Spokane votes to remove Rachel Dolezal from police commission

The Spokane City Council has voted to remove Rachel Dolezal, the former Spokane NAACP president, from the city's volunteer police ombudsman commission.
The 6-0 vote came Thursday afternoon, KREM-TV reported.
On Wednesday, Mayor David Condon and Spokane Council President Ben Stuckart called for Dolezal and two others to step down from the five-member commission after an independent investigation found the three commissioners acted improperly and violated government rules.
The evidence and interviews confirmed workplace harassment allegations and "a pattern of misconduct" by Dolezal, the chairwoman, and two other commissioners, the report said. The council accepted the resignation of one of those commissioners and voted to give the other more time to respond.
Dolezal, 37, resigned as head of the NAACP's Spokane chapter this week after her parents said she was a white woman pretending to be black.
In May, the city hired lawyers to investigate whistleblower complaints filed by an unidentified city employee who staffed the police commission. The report said Dolezal abused her authority by trying to supervise the Office of Police Ombudsman personnel and she exhibited bias against law enforcement, despite rules requiring fairness and impartiality.
Dolezal's duties as commissioner and as NAACP president were in conflict because she actively engaged in protests of officer-involved shootings, the report also said.
In a statement Wednesday, Dolezal said she and the other two commissioners did nothing wrong and had reviewed their actions with lawyers.
Dolezal resigned her NAACP leadership post after her parents accused her of posing as black despite her Czech, German and Swedish ancestry. When asked by NBC's Matt Lauer earlier this week if she is an "an African-American woman," Dolezal said: "I identify as black."

House OKs Obama trade agenda on 2nd try, bill heads to Senate

The House on Thursday approved a key plank of President Obama's trade agenda after the push nearly imploded amid Democratic resistance last week, sending the bill to the Senate where it still faces an uncertain fate.
The 218-208 vote nevertheless marked a significant victory for Obama and his pro-trade supporters in both parties. The vote came after Obama huddled Wednesday evening with congressional allies to try to craft a way forward.
The bill would specifically give the president so-called "fast-track" authority to approve trade deals, which Obama wants to seal a 12-nation pact involving Japan and 11 other countries bordering the Pacific Ocean.
The mechanics of the vote are some of the most complicated in recent memory, in a legislative body notorious for esoteric procedural maneuvers. The vote failed in the House last week because another measure it was attached to was defeated by a coalition of Democrats and Republicans.
It was labor-aligned Democrats, in particular, who caused the biggest headaches for the White House. Democrats have fought the measure for months, for fear it would lead to the loss of U.S. jobs overseas. "Let's kill this donkey once and for all," Rep. Donna Edwards, D-Md., said before the latest vote.
On Thursday, House leaders moved to vote only on the "fast-track" measure, known as Trade Promotion Authority. The measure on the House floor would give Obama authority to negotiate global trade deals that Congress can approve or reject, but not change. Other recent presidents have had the same prerogative Obama seeks.
With the bill's approval, it heads back to the Senate where lawmakers would have to approve it in tact in order to send it to Obama's desk.
The issue has led to unusual alliances and factions on Capitol Hill, with some Tea Party-aligned Republicans and labor-aligned Democrats joining forces to resist it -- while pro-trade Democrats and GOP congressional leaders side with the White House.
The House debate and vote Thursday marked the beginning of an extraordinary rescue operation that the White House and GOP leaders in Congress hope will result in passage of both bills by the end of next week. The other bill, not addressed on Thursday, would renew an expiring program of aid for workers who lose their jobs because of imports.
"We are committed to ensuring both ... get votes in the House and Senate and are sent to the president for signature," House Speaker John Boehner and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said in a joint statement issued Wednesday in an attempt to reassure pro-trade Democrats whose votes will be needed.
House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi had no comment on the day's events. The California Democrat joined the revolt last week in which her party's rank-and-file lawmakers helped vote down the aid package that they customarily support, calculating their actions would prevent the entire trade package from reaching Obama's desk.
Supporters of the president's agenda argue that the United States must stay involved in international trade, in part because otherwise, countries like China will write the rules to their own advantage. The administration's immediate negotiating objective is a round of talks involving 12 countries in Asia, North America and South America.
Organized labor and other opponents of international trade deals say they cost thousands of American workers their jobs by shifting employment to foreign countries with low wages, poor working conditions and lax environmental standards.
Officials in Congress said Boehner and McConnell hope to have both the trade and the aid legislation to the president by the time lawmakers begin a scheduled vacation at the end of next week.

