'Dividing Americans': Potential GOP rivals assail Clinton over fiery voting law speech

Accusing her of "dividing Americans" and political pandering, several of Hillary Clinton's potential Republican rivals fired back Friday after the Democratic frontrunner accused them of trying to make it more difficult for Americans -- particularly minorities and young people -- to vote. 
Clinton spoke Thursday at Texas Southern University, an historically black institution in Houston. In one of her most partisan speeches as a White House candidate, she directly criticized Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and former Texas Gov. Rick Perry.
She described them as members of a GOP vanguard that has made it more difficult for students to vote, cut the numbers of days set aside for early voting and demanded voter ID provisions.
In perhaps her most pointed line, she said: "We have a responsibility to say clearly and directly what's really going on in our country -- because what is happening is a sweeping effort to disempower and disenfranchise people of color, poor people, and young people from one end of our country to the other."
Ohio Gov. John Kasich, a Republican considering a presidential run, accused Clinton on Friday of "demagoguery."
"Don't be running around the country dividing Americans," he told Fox News.
Kasich's state is also on the other end of a related lawsuit filed in part by Clinton campaign lawyer Marc Elias.
That suit claims Ohio's voting restrictions are designed to suppress minority and young voters. It calls for halting a number of measures including laws that restrict the casting of absentee and provisional ballots and limit the times and locations for early voting -- such as abolishing an early voting period known as "Golden Week" in which voters could register and cast an in-person ballot the same day.
However, Ohio has an extensive early-voting period of nearly a month. And Kasich noted Clinton's state of New York doesn't even offer that kind of early-voting period.
"Don't come in and say we are trying to keep people from voting when her own state has less opportunity for voting," Kasich told Fox News. "And she is going to sue my state? That's just silly."
Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted also said Ohio is a "national leader in voter access," urging Clinton to "tell her attorneys" to drop the lawsuit.
The lawsuit is not officially connected to the Clinton campaign, though the candidate has since made voting laws a big issue in her run.
In Thursday's speech, she alleged, "Republicans are systematically and deliberately trying to stop millions of American citizens from voting." She also called for automatic voter registration for all Americans when they turn 18, unless they opt out, and for 20-day early voting in all states.
Directly challenging Republicans by name, which Clinton has largely avoided until now, she plunged into a partisan debate over voting rights that has roiled statehouses across the country. Democrats contend restricting voter access and registration purposely aims to suppress turnout among minority and low-income voters. Republicans say the voting changes are crucial to guard against voter fraud.
Under Walker, for example, Wisconsin requires proof of residency except for overseas and military voters. The state shortened the early voting period and increased residency requirements.
In a statement, Walker responded to the criticism leveled by the Democratic candidate: "Hillary Clinton's rejection of efforts to make it easier to vote and harder to cheat not only defies logic, but the will of the majority of Americans. Once again, Hillary Clinton's extreme views are far outside the mainstream."
Clinton said that in New Jersey, Christie had vetoed a bill to extend early voting. She said as Florida's governor, Bush had conducted a "deeply flawed" purge of eligible voters, by having the names of people who were mistakenly thought to be felons removed from voting rolls.
Perry, who announced his presidential campaign earlier Thursday, approved laws in Texas that discriminated against minority voters, Clinton said.
Christie, at a stop in New Hampshire Friday, said, "Secretary Clinton doesn't know the first thing about voting rights in New Jersey ... or in the other states that she attacked." He said she just wants "an opportunity to commit greater acts [of] voter fraud around the country."
Perry, speaking with Fox News on Friday morning, defended voter ID laws.
"When I got on the airline to come up here yesterday I had to show my photo ID. Now, Hillary Clinton may not have had to show a photo ID to get onto an airplane in a long time," he quipped. "The people of the state of Texas is who she's taking on. Because that was a law that was passed by the people of the state of Texas. She just went into my home state and dissed every person who supports having an identification to either get onto an airplane or to vote."
Perry declared his presidential campaign Thursday. Bush, Walker and Christie have not yet formally announced a 2016 bid, though Bush's announcement is set for June 15.

