Trump camp says it has fired infamous strategist Roger Stone

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has fired high-profile political adviser Roger Stone, a campaign spokesperson said Saturday.
“Roger wanted to use the campaign for his own personal publicity,” the spokesman told FoxNews.com. “He has had a number of articles about him recently, and Mr. Trump wants to keep the focus of the campaign on how to Make America Great Again."
To be sure, Stone has attracted his share of publicity as a behind-the-scenes guy, starting soon after he began working on the Committee to Re-elect the President, the successful 1972 fundraising effort for Richard Nixon’s second term.
And Stone's connection to Trump, particularly his rise from TV celebrity and New York real estate tycoon to the top of the 2016 Republican presidential field, has unsurprisingly become the subject of several recent news stories.
Stone’s departure was first reported early Saturday by The Washington Post. However, Stone said several hours later that he quit the campaign on Friday night, citing in part Trump’s “provocative” battles with the news media, politicians and others.
“Your initial and still underlying message -- is a solid conservative message,” Stone writes in a letter he has made public. “In fact, it catapulted you instantly into a commanding lead in the race. …  Unfortunately, the current controversies involving personalities and provocative media fights have reached such a high volume that it has distracted attention from your platform and overwhelmed your core message. With this current direction of the candidacy, I no longer can remain involved in your campaign.”
Stone also worked on a Ronald Reagan presidential campaign.
He is considered skilled in opposition research and so-called political “dirty tricks.” Stone reportedly has a tattoo of Nixon on his back and has written or co-written at least two book including “The Man Who Killed Kennedy: The Case Against LBJ,” published in 2013.
He also reportedly was once a lobbyist for Trump.

Obama Cartoon

Getting More Stupider Everyday.

Rebel recall: Virginians told to turn in Confederate-themed license plates

Stupid Political Correct Politicians.

Virginia is targeting 1,691 license plates bearing the Confederate battle flag in a statewide recall that will replace the existing tags with new ones without the controversial image.
The Virginian-Pilot reported that it’s unclear how quickly the flag tags will disappear from state highways now that the plates are being recalled and replaced following a federal judge’s ruling Thursday lifting a 2001 injunction that allowed the image.
“We’re working as quickly as possible to get this done,” Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles spokeswoman Brandy Brubaker told the paper.
Vehicle owners with the flag plates will be sent new Sons of Confederate Veterans tags along with a letter of notification informing them that the old plates will become invalid in 30 days.
However, the replacement tag doesn’t exist yet. The DMV plans to come up with a new flag-less plate design in consultation with the veterans group.
Judge Jackson Kiser issued the injunction 14 years ago after the SCV sued the state over the license plate battle flag ban. The group argued the ban violated its First Amendment rights.
Kiser cited a recent Supreme Court ruling in a Texas case that said special license plates represent the state’s speech, and not the driver’s speech. A Texas board had rejected the flag tags over concerns the license plate would offend many Texans. The SCV was also the plaintiff in the Texas case.
The judge lifted the injunction in a ruling from the bench July 31 but Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring waited until the decision was issued in written form before announcing the recall.
Brubaker said the DMV is sending holders of the tags self-addressed envelopes with a request that they mail them back to the state for recycling.
But that many not stop holders from keep the tags, if only as a souvenir.

The DMV spokeswoman acknowledged to the Pilot that the agency can’t force motorists to turn them in.

Debate about Confederate symbols gained new traction after the June 17 mass shooting of nine black worshippers at a church in Charleston, South Carolina, in what police say was an attack motivated by racial hatred. The white man charged in the slayings had posed with a Confederate battle flag in photos posted online before the killings.

Did Trump Actually Win the Debate? How to Understand All Those Instant Polls That Say Yes.

Thursday’s GOP debates produced a slew of surprises—Carly Fiorina’s demolition of her opponents at the kids’ table, John Kasich’s stirring defense of Medicaid, and Fox News’ incredible job wrangling a historically crowded field, to name just a few. The night also produced one predictable outcome: A massive chasm between how pundits and journalists reacted to Donald Trump’s performance and how the public at large did.

Josh Voorhees

Josh Voorhees is a Slate senior writer. He lives in Iowa City.