Sources: Clinton confidant who sent Libya memos paid $200G by Brock network

The Clinton confidant under scrutiny on Capitol Hill over detailed Libya memos he sent to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told lawmakers earlier this week he has been pulling in $200,000 a year from Clinton ally David Brock's media operation, congressional sources tell FoxNews.com.
The figure is far higher than initially reported.
While the payments to Sidney Blumenthal may not reflect any apparent conflict of interest, his work with Brock's liberal advocacy and media groups was a focus of his high-profile deposition on Tuesday before the House Benghazi committee. Republicans' rationale for the questioning was that his financial and political interests are important context, at a time when he was sending high-level guidance to Clinton.
Politico.com first reported that Republicans grilled Blumenthal on his work for Brock's groups. But while the report said Blumenthal was making more than $10,000 a month, congressional sources say he acknowledged during the deposition he actually had a $200,000-a-year contract.
The money was in addition to the $10,000 a month he was getting for work with the Clinton Foundation.
"He was getting, from Clinton, Inc., $320,000 a year," one source told FoxNews.com.
The Brock-founded groups are not actually part of the Clinton empire, though Brock is a Clinton ally. The source said Blumenthal has been working with Media Matters, American Bridge and Correct the Record. Another congressional source, though, told FoxNews.com the contract was specifically with Media Matters.
Though it's unclear exactly what Blumenthal was paid to do, Politico reported his work entailed giving high-level strategy and messaging guidance, and the Benghazi debate was likely part of that. The groups above have busily defended then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton from GOP broadsides.
Emails related to this work surfaced in the package of documents delivered to the Benghazi committee ahead of Tuesday's session -- emails that weren't part of the initial package of documents handed over by the State Department.
One of those emails to Clinton linked several Media Matters posts on Benghazi, essentially defending the State Department.
FoxNews.com is told one of them read: "Got all this done, complete refutation on Libya smear." The email said, "Philippe can circulate these links." Philippe Reines was a senior adviser to Clinton.
Asked for comment on the deposition, and on Blumenthal's payments, Brock blasted the committee's latest inquiry.
"Despite the fact that the conclusions of nine congressional committee reports and the findings from an independent review board don't support his political agenda, Chairman [Trey] Gowdy keeps doubling down and expanding his taxpayer funded fishing expedition in the hopes of undermining Secretary Clinton's presidential campaign," Brock told FoxNews.com in an email. "This week's spectacle is the latest proof that he is failing."
FoxNews.com has reached out to Blumenthal's attorney for comment.
Blumenthal's deposition lasted most of the day on Tuesday. FoxNews.com is told the Brock work "came up," though the committee did not spend hours grilling him about it.
The committee sought to interview Blumenthal over his role sending detailed memos on Libya to Clinton in 2011 and 2012.   
The New York Times first reported on Blumenthal's memos and said the information was coming from "business associates" Blumenthal was advising, including former CIA official Tyler Drumheller.
Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., chairman of the committee, told Fox News earlier this week that the memos themselves were actually sent by Drumheller. He said Blumenthal didn't write them, and was just passing on the "unvetted, uncorroborated, unsubstantiated intelligence."
After the deposition on Tuesday, Blumenthal said he answered every question over the course of nine hours. He said the emails were mostly "old news" and hopes he cleared up "misconceptions."
He said he wasn't involved in any of the administration's decision-making, and attributed his appearance before the committee to "politics."
Democrats were fuming over Tuesday's session and have called on Gowdy to release the transcript of the deposition. Further, they say the latest documents reveal no "smoking gun" about the Benghazi attacks, which killed four Americans.
[I]n fact, they hardly relate to Benghazi at all," Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., top Democrat on the committee, said in a statement.
FoxNews.com is told Blumenthal only disclosed his payments from Brock's groups on Tuesday after he was specifically asked about them -- and that he didn't initially disclose them when asked about his sources of income.