Death Plunge: ISIS throws gay men off buildings under guise of Sharia law

The Islamic State has released a series of horrifying photos showing blindfolded men tossed head-first off a building because, ISIS claimed, they were gay.
In photos obtained by the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), ISIS militants are shown publicly executing the unidentified men for violating Sharia law.
A crowd of spectators, including children, was gathered below the 100-foot building in Mosul as the men were held by their ankles and then sent plunging to their deaths. The photos were believed to be recent.
The photos were released by ISIS on Wednesday via social media and in a report by the terror group entitled, “Implementation of the Punishment of Those Who Have Committed Acts of Homosexuality” on the jihadist online forum Shumoukh Al-Islam, according to the research group.
Warning: extremely graphic images
The terror group also recently has employed “flirt squads,” in which militants pose as homosexuals in an attempt to lure gay men out into the open for death by public execution.
“ISIS wants the Muslim world to know that it is executing gays because it displays their credentials as enforcers of Sharia law,” Ryan Mauro, a national security analyst for The Clarion Project told FoxNews.com. “There is widespread anti-homosexual sentiment in the Muslim world because of the belief that Sharia requires the execution of gays. Homosexuals are often not only seen as harming themselves but as dire threats to society as a whole.”
The extremist group’s hatred of gays has been widely known, with reports of public executions coming as early as last December.
In recent months, ISIS has publicly executed men accused of homosexuality in both Iraq and Syria by not only throwing them off tall buildings, but by burning them alive or stoning them to death. The accused are often shot if they happen to survive the brutal methods, according to MEMRI.
“You won't see a significant backlash to ISIS' crimes because there is no gay rights movement in the Muslim world and the gay rights advocates in the West are usually silent when it comes to persecution overseas,” Mauro said. “From ISIS' perspective, they only stand to gain from executing gays and telling the world about it.”
Horrified activists in Syria have said in recent reports that ISIS fighters have taken their intolerance to a new low. Photos on social media show the doomed, blindfolded men being hugged just before they are executed.
"ISIS has never forgiven one person," Abu Mohammed Hussam, of the activist group Raqqa is Being Slaughtered Silently said to FoxNews.com in May. “They kill people and then say... God will forgive. They hug the men to show the people who are watching that ISIS is not at fault."
In addition to homosexuality, ISIS considers several so-called offenses punishable by execution including blasphemy and consorting with the enemy. The Islamic State also publicly stoned a woman to death after she was accused of adultery.

US considering harder stance on Russia, report says

Putin sees that Obama's words 'mean nothing.

The White House is reportedly considering new ways to discourage Russia from meddling in Europe, in what some officials are saying is an updated version to Cold War-era containment.
The Wall Street Journal reports the approach involves beefing up militaries of allies and potential partners and weeding out corrupt governments, which Russia could potentially exploit to gain more influence.
Administration officials also want to expand NATO’s reach to limit Moscow’s orbit. Although including Ukraine or Georgia in the organization remains off the table, the Pentagon would be open to consider the small Balkan country of Montenegro to solidify its ties with the West and to show that Russia does not have veto power over alliance expansion.
The latest policy talks comes as President Barack Obama meets with world powers in Germany, where he is expected to push the topic of more Russian sanctions as the tension in Ukraine escalates even further.
U.S. officials have acknowledged that the latest sanctions have not made President Vladimir Putin change his ways, and they have voiced concerns about escalating violence in Ukraine and the use of heavy artillery that was supposed to be restricted by the cease-fire deal.
“It’s clear the sanctions are working on the Russian economy, but what is not apparent is that that effect on his economy is deterring Putin from following the course that was evidenced in Crimea last year,” said Defense Secretary Ash Carter, noting that Russian aggression would be “an enduring challenge.”
Officials say the long-term measures being discussed stem from Moscow not backing down after its territorial grab in Ukraine last year. The measures would include increasing training for European allies to resist Russia’s training of surrogate forces and conducting surprise border exercises.
The Pentagon is also drafting plans for where to position different stocks of military equipment for use in a crisis or for an advance in training exercises, the newspaper reports. That would entail an increase presence of U.S. troops in the region. However, Washington is still opposed to rebuild troop formations in Europe.
U.S. officials have acknowledged that there are different views between Europe and NATO on how to approach Russia’s aggression. Gen. Martin Dempsey told The Wall Street Journal in an interview that Russia has a whole host of capabilities to threaten its neighbors.
Dempsey said the U.S. must work with its European allies to fend off Russia’s pressure.
Others within the Obama administration do not necessarily agree how powerful Russia is.
The Journal, citing current and former officials, reports Obama is more skeptical that Moscow represents a long-term challenge and is wary of making Putin a bigger enemy than it has to be.
Secretary of State John Kerry said after a meeting with Putin last month that the two sides will work on issues of common interest.
Officials within the Pentagon reportedly have begun using harsher military terms such as deterrence instead of reassurance, the newspaper reports.
Some officials believe the U.S. must counter Russian moves in Europe. Others believe the U.S. should weaken Russia’s ability to use economic leverage to gain influence in eastern and southern Euroep.
If the U.S. can strengthen democratic institutions, professionalize militaries and curb corruption in countries, The Kremlin will have fewer ways to extend its influence, officials say.
The latest U.S. approach to expanding the NATO alliance can demonstrate the U.S. has more allies and Moscow has few friends than it believes. Such approach puts Montenegro in the spotlight of such debate.
Montenegro defense minister Milica Pejanovic-Djurisic said in an interview in her country that it is ready to join NATO.
“In the face of all the instability that is appearing in the East of Europe, strengthening security in the Balkans is part of the solution for the overall situation we are all in right now,” she said.