The chattering class was near unanimous in its verdict: Trump lost. “The Trump bubble will burst,” Politico’s Mike Allen confidently declared after the debate. The current GOP frontrunner’s momentum has stalled and is “[definitely] not going up,” predicted ABC News’ Matthew Dowd. “Trump was a clown show,” tweeted Fox News contributor Stephen Hayes. “The last month has been Trump making the rest of the field look small; [Thursday] was the opposite,” wrote the National Review’s Rick Lowry. “Finally, perhaps we’ve really seen peak Trump,” concluded the Weekly Standard’s Bill Kristol.

Much of the public, though, saw something else entirely: A Trump victory. As of late Friday morning, more than 46 percent of the nearly half-million votes cast in a Drudge Report poll asking who won the primetime debate went to the once-and-future reality TV star. In Time magazine’s version of the survey, the real estate mogul claimed 47 percent of the more than 70,000 online responses. And even here at Slate—not exactly the friendliest playing field for Trump—the self-hype-man with the $10-million private jet garnered 39 percent of the roughly 44,000 votes that had been cast. In all three polls, meanwhile, the runner-up barely broke into the double-digits. Other online surveys showed similarly convincing wins for Trump.

But these competing instant-reactions each deserve giant disclaimers. First to the pundits: Previous predictions of The Donald’s imminent demise were also a bust. To date, the belligerent billionaire has refused to obey even basic rules of campaign decorum and yet his candidacy has yet to bend to the usual laws of politics that long-time observers hold dear.

They didn't tune in to see what Jeb Bush was going to do.

Meanwhile, the online results rely on a self-selecting group of respondents with no regards to political affiliation, age, or even country; no one should mistake them for the scientific surveys done by professional pollsters. Online, a vote from a liberal who is laughing at Trump counts the same as one from a conservative who actually like the man. The results also need the same necessary caveats we attach to the more scientific polls that currently show Trump leading the GOP field: The Donald may be the favorite right now, but his momentum is unsustainable and his political future is bleak. If Trump’s campaign doesn’t end with a bang, it’ll eventually go out with a whimper.

So how best to explain the current opinion gap between the professional class and the public? I think the more telling question isn’t whether you think Donald Trump won or lost Thursday night—it is whether you wanted him to win or lose going into the debate.

Politicos, pundits, and journalists see Trump as a sideshow that is preventing everyone from getting down to the serious business of selecting the GOP nominee. Many of us make no secret that we want him gone. So when the Fox News moderators roughed him up with a series of questions on everything from his views about women to his previous support for single-payer healthcare, it looked to us like Trump falling on his face.

But for many people watching at home, Trump didn’t stumble—he stood tall. They saw what they’ve been seeing for months: A tough-talking businessman who refused to back down and is incapable of apologizing. For a certain, significant subset of conservatives that’s a message they’ve been craving and for others, it’s one they’re willing to entertain six months before the first actual nominating contest begins. It’s also obvious that not everyone who watched the debate or voted in those polls is even a Republican primary voter—many just wanted to enjoy the free show—which means Trump’s GOP support could still slip in the days to come. (A Fox News focus group of actual Republican voters, for instance, showed signs of turning on Trump after he refused to rule out a third-party run.)

But, regardless, the debate’s massive ratings and those unscientific insta-polls remind us of a larger and more immediate truth: Love him or hate him, the public’s thirst and curiosity for All Things Trump remains incredibly strong. The early overnight numbers suggest that Thursday’s primetime event was the most watched primary debate in U.S. history—potentially doubling the previous record. It’s a safe bet that few of those people tuned in to see what Chris Christie, Jeb Bush, or even Ted Cruz was going to do. It’s also a safe bet that many of them would be willing to watch a repeat performance from the man who stood center stage in Cleveland.

Trump, then, is unlikely to be forced from the national spotlight any time soon and, as a result, will continue to play an outsized role in the GOP primary for the foreseeable future. His impact may wane as the early primaries draw closer. But for now, his presence is something the professional class should get used to.

Trump Loses Zero Ground After Fox’s Unfair, Unbalanced Attack In Debate

CLEVELAND, Ohio: A Wall Street Journal report suggests that despite critics’ opinions predicting GOP frontrunner Donald Trump’s poll numbers would fall, two early – though unscientific – polls predict that may be wrong.
“Time Magazine found that Mr. Trump took 47% of nearly 55,000 votes.