Cartoon

Southern Baptists urged to reject any laws legalizing gay marriage

Prepare for civil disobedience.
That’s the message one prominent pastor is sending to some 16 million members of the Southern Baptist Convention.
Jack Graham, pastor of Prestonwood Baptist Church in Texas, said American Christians should be prepared for massive fallout if the Supreme Court legalizes same-sex unions.
“We want to stay in the system,” Graham told me in a telephone interview. “We want to work in the system. We want to support our government. We want to obey its laws.”
But.
“But there’s a coming a day, I believe, that many Christians personally and churches corporately will need to practice civil disobedience on this issue.”
The foundation for such a possibility was laid Wednesday morning in Columbus, Ohio where the current and former presidents of the nation’s largest Protestant denomination sent a strong message to the country.

What would it look like if 16 million Southern Baptists engaged in civil disobedience?

“We strongly encourage all Southern Baptist pastors, leaders, educators and churches to openly reject any mandated legal definition of marriage and to use their influence to affirm God’s design for life and relationships,” the statement declared.
While affirming their love for all people – regardless of sexual orientation, the former Southern Baptist presidents said the “cannot and will not affirm the moral acceptability of homosexual behavior or any behavior that deviates from God’s design for marriage.”
“Our first duty is to love and obey God, not man,” they emphatically stated.
Click here to join Todd on Facebook for conservative news and conversation!
Graham, who was elected president in 2003 and 2004, was among those signing the statement. In all – some 35 years of Southern Baptist leadership was represented.
He told me Christians must be prepared for the aftermath of a court decision that legalizes gay marriage.
“Many people must be willing to count the cost on this,” he said.
So what would it look like if 16 million Southern Baptists engaged in civil disobedience?
“I hope we never live to find out what that looks like,” Graham told me. “There are many Christians today who are preparing if necessary to go to jail.”
I’ve known Pastor Graham for years and I’ve never known him to use hyperbole. His words and his predictions are sobering. And he hopes the Supreme Court and Washington, D.C. hear what Southern Baptists are saying.
“We want them to know our voices will be heard,” he declared.
The issue of same-sex marriage has already been addressed by attendees at the denomination’s annual meeting. Delegates, known as messengers, approved a resolution opposing gay marriage and Southern Baptist Convention President Ronnie Floyd delivering a fiery sermon vowing not to obey the court’s decision.
Graham said they are calling on Southern Baptist business owners and public sector workers to stand together as well – knowing full well they could lose their jobs and careers.
“We are concerned about Southern Baptist Christians in the marketplace – in the media and corporate world,” he said.
He related the story of a deacon in his church who politely declined participation in his company’s “diversity day.”
“He’s already been sent to human resources and he received a semi-threatening letter from the CEO,” Graham said. “It’s already happening – the punishment – the discrimination.”
Denominational leaders are warning churches and Christian schools to be prepared for potential lawsuits from LGBT activists as well as the threat of losing tax exempt status.
“The punch that is most deadly is the one you don’t see coming,” Graham said. “You need to see this coming. It’s coming your way. It’s coming to a town, a city, a university, a college, a church near you,” he said.

California budget deal to make state first in nation to offer health care to undocumented kids