Overall, the U.S. main goal is to help restore post-Cold War security in Europe.

H. Cartoon

Attention, pundits: If the polls confirm Hillary’s slide, it must be true

The conventional wisdom on Hillary Clinton turned in an instant.
But the evidence was hidden in plain view.
For many weeks now, it’s been clear that Hillary has had an awful campaign launch, that she has been submerged by an array of negative stories, and that her message has been underwater as well.
But when I’ve brought this up—on the air, in print, at social gatherings—what I’ve heard again and again is: It doesn’t matter. It’s not a problem. This is media-bubble stuff. She’s emerged unscathed. It’s not hurting her in the polls.
But now it is.
The pundit class is so poll-addicted that if something doesn’t show up in fav/unfav, or right track/wrong track, or cares-about-people-like-you, it didn’t happen. I know that journalists were just as aware as I was that Hillary has been hammered since the day her listening tour began. But most of them couldn’t believe their own eyes because, well, it wasn’t there in the data.
Of course, polls can be a lagging indicator, and the barrage had to be chipping away at Clinton’s image—especially among independents. And that’s exactly what happened.
In the CNN poll, 57 percent say she’s not honest and trustworthy, compared with 42 percent who say she is.
In the Washington Post/ABC poll, 52 percent say she’s not honest and trustworthy, compared with 41 percent who think she is.
Now polls bounce around, of course, but those are troubling numbers.
They show the combined impact of the private emails scandal, the ethical questions swirling around the Clinton Foundation, the six-figure speaking fees, and one more thing: the constant avoidance of the press.
It’s not that people are up in arms about journalists getting stiffed. We aren’t very popular either.
But by barely responding to questions about the negative stories, she ceded the turf to all the damaging headlines. Her operation seemed antiseptic and orchestrated. And by having bland conversations with small groups of voters, Hillary made no competing news. She left a vacuum filled by all the financial and email stories.
Perhaps that will change after Hillary does her Roosevelt Island kickoff in New York next week. But impressions about trustworthiness are hard to change, especially with a figure as well known as Hillary Clinton.
There is some truth to the spin that Hillary was always going to slip in the polls when she descended from the lofty perch of secretary of State to the grubby reality of campaigning. But that doesn’t fully explain her slide on the honesty question in just the last couple of months.
Most political journalists are smart. They can see when a presidential candidate is struggling. And they don’t need the latest pollster’s survey to report what they’re seeing and hearing.