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL)

80%

of Florida was in second place with just 10%. The Drudge Report’s poll found more than half of nearly 362,000 voters favored Mr. Trump, well above everyone else,” the Wall Street Journal noted. After Frank Luntz’s made his opinion on Trump’s performance suggesting “tonight his act wore thin,” conservative talk radio host Rush Limbaugh stood up for Trump, and instead went after Fox News’ performance.
“I have never seen this kind of public backlash against Fox News personalities since the network launched in 1997,” the radio legend stated.
Even Bloomberg Politics went after Fox News host Megyn Kelly for her questioning comparing it to “something Rachel Maddow would ask.”
Bloomberg reported:

A few hours before Thursday’s Fox News debate, a friend of Donald Trump’s confided to me that Trump was nervous. Not about the competition—he could handle them. No, Trump worried about Fox News, and in particular, debate moderator Megyn Kelly. She’d been hammering him all week on her show, and he was certain she was out to get him. He’d canceled a Fox News appearance on Monday night, the friend said, in order to avoid her. (Trump’s spokeswoman wouldn’t confirm or deny this.)
It turns out Trump was right. His toughest opponents Thursday night weren’t the candidates up on stage, but the Fox News moderators, who went right after him—none with more gusto than Kelly…
But Trump saw her coming a mile away and cut her off.

GOP big winner in first two debates

We’ve come a long way from the cringe-inducing primary debates of the 2012 cycle. Despite all the wailing and arm waving leading up to Thursday night’s contest, the format worked. Beautifully.
Nielsen data reveals that 24 million Americans watched the second debate on Fox News. That means more Americans tuned in than there are voters in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada (the early primary and caucus states in 2016). That's a new cable  television record.

• 
  
• 
  
• 
  

Now Playing Fiorina reacts to rave reviews following first GOP debate

It was our first primary. And the Grand Old Party won.
There was energy in the hall in Cleveland. It wasn’t a moderator-centric grilling. It was a celebration.

This was a debate made for Republican primary voters. It was a purity test. A sanity check of our candidates.

The two-hour format went past in a flash. It was enjoyable—a real debate. The candidates interacted. They challenged each other which has long been absent in overly-stage-managed primary debates.
Given the unprecedented media hype that preceded this debate, we knew the stakes were high. How did it work out for our candidates? There were clear winners and losers, and a few who simply showed up.

Rubio, Walker, Bush and Cruz won the first primary.

With the best line of the night, Scott Walker brought down the house responding to a national security question about cyber attacks. “The Russian and Chinese government[s] know more about Hillary Clinton’s email server than do the members of the United States Congress.” He bolstered his conservative credentials and steadily delivered answers on every question posed. Walker’s closing statement was delivered with perfection (and from copious memorization, which is Walker’s style), besting even Mike Huckabee’s made-for-TV closing quip.
Rubio showed policy smarts and incredible poise. With a potent answer on the illegal immigration problem, he was quick on his feet—true to form and sure to invigorate his recently fizzled poll numbers. He delivered the second best line of the night in response to Megyn Kelly’s question from Facebook: "Do you have a word from God?" Rubio said: “God has blessed us. He’s blessed us with some very good candidates. The Democrats can’t even find one.” It was generous and humorous. He shined throughout the debate.
Bush could have shown more enthusiasm. He was subdued, but serious. He walked through a minefield of tough questions and seemed prepared for every one of them.
But where was the spark?
There seems to be an enthusiasm gap among voters for his candidacy compared with others like Cruz or Walker. He held his own. His answers were solid, but he needs to trade in some of the wonkery for animation in future debates.
The Fox anchors were also stars in the show. They were tough. Megyn Kelly was adept at delivering questions and follow ups. Bret Baier and Chris Wallace delivered on the expectation that they would be unforgiving of canned responses. The moderators kept the debate focused. Suffered no fools. They were authentically engaging on conservative policy topics, not disparaging of them as we have seen from biased moderators in the past.

Baier’s opening question pointed out that there were losers in this first debate as well.