 A budget deal between Gov. Jerry Brown and legislative leaders would make California the first in the nation to offer state-subsidized health care to children who are in the country illegally.
The $115.4 billion agreement announced Tuesday is expected to win easy approval from the Senate and Assembly before the fiscal year begins July 1, and its immigrant health care provisions were touted by its backers as a necessity in the face of federal inaction.
"While Washington dithers because they can't get things done, we need immigration reform," Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de Leon, D-Los Angeles. "The reality is many of these children, and they are children, require some kind of health care and they receive it in the emergency room.
The cost to taxpayers would be $40 million in the new fiscal year and grow to $132 million a year once fully implemented, numbers that had Republicans objecting and warning that it won't help immigrants get access to doctors because of the shortage of providers who accept Medi-Cal, the state's health program for the poor.
Anti-immigration advocates said it was yet another move from Brown — like a bill providing driver's licenses that took effect this year — that is "extremely generous" toward people who enter the country illegally.
"Gov. Brown continues to sign laws that incentivize more illegal immigration," said Joe Guzzardi, spokesman for Californians for Population Stabilization. "I can't really see what reason there would be not to come to California. I can get a job, I can get tuition, I can now get medical care for my children."
But the California Immigrant Policy Center called the move a "ray of hope" for many in the state.
"California will take a key first step toward recognizing that health care truly is a human right," the group's Executive Director Reshma Shamasunder said in a statement.
The budget deal also sends billions of dollars more to public schools and universities, adds spaces for state-funded child care and preschool, and creates the state's first income tax credit for the working poor.
The revised spending plan is far closer to Brown's $115 billion proposal in May than the $117.5 billion version approved a day earlier by the Democratic-controlled Legislature. It adds $61 million in spending above his May plan.
"All in all, I think the people of California can be proud of the work that's been done," Brown said.
Brown also announced he is calling two special sessions to address how California pays for roads, highways and other infrastructure and Medi-Cal. There is a $5.7 billion annual backlog in road repairs, the administration said.
But Republicans warned that the special sessions could result in new taxes on gasoline, cigarettes and health care. "Given the $14 billion of unanticipated tax revenues the state has just received, it is difficult to understand why their starting point is to impose billions of dollars in additional taxes on hard-working Californians," said Senate Minority Leader Bob Huff, R-Diamond Bar.
Legislative Democrats had sought to restore spending on a host of social welfare programs that were cut during the recession, and they pushed to expand support for the neediest in California as the state enjoys a surplus. Their proposed budget added $749 million in new spending.
Under the compromise announced Tuesday, Brown agreed to keep some of those programs such as boosting the number of state-subsidized child care slots, giving in-home support workers a raise, and expanding health coverage to children regardless of their legal status.
The governor said he was able to fund those programs without adding to state spending by finding savings in a variety of other programs, including fixing an accounting error in health spending.
Still, advocates who had pressured the Democratic governor to expand programs were disappointed. Brown rejected proposals to allow child care workers to unionize, kept a cap on welfare payments meant to discourage low-income women from having additional children, and rejected Medi-Cal payment increases to doctors and dentists.
"This budget doesn't do anything to stop punishing poor children," said Mike Herald, legislative advocate with the Western Center on Law and Poverty.

Donald Trump campaign fires back: We paid to use Neil Young's song

Neil Young isn't too happy with Donald Trump. 
The New York real estate mogul arrived on stage at his campaign kickoff announcement Tuesday as the sounds of Young's "Rockin' In The Free World" blared through the atrium at Trump Tower in midtown Manhattan.
The only problem? Young blasted the Republican candidate following his announcement, with the rocker claiming Trump didn't have permission to use the music.
"Donald Trump was not authorized to use 'Rockin' In The Free World' in his presidential candidacy announcement," a statement from Young's team released late Tuesday read. "Neil Young, a Canadian citizen, is a supporter of Bernie Sanders for President of the United States of America."
However, when FOX411 reached Trump's campaign manager for comment, he sang a very different tune.
“Through a licensing agreement with ASCAP, Mr. Trump’s campaign paid for and obtained the legal right to use Neil Young’s recording of ‘Rockin' In The Free World,'" Trump's Campaign Manager Corey Lewandowski told us. "Nevertheless, there are plenty of other songs to choose from. Despite Neil’s differing political views, Mr. Trump likes him very much.”
It's not the first time -- or even the first time this year -- a candidate has been chastised by a musician for use of a tune. When Marco Rubio played the electronic hit "Something New" at a rally, the duo behind the song spoke out almost immediately, declaring Rubio hadn't obtained permission to use the song and they "don't want to be affiliated with a particular party during the upcoming presidential race."
Similarly, back in 2012, when Mitt Romney played Silversun Pickups' "Panic Switch," the band sent the Republican candidate a cease and desist letter and guitarist Brian Aubert declared, "We don't like people going behind our backs, using our music without asking, and we don't like the Romney campaign."
Plus, there can be a big cost associated with using a hit song to promote a campaign.
John McCain said in 2008, though he was a huge ABBA fan, he gave up on using one of their tunes at his campaign events.
"It's more difficult to play 'Let's Take A Chance On Me' than I thought," McCain said at the time, according to Reuters. "It gets expensive in a big hurry and if you're not careful you can alienate some Swedes."

How did federal agency get $500M from stimulus? ‘We misled Congress,’ ex-official says

On paper, it sounded like a true government success story: The Social Security Administration in September opened a "state-of-the-art" data center in Maryland, housing wage and benefit information on almost every American, "on time and under budget."
However, six years after Congress approved a half-billion dollars for the project -- the largest building project funded by the 2009 stimulus -- a whistleblower says the center was built on a lie.
"We misled Congress," Michael Keegan, a former associate commissioner who worked on the project, told FoxNews.com.
Officials originally claimed they needed the $500 million to replace their entire, 30-year-old National Computer Center located at agency headquarters in Woodlawn, Md. But Keegan says they overstated their case -- the agency has no plans to replace the center, and only moved a fraction of the NCC to the new site.
Keegan's claims were first heard last week at a Senate Homeland Security Committee hearing, where he testified on alleged retaliation he faced as a whistleblower. Though two watchdog agencies previously discarded his complaints, documents submitted to Congress and obtained by FoxNews.com along with congressional records appear to back him up, at least in part. They show:

1) SSA officials told Congress in 2009, and as late as 2011, they planned to "replace" the National Computer Center, using $500 million from the stimulus. 