Obama struggling to sway Dems on trade push, as unions crank up opposition

President Obama, despite launching a full-court press to woo skeptical Democrats, is struggling to cobble together the votes for his trade agenda in the House -- as union leaders ramp up their own pressure campaign to kill it. 
The so-called fast-track trade bill -- which would limit Congress' ability to amend future trade deals negotiated by the White House -- cleared the Senate last month with the help of 14 Democratic senators.
But the White House faces an even bigger lift in the House, where progressive lawmakers aligned with labor groups are urging their colleagues to oppose the Trade Promotion Authority bill. The issue has flipped the script in Congress, with Republican leaders backing it and rank-and-file Democrats largely opposed. Democratic leaders remain officially undecided, as the president fights for the 218 votes needed to pass.
House GOP leaders have said they are confident they'll be able to push TPA through this month. But even Speaker John Boehner acknowledged this week that supporters are still short of the necessary votes.
"I don't think we're quite there yet," the Ohio Republican said Wednesday in an interview on Fox News Radio's "Kilmeade & Friends," adding that he expects to see TPA on the floor in the next couple weeks and predicting it will eventually pass.
While Republican leaders expect most of their caucus to vote for fast-track, they stand to lose several dozen votes and are relying on House Democrats to make up the difference.

More on this...

• Rep. Ryan working with Dems to approve Obama trade deal

"The president could have done more over the past couple of years to bring Democrats along, but the unions, frankly, have outflanked him," Boehner said.
"Fast-track" is a major priority for the president, who hopes to soon complete work on the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a 12-nation free-trade agreement that would need to be ratified by Congress. Obama has been burning up the phone lines and top administration officials have lobbied Hill Democrats in person during repeated briefings.
While House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi remains officially undecided on TPA, she has not whipped her members against the bill.
But her members are facing heavy pressure from labor groups, including public criticism by AFL-CIO chief Richard Trumka.
The AFL-CIO has been particularly critical of California Democratic Rep. Ami Bera, who has come out in favor of fast-track. The group is running a television ad against the two-term lawmaker, accusing him of being willing "to do anything to keep his job, including shipping your job overseas."
In a statement, Trumka said the ad is "a message to Ami Bera and every other politician that the trade debate is enormously important to working families ... we expect our representatives in Congress to vote against rubber stamping a corporate-driven trade policy that delivers extra profits for global corporations at the expense of good-paying jobs for working people."
The pressure, though, is starting to stir a backlash among Democrats.
"I think labor is going a little overboard," Rep. Cedric Richmond, a Louisiana Democrat, told reporters Wednesday. "The more Trumka talks, the more I lean yes."
House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer, D-Md., earlier this week said he and Pelosi have asked "our friends in labor to have respect for the decisions of members," noting that Democratic lawmakers have been strong supporters of workers. The Maryland Democrat has said he is still undecided on the measure.
According to a whip list being maintained by The Hill, 112 House Democrats oppose fast-track, while 60 won't say which way they are voting.
Rep. Jim Himes, a Connecticut Democrat being lobbied by Obama, said the president believes he has the support of 20 House Democrats, according to the Wall Street Journal.
The exact number of Democratic votes that will be needed depends on how many Republican defections there are.
For their part, GOP criticism of fast-track has involved arguments ranging from an alleged encroachment on legislative power -- TPA would guarantee an up-or-down vote on a free-trade deal with no amendments -- to fears that future deals could include immigration provisions. Republican leaders have done their best to assuage those concerns by stressing that the streamlined negotiating authority lasts six years and will benefit a future administration, not just the current one.
"We've got some Republicans that don't trust the president to do anything and don't want to give him any authority at all for anything," Boehner told Fox News host Brian Kilmeade. "This isn't about the president, frankly. This is about the country."
The business lobby and GOP-aligned political groups are also pitching in to help Boehner and other leaders limit Republican fallout. The American Action Network on Thursday announced a $900,000 ad blitz in favor of TPA.
"If we don't pass a bill that allows America more access to trade, then China will have a bigger share of the market and keep rigging international trade," the group's president, Mike Shields, said in a statement announcing the campaign. "It's a question of who you want to lead: the U.S. or China."