Donald Trump came across as defensive, offensive and egotistical. Essentially, classic Trump. From the very first question, he appeared disingenuous. In one of his more lucent rants, he explained how he likes to give money to politicians to buy their compliance with his business interests.
Trump appeared, at times, pouty and smug. Most of his responses bordered on the incoherent. His performance can’t help his future in the campaign. But since he thinks this is a reality show, that’s unlikely to lead to his exit any time soon.
Rand Paul clearly dodged a question or two. At the conclusion of each answer, he immediately stared down at his podium. He’ll fix this by the next debate, if he’s still in the race. At times, he appeared to feel hurt or disappointed to be there.
Ben Carson was slow with his lines. He gave a confusing answer on his tax policy. He was not lit up. Where was the energy? His answers were breathy. If you didn’t know that this is sometimes his style, you might have interpreted it for nervousness.
Kasich’s luck in making it on the stage turned out to be a lost opportunity. As I watched the debate I found myself wishing the tenth spot was occupied by Carly Fiorina. Fox did her a huge favor in prime time by playing one of her best lines from the 5:00 pm debate to the top ten candidates in the later debate.
Fiorina took on the toughest topics with inspired, verbal sword play where Kasich failed to leave much of an impression. Consider his lackadaisical response to the softest of softball questions regarding how he would respond to Hillary’s basic talking points.
This was a debate made for Republican primary voters. It was a purity test. A sanity check of our candidates. The format and the moderators helped us consider the electability of our candidates—covering a robust field of topics in an organized way.

What happens next?

Trump’s poll numbers are likely to drop. Kasich’s probably will too. Rand Paul may cling to polling life a bit longer, but he didn’t compare well with the other candidates, possibly because he’s “a different kind of Republican.” Rubio, Walker, Bush and Cruz should expect varying increases in their campaign standings. The debate served them well. And it’s unclear how the debate helped Huckabee, Carson, or Christie, if at all. Let’s hope that CNN's September debate will be as effective as this one was.

Dem defections show deep divisions in party over Iran nuclear deal

Two more Democratic defections over the Iran nuclear deal have exposed deep divisions at the top echelons of the party just as lawmakers entered the August congressional recess, putting added pressure on President Obama to lock down support ahead of a vital vote next month. 
In the middle of the Republican presidential debates Thursday night, senior Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer issued a lengthy and detailed statement announcing his opposition to the deal.
"To me, the very real risk that Iran will not moderate and will, instead, use the agreement to pursue its nefarious goals is too great," Schumer, D-N.Y., said. "Therefore, I will vote to disapprove the agreement."
The news came as Rep. Eliot Engel, D-N.Y., the top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, took the same stance.
The announcements came just hours after two other Senate Democrats -- New York's Kirsten Gillibrand and New Hampshire's Jeanne Shaheen -- announced their support for the international accord. Schumer and Engel also are at odds with the Democrats' likely presidential nominee, Hillary Clinton, who has cautiously embraced the deal. The Senate's No. 2 Democrat, Dick Durbin of Illinois, supports the accord and has been working hard to persuade lawmakers to do the same. So does top House Democrat Nancy Pelosi.
On Friday, Secretary of State John Kerry said "I profoundly disagree" with Schumer and Engel.

More on this...

• Greta: Obama cheap shot in Iran speech disgraceful

But their opposition, coupled with that of other Democratic lawmakers, means the administration still has its work cut out to be able to sustain an expected presidential veto when Congress returns and votes on the agreement.
Republicans, who control the House and Senate, are uniformly opposed to the deal, meaning its fate likely hinges on whether both chambers could muster the two-thirds majority needed to override a veto. So far, the administration has secured the backing of more than a dozen Senate Democrats and more than two dozen House Democrats.
Obama, who delivered a hard-hitting address earlier this week in defense of the deal, shows no signs of letting up in his administration's lobbying effort.
Despite taking heat from Republicans after that speech for comparing their position to that of Iranian hard-liners chanting "Death to America," Obama on Friday stood by his criticism.
He said what the two groups have in common is that they're "satisfied with the status quo." Speaking on CNN, he said hardliners are opposed to any cooperation with the international community, and Republicans have an "ideological commitment" to not getting a deal done.
Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has called on Obama to retract his comments, calling them offensive.
In announcing his opposition, Schumer said he found a potential 24-day delay before inspections could take place "troubling" and noted that the agreement does not allow for "anytime, anywhere" inspections of Iranian nuclear facilities or a unilateral demand for inspections by the U.S.
While Schumer said he is opposing the deal, which would curb Iran's nuclear program in exchange for billions of dollars in sanctions relief, he signaled that he wouldn't lobby hard against the accord.
"There are some who believe that I can force my colleagues to vote my way," he said. "While I will certainly share my view and try to persuade them that the vote to disapprove is the right one, in my experience with matters of conscience and great consequence like this, each member ultimately comes to their own conclusion."
Engel followed Schumer's announcement with his own statement shortly afterward.
Engel echoed Schumer's concerns over inspecting Iran's nuclear facilities. "It is the largest state sponsor of terror in the world and continues to hold American citizens behind bars on bogus charges," Engel said. "Its actions have made a bad situation in a chaotic region worse."