2) That never happened. Rather, the agency built a new data center called the National Support Center, in Urbana, Md. This now houses data center functions from the National Computer Center, and is what was touted in September 2014. But the original, supposedly outdated NCC continues to operate, and hundreds still work there. And transcribed depositions from Keegan's lawsuit against the agency show top officials indeed have no plans to replace the entire NCC. 

Keegan maintains the agency didn't have to move anybody out of the NCC, and could have simply renovated the floor holding the old data center.
"The data center occupies one half of one floor in a four-story building," he told FoxNews.com. "We didn't need to build [the new center] to begin with."
Agency leaders disagree, and forged ahead. Yet the records show while officials originally talked about replacing the building, there are no plans to do so now.

'[W]e have yet to receive a coherent response from the agency as to the reasons it didn't do what it told Congress had to be done.'
- Morris Fischer, attorney for ex-SSA official

Acting Commissioner Carolyn Colvin said in a deposition she "did not" know of any plan to abandon the NCC or move all its workers to another site. Other officials echoed this statement.
"After seven months, we have yet to receive a coherent response from the agency as to the reasons it didn't do what it told Congress had to be done," Keegan's attorney Morris Fischer said.
Former SSA Commissioner Michael Astrue, who led the agency under President George W. Bush and for several years under President Obama, also said he's not sure why the building isn't being replaced entirely.
Astrue said he made the original decision to replace the NCC, toward the end of the Bush administration. He said the building was "antiquated and fraying," and was worried a disruption in payments could send "the entire economy into recession." A backup SSA center in North Carolina, he said, was not enough.
Astrue said his intention was to replace and phase out the NCC entirely, and disputed Keegan's claims that Congress was misled. He maintains the proposal was the "correct decision."
But he said he was "surprised" to learn the NCC is still in operation. He doesn't know why.
The agency's claims to Congress over the years were, at best, confusing.
In congressional hearings in 2009, SSA officials repeatedly said they planned to use stimulus funds to replace the NCC. In one April 2009 hearing, Mary Glenn-Croft, a deputy commissioner at SSA, said the funds "will help us process our increasing workloads and replace our aging National Computer Center."
But officials also occasionally referred to simply building a new "data center."
This may have given the agency just enough wiggle room.
When the Office of the Inspector General reviewed Keegan's complaints, it concluded the SSA "did not mislead" Congress to believe the NCC wouldn't be needed. At the same time, the OIG acknowledged SSA talked about "replacing" the center and "did not implicitly state" it would stay in use. (Further, while IG Patrick P. O'Carroll, Jr., oversaw the spending, he also was among those making the case for the project, telling Congress in 2009 the NCC was "rapidly approaching obsolescence.")
Like the OIG, the Office of Special Counsel last year also said they could not determine whether agency leaders misled Congress. Keegan disputes these findings.
The Social Security Administration has not yet responded to a request for comment from FoxNews.com.
The agency has said the new data center will meet SSA's "anticipated IT workloads for at least the next 20 years." The full budget for the project reportedly was about $750 million; it's unclear what the final price tag was for the "under budget" building, or what happened to the unused money.
Keegan suspects agency leaders pushed for the new building because they saw it as a "slam dunk" once word got out in 2009 about stimulus funding. "I think every IT person wants a new toy," he said, and they decided to go for "the whole ball of wax."
Of the new building, he said, "It's palatial."
Astrue, speaking with FoxNews.com, acknowledged the offer of stimulus funds prompted his agency to make the case for the building.
"That money was going to get spent one way or the other," he said, claiming the SSA project was more worthy than many others. "And Congress agreed."
Keegan's complaints are now at the center of nasty legal dispute over his treatment at the agency. As project executive for the center's construction, he said he brought his concerns to his higher-ups, but was subsequently placed under an internal probe and relieved of his duties. He said he was confined to an empty office with little or no work to do until mid-2014, when he retired early.