Medicaid enrollment under ObamaCare soars, raising cost concerns

Several states that chose to expand Medicaid eligibility under ObamaCare now are facing deadline pressure to pay for it, the result of more signups than anticipated -- and, a looming reduction in how much of the bill the federal government will cover. 
At least seven of the 29 states (and the District of Columbia) that expanded coverage have experienced significantly higher-than-expected enrollment. The expansion of Medicaid, the government health care program for low-income people, now allows most low-income adults making up to 138 percent of the federal poverty level to qualify. An estimated 1.4 million more people than expected have signed up in those seven states since enrollment opened in October 2013 -- with Illinois, Kentucky and Washington state more than doubling their projected numbers.
The experience is serving as a cautionary tale for states, including Florida, still debating whether to take the plunge and green-light the Medicaid expansion, which is optional.
The enrollment interest is definitely there -- but so is a ballooning taxpayer bill.
Florida Republican state Rep. Paul Renner told the Florida Times-Union he worries about the potential, long-term effects expanding Medicaid might have on the state budget.
"It's really not a free proposition for us to expand coverage here," Renner told the newspaper. "We're going to have to give up things that are very important, like education."
Right now, federal funds cover 100 percent of the costs through 2016 for people now eligible for insurance through the Medicaid expansion.
However, the federal commitment decreases to 95 percent in 2017, 94 percent in 2018, 93 percent in 2019 and 90 percent in 2020 and beyond.
Florida is fiercely divided over the potential expansion, and Republican Gov. Rick Scott -- a former supporter, now foe, of the move -- told Politico it would cost his state $5 billion over a decade. A new, Senate-approved plan calls for using federal money to buy private insurance for poor residents who agree to work or attend school and share in the coverage costs -- it's unclear whether the federal government would go along.
States that already expanded enrollment and are seeing a surge, meanwhile, are trying to deal with the challenge. In Washington state, officials are optimistic they can meet budget costs, despite the growing rolls and the prospect of less federal money in the coming years.
"The decision ... was a bipartisan decision," Washington state Medicaid Director MaryAnne Lindeblad told FoxNews.com on Tuesday. "It has been an unqualified success. Expansion enrollment surpassed our 2018 projections within months of implementation."
Lindeblad added:  "Our state saved about $350 million in state funds the first 18 months of expansion, and even with the move to a 90/10 match level, we continue to project continued savings in the out years."
The Affordable Care Act, or ObamaCare, initially enacted the Medicaid expansion for all 50 states. It was expected to insure roughly 17 million more Americans that way.
However, a June 2012 Supreme Court ruling found the mandate unconstitutional, which then gave states the option to expand Medicaid.
With 29 states and D.C. opting to take the federal money to expand Medicaid through ObamaCare, 12 million Americans have signed up since open enrollment started nearly two years ago.
The other states, largely with either a Republican governor or GOP-controlled legislature, have said no.
In Illinois, more than 540,000 people have enrolled under the Medicaid expansion, nearly 342,000 more than projected for the first year, according to state records.
In Washington state, roughly 530,000 adults have enrolled in Apple Health Medicaid, more than double the 245,000 projected in 2012, which has increased total enrollment in the state program to 1.8 million, a state official told FoxNews.com.
Kentucky estimated that 161,055 newly eligible residents would enroll in the Medicaid expansion by June 30, and enrollment is already at roughly 375,000, according to state records.
As a result, Kentucky cut its uninsured rate more than any other state except Arkansas, according to a 2014 Gallup survey, with Washington state coming in fourth.
"Can we afford not to do this?" Audrey Haynes, secretary of Kentucky's Cabinet for Health and Family Services, which made the early projection, asked during a recent interview with Politico.
Colorado, Maryland, Michigan and Ohio also have reported enrollment exceeded projections.
A major ObamaCare objective was providing health coverage for more Americans so that others will pay less for the uninsured, including the cost of expensive but sometimes unnecessary urgent-care visits.
A Department of Health and Human Services report shows that the ObamaCare and Medicaid expansion as of last year had reduced the cost of "uncompensated" hospital visits by $7.4 billion, or 21 percent.
Heritage Action, the conservative group that often leads the charge to repeal ObamaCare, suggested states that expanded Medicaid should have expected the double-whammy of less federal money and increased costs associated with increased enrollment.
"From our vantage point, states that accepted [federal money] made a mistake," group spokesman Dan Holler told FoxNews.com. "But there's no way to really fix this except to get rid of the law that created the expansion."