'Strategic blunder': Republicans slam Obama administration as Russia tries Arctic land grab

Republican lawmakers slammed the Obama administration this week after Russia announced it had submitted a bid to the United Nations for huge areas of the Arctic that could contain vast quantities of oil and gas, with one lawmaker describing the application as evidence of a “strategic blunder” on the part of the administration's foreign policy.
Russia’s foreign ministry said in a statement Tuesday that Moscow was claiming over 463,000 square miles of Arctic sea shelf, extending more than 350 nautical miles from the shore.
The Arctic is believed to hold up to 25 percent of the planet’s untapped oil and gas supplies. Russia, the U.S. and Canada are among those trying to assert jurisdiction over parts of the region.
Sen. Dan Sullivan, R-Alaska, told FoxNews.com he isn’t surprised by what he called Russia's “latest attempt to grab territory in the Arctic” and noted that the move comes after Vladimir Putin has been amassing forces in the region.
“Meanwhile, in the face of this Russian military buildup, we are significantly reducing Army forces in our nation’s only Arctic state, Alaska. This is a strategic blunder by the Obama administration,” Sullivan said.
Russia first submitted its claim to the territory in 2002, but it was rejected by the U.N. due to lack of evidence. In 2007, Russia staked a symbolic claim to the Arctic seabed by dropping a canister containing the Russian flag on the ocean floor from a submarine at the North Pole.
The Kremlin submitted a partial revision regarding the Okhotsk Sea in 2013, and the commission issued a recommendation the following year.
The Russian foreign ministry said their new bid contains new arguments and "ample scientific data" to back up their claim.
Moscow has ramped up its military presence in the Arctic recently, restoring a Soviet-era military base in the New Siberian Island and other Arctic military outposts. The Russians have also conducted large-scale military exercises involving tens of thousands of troops, dozens of ships and submarines, and over 100 aircraft.
RELATED VIDEO: Was Mitt Romney right about Russia?
Sullivan called for the administration to increase U.S. physical presence in the region in response, but said that the administration “seems more focused on climate change.”
”Right now, the Russians are playing chess in the Arctic and our Administration still seems to think it’s tic-tac-toe,” Sullivan said.
The State Department told FoxNews.com that Moscow was following appropriate procedure under the Law of the Sea Convention.
“This technocratic process is the usual manner in which coastal states secure legal certainty in their sovereign rights and jurisdiction to continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles,” a State Department spokesperson said.
Sullivan’s fellow GOP Alaska Sen. Murkowski appeared to agree with the State Department, acknowledging that Russia is following protocol as a party to the Law of the Sea, and in contrast to Sullivan, saw it at as a more measured approach from the Russians than in other regions.
“At this point, it’s worth noting that Russia is following protocol and following international agreements in submitting their claims rather than unilaterally claiming them via military force as they’ve done in other parts of the world,” a spokesperson for Sen. Murkowski told FoxNews.com.
Lawmakers in the House, however, joined Sen. Sullivan in taking aim at the administration.
“Russia’s latest move into the Arctic is the fruit of the Obama administration’s failed energy policies. Obama has sent a clear signal to the world -- which Russia has correctly interpreted -- that our nation is choosing weakness when it comes to energy development,” Julia Slingsby, press secretary for the House Committee on Natural Resources, said.
“Instead of letting Russia bully us, America should be exerting our energy power by developing our resources on multiple fronts. A strong American presence in the Arctic means a safer Arctic,” Slingsby said.
House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Ed Royce, R-Calif., chose not to criticize the Obama administration directly, but said the U.S. and its allies should stand up to Russia.
“Russia has been aggressively pushing its claims to the Arctic, especially the resource-rich continental shelf. It now has an Arctic Command to strengthen its military presence in the region. The U.S. and others bordering the Arctic must maintain a united front against Moscow’s aggressive ambitions toward this vital region,” Royce told FoxNews.com in a statement.

