common sense approach to what to do with an estimated 11 million people living illegally in the United States, particularly children of illegal immigrants.
“What are we supposed to do, marginalize these people forever?” Bush asked.
He also suggested he would undo President Obama’s executive actions that suspend deportation for some illegal immigrants, under comprehensive reform legislation.
On the foreign policy front, Bush said that he would have authorized the 2003 invasion of Iraq, like his brother, President George W. Bush did, and said Clinton – who backed the authorization for use of force as senator -- also would have.
“And so would almost everybody that was confronted with the intelligence they got,” he told Megyn Kelly.
He also acknowledged that he indeed uses his brother as a foreign policy adviser but said he is not the only adviser. And he dismissed criticism that winning the White House would only extend the family’s presidential dynasty that started with his father, George H.W. Bush, in 1989.
“I love my brother, and I respect his service,” Bush said. “I haven’t been in Washington … ever. I’m not part of Washington.”

Federal judge agrees to reopen Hillary Clinton email lawsuit

A federal judge has agreed to reopen a lawsuit that seeks to gain access to emails from former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s private server.
Judge Reggie B. Walton’s decision Friday came after the State Department and Judicial Watch, which brought the lawsuit, agreed that the documents that Clinton kept on her own email server separate from the government should be turned over.
“This is the first case that’s been reopened,” Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch told The Washington Times. “It’s a significant development. It points to the fraud by this administration and Mrs. Clinton.”
Previously, the court dismissed Judicial Watch's request, on the grounds that the documents did not exist.
Judicial Watch is a conservative, non-partisan educational foundation that promotes transparency and accountability in government.
Clinton provided about 30,000 emails to a House committee investigating the 2012 terror attack on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya but deleted 32,000 emails she considered personal and not government business.
According to The Washington Times, panel Chairman Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., cited “obstacles and frustrations” in dealing with the administration when pursuing access to Clinton’s emails.
“The legislative branch’s constitutional toolbox seems inadequate to uphold out task in seeking the truth,” Gowdy said.