US believes China behind cybersecurity breach affecting at least 4M federal employees

Hackers based in China are believed to be behind a massive data breach that could have compromised the personal data of at least 4 million current and former federal employees, U.S. officials said late Thursday.
Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, told the Associated Press that investigators suspect the cyberattack was carried out by the Chinese. She said the breach was "yet another indication of a foreign power probing successfully and focusing on what appears to be data that would identify people with security clearances."
If confirmed, the incident would be the second major breach by Beijing in less than a year. A spokesman for the Chinese Embassy in Washington called such accusations "not responsible and counterproductive."
"Cyber attack is a global threat which could [sic] only be addressed by international cooperation based on mutual trust and mutual respect," Zhu Haiquan said in a statement late Thursday. "We hope all countries in the world can work constructively together to address cyber security issues, push forward the formulation of international rules and norms in ... cyberspace, in order to build a peaceful, secure, open and cooperative cyberspace."
On Friday, a spokesman for China's foreign ministry said the allegations were "irresponsible and unscientific." Hong Lei said at a regularly scheduled news briefing that Beijing hoped that the U.S. would be "less suspicious and stop making any unverified allegations, but show more trust and participate more in cooperation."
China routinely dismisses any allegation of its official involvement in cyberattacks on foreign targets, while invariably noting that it is often the target of hacking attacks and calling for greater international cooperation in combating cybercrime.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued a statement confirming the breach Thursday, saying that it had concluded at the beginning of May that data from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and the Interior Department had been compromised.
DHS said its intrusion detection system, known as EINSTEIN, which screens federal Internet traffic to identify potential cyber threats, identified the hack of OPM's systems and the Interior Department's data center, which is shared by other federal agencies.
It was unclear why the EINSTEIN system didn't detect the breach until after so many records had been copied and removed.
"DHS is continuing to monitor federal networks for any suspicious activity and is working aggressively with the affected agencies to conduct investigative analysis to assess the extent of this alleged intrusion," the statement said.
The OPM, which acts as the human resources department for the federal government and conducts more than 90 percent of federal background checks, said in a statement that it detected a “cyber-intrusion” into its systems in April.
A well-placed intelligence source told Fox News that names, addresses and social security information were compromised, and that the breach involved an "advanced persistent threat" designed to harvest information covertly without crippling systems.
Sources told Fox News that the investigators were considering the possibility the attack was linked to another attack in October involving the White House. Fox News has also learned that the attack bears similarities to those carried out by nation-states, not by criminal syndicates.
The OPM announced Thursday that it was sending notifications to approximately 4 million individuals whose personally identifiable information (PII) may have been accessed. However, the agency acknowledged that more individuals could have been affected.
“Since the investigation is on-going, additional PII exposures may come to light; in that case, OPM will conduct additional notifications as necessary,” the agency said in a statement.
“Protecting our Federal employee data from malicious cyber incidents is of the highest priority at OPM,” OPM Director Katherine Archuleta said in a statement. “We take very seriously our responsibility to secure the information stored in our systems, and in coordination with our agency partners, our experienced team is constantly identifying opportunities to further protect the data with which we are entrusted.”
The agency advised those affected to monitor their bank accounts for unusual activity, and to request a credit report along with other safeguards against fraud.
The Associated Press, which first reported the breach, cited officials saying that the breach could potentially affect every federal agency. One key question is whether intelligence agency employee information was stolen.
"This is an attack against the nation," said Ken Ammon, chief strategy officer of software security company Xceedium, who added that the stolen information could be used to impersonate or blackmail federal employees with access to sensitive information.
The FBI said in a statement that it was working with interagency partners to investigate the breach, while the DHS said it was continuing to monitor federal networks for suspicious activity and is "working aggressively" to investigate the extent of the breach.
Responding to news of the breach, Congressman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., called on the Senate to pass cybersecurity legislation passed by the House earlier in the year.
"This bill will not be a panacea for the broad cyber threats we face, but it is one important piece of armor in our defenses that must be put in place – now,” Schiff said.
In November, a former Department of Homeland Security official disclosed another cyberbreach that compromised the private files of more than 25,000 DHS workers and thousands of other federal employees.