Poll Cartoon

A debate with no losers: Republicans should be proud

For the first time in as long as I can remember, I strongly feel that there were no real losers in tonight’s debate. The quality of the conversation and, overall, the level of respect that each candidate showed to the others, highlighted the potential for the Republican party to rise above much of the divisiveness that has haunted them in recent elections.
Indeed, I believe that tonight’s debate elevates the Republican party as a whole.

Republicans should be proud. They’ve got a bunch of good candidates, as Rubio noted himself. And they treated each other – and the voters they’re trying to win over – respectfully.

There was clear appeal to the more conservative side of the base on social issues – abortion was a hot topic – as well as the importance of a strong military to not only combat ISIS but to also restore America’s place in the world as a global leader. We heard about the importance of a pro-growth agenda from Governors John Kasich, Scott Walker and Jeb Bush who all added thousands of jobs while in office.
We also heard about the importance of moving our country forward, not backwards from Marco Rubio: a note that he has hits regularly, but means a lot to a country that doesn’t want to elect another Bush or Clinton.
Donald Trump was clearly the featured candidate, with all eyes on him and tremendous anticipation as to whether he was going to follow through on his pledge to be civilized and only to attack if attacked.
Trump showed that he is clearly ready for prime time. His responses to questions on immigration, his business background, bankruptcy and change in position on issue likes health care and the pro-life/pro-choice debate showed him to be a pragmatist above all else. And that’s something that resonates with voters.
The latest Fox poll showed that Americans are considered with leadership above all else – even Conservative values. It follows that Trump’s approach is right on target. And he didn’t let down his supporters this evening.
To my mind, Rubio and Kasich were both incredibly impressive. Rubio has been slipping in the polls lately because of Trump and believe he will win back some support after this performance wherein he showed Americans what his vision of a strong, generous America looks like.
Kasich showed us all why he deserved to be up there Thursday night. He touted an impressive record in Ohio where he created jobs, balanced budgets, worked with Democrats and made smart decisions for all his constituents. He spoke meaningfully about pulling people out of the shadows and appealing to minorities and immigrants. For Kasich, offering the chance to Americans to move up in society is his top priority and with 40% of the electorate saying that the economy is the most important issue to them, his message will strike a cord.
We didn’t hear anything particularly new from Ted Cruz, but he was surely an effective right wing advocate. I believe that he will emerge as the clear leader of the right and with good reason.
Bush was steady and not particularly dynamic, but I don’t think he will lose his standing at the top of the heap as a result of this evening. He made clear, repeatedly, that he governed conservatively and showed that through his record. If viewers were watching with an open mind – and I believe they were – he may have won some votes from those who think him to be too liberal because of his stance on immigration. Tonight can only benefit him.
Christie and Walker didn’t hurt themselves. And neither did Huckabee or Paul. Ben Carson had a few good quips, but wasn’t generally very persuasive, especially as an outsider candidate in comparison to Trump. But we saw that coming.
The overall takeaway from this evening is that Republicans should be proud. They’ve got a bunch of good candidates, as Rubio noted himself. And they treated each other – and the voters they’re trying to win over – respectfully.
This only stands to help the Republicans as candidates and as a party. It also means that their strong showing proves that the only real loser was the Democrats and Hillary Clinton more specifically. It’s going to be a long, tough battle. 

Two top congressional Democrats announce opposition to Iran nuclear deal

Two top congressional Democrats announced late Thursday that they would oppose President Barack Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran.
Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., the No. 3 Senate Democrat, and Rep. Eliot Engel, D-N.Y., the leading Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, both announced their objection to the deal in a blow to the Obama administration ahead of next month’s vote.
Schumer, who said in a statement that he made his decision "after deep study, careful thought, and considerable soul-searching", is the first Senate Democrat to step forward to oppose the deal. His announcement came just hours after two other Senate Democrats — New York's Kirsten Gillibrand and New Hampshire's Jeanne Shaheen — announced their support for the international accord.
Schumer's decision also puts him at odds with the Democrats' likely presidential nominee, Hillary Clinton, who has cautiously embraced the deal. The Senate's No. 2 Democrat, Dick Durbin of Illinois, supports the accord and has been working hard to persuade lawmakers to do the same.
The administration, which has lobbied intensely for the pact, had secured the backing of more than a dozen Senate Democrats and more than two dozen House Democrats, including Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. Republicans, who control the House and Senate, are uniformly opposed to the deal.
Schumer said in his statement that there is real risk that Iran "will not moderate" and will use the pact to "pursue its nefarious goals". He added that advocates on both sides of the debate made points that couldn’t be dismissed, but in the end he said he "must oppose the agreement and will vote yes on a motion of disapproval.”

More on this...

• Krauthammer slams Obama's divisive rhetoric on Iran

Schumer also stated that he found a proposed 24-day delay before inspections could take place "troubling" and noted that the agreement does not allow for "anytime, anywhere" inspections of Iranian nuclear facilities or a unilateral demand for inspections by the U.S.
“While inspectors would likely be able to detect radioactive isotopes at a site after 24 days, that delay would enable Iran to escape detection of any illicit building and improving of possible military dimensions (PMD) - the tools that go into building a bomb but don't emit radioactivity,” he said.
Schumer said that while he is opposing the deal, which would curb Iran's nuclear program in exchange for billions of dollars in sanctions relief, he signaled that he wouldn't lobby hard against the accord.
"There are some who believe that I can force my colleagues to vote my way," he said. "While I will certainly share my view and try to persuade them that the vote to disapprove is the right one, in my experience with matters of conscience and great consequence like this, each member ultimately comes to their own conclusion."
Engel followed Schumer's announcement with his own statement shortly after. Engel’s announcement made him the second major Jewish Democratic figure from New York City to announce their opposition to Obama’s accord.
Engel echoed Schumer’s concerns over inspecting Iran’s nuclear facilities in a statement late Thursday and believes Iran is a “grave threat to international stability.”
“It is the largest state sponsor of terror in the world and continues to hold American citizens behind bars on bogus charges,” Engel said. "Its actions have made a bad situation in a chaotic region worse."

Analysts: Bush avoided confrontation, Trump stayed on attack, Christie showed new life

Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush avoided confrontation. Donald Trump stayed on the attack. And New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie showed new life.
Those are the takeaways from the first2016 GOP round of debates held in Cleveland Thursday night, according to analysts.
"(Bush) was stilted, but consistent," said Ed O'Keefe, a Washington Post reporter who has covered Bush extensively. He added the former Florida governor "started cautiously, but appeared more comfortable by the end."
The verdict? While Bush didn't perform as vibrantly as some had hoped, he didn't make any big mistakes either. But that also means he also didn't have a big breakout moment.
Bush was among the top 10 Republican candidates who participated in a two-hour prime-time debate from Cleveland Thursday night hosted by Fox News and Facebook.
The 2016 contenders, who boast sharply conservative records and attention-grabbing personalities, used the debate stage to try to distinguish themselves from one another in the crowded GOP field that now stands at 17.
The seven candidates who did not make the 9 p.m. cut participated in an earlier debate at 5 p.m.
The main event got off to a lively start with Trump and Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky.
“The first hour of the second debate has been so surprisingly ugly, and terribly unpresidential,” Lara Brown,associate professor at George Washington University's Graduate School of Political Management, told FoxNews.com. “The candidates have hit each other and attempted to score with the audience, forgetting that they are on television.”
The candidates, some say, may have actually done more harm than good at getting their message across.
“They have been playing to the ‘heat’ of the crowd, rather than the ‘coolness’ of the television camera,” Brown said, adding that Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, neurosurgeon Ben Carson and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker were among the few that kept it classy.
Trump, who dominated headlines with his controversial comments about Mexican illegal immigrants, entered the Quicken Loans Arena Thursday night with a target on his back.Ahead of the debate, the billionaire said he would not attack his rivals but would rather discuss the issues.That didn’t last.
Fox News political analyst and contributor Charles Krauthammer did not pull any punches when it came to Trump's performance.
“The fact is, he was out of place,” Krauthammer said. “When you think about it, when he is free-form, when he is uninterrupted and when he can do the flight of ideas, when he can go on his own and ramble – he’s entertaining, he’s sharp and he’s actually amusing,” Krauthammer said. “But here when he was controlled and in a tight setting, he was lost for much of the debate.”
Fox News senior political analyst Brit Hume called the dustup between Christie and Paul, “the most eye-catching moment” of the night.
“As I watched it, it seemed to be Christie had a comeback for everything and he got much the best of it, but I can guarantee you that Rand Paul adherents, people who are worried about the surveillance, think he did better so we’ll see,” Hume said.
“Christie really went after Rand Paul and I think he may have damaged Rand Paul. The problem is, if you do that, you don’t always look good doing it so you may not be the beneficiary,” he added.
Bush, who stumbled earlier in the week when he tried to slam Planned Parenthood’s funding by saying he wasn’t sure “half a billion dollars for women’s health issues” was needed, left himself open to attack on the issue.
He acknowledged during Thursday night’s debate he didn’t know that a board he sat on gave millions of dollars to Planned Parenthood. Bush was named as a founding director to the tax-exempt Bloomberg Family Foundation in 2010. He resigned in 2014.
While Rubio and Carson turned in steady performances,Thursday's big winner appeared to be Hewlett Packard CEO Carly Fiorina, who had social media sites buzzing all night. Fiorina participated in the 5 p.m. debate, where talk of Trump, terrorism and the Iran nuclear deal dominated.
"I thought she had nailed it from her opening statement. And I thought she only got better,” Brown said.
“I thought she was clear, sharp, and smooth. I was quite impressed.”

GOP candidates battle to stake their positions in first 2016 debate

From fiery criticism of ObamaCare and the Iran nuclear deal to support for Israel and the rights of the unborn, the top 10 Republican presidential candidates did all they could to define and separate themselves Thursday night during the Fox News debate in Cleveland, Ohio.

The governors on stage, notably John Kasich of Ohio and Scott Walker of Wisconsin, touted their economic records. Texas Sen. Ted Cruz vowed to scrap the Iran deal. Retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson reminded voters in his closing remarks of the professional background that separates him from the rest: “I’m the only one to separate Siamese twins.”

Throughout the debate, Donald Trump was the unrivaled lightning rod, but the prime-time showdown made clear he’s not the only fighter on the stage – or in the race.

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie reclaimed his reputation as a tough-talking executive, blasting his rivals for their positions on domestic surveillance and entitlements. Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul traded barbs with several candidates, including Christie.

Meanwhile, one-time front-runner former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush found himself on defense several times and largely avoided tangling with Trump on the Fox News/Facebook stage.

Perhaps the most fiery moment came in an exchange between Christie and Paul. Long-simmering tension between the two exploded when Christie stood by his criticism of the senator for opposing NSA bulk collection of Americans’ phone data.

Paul said he’s “proud of standing for the Bill of Rights,” but Christie called his stance “completely ridiculous” – suggesting he wants to cherry-pick only some data.  

“When you’re sitting in the subcommittee just blowing hot air about this, you can say things like that,” Christie said.

Paul fired back: “I know you gave [President Obama] a big hug, and if you want to give him a big hug again, go ahead.” Christie said the hugs he gave were to the families of 9/11 victims, and then accused Paul of playing “politics,” by using videos of floor speeches to raise money.

The exchange was striking, even in a debate that was tense from the start. Though several rivals stood out, Trump did not hold his fire, either – making clear he’s not softening his approach to campaigning as he picks up steam in the polls.

If anything, the debate signaled the primary race is about to get tougher and is still wide open as 17 candidates vie for the lead with months to go until the opening contests.

Trump, the billionaire businessman front-runner, sparred at the outset of the debate with Paul after refusing to pledge to support the eventual GOP nominee if it’s not him and to swear off an independent run.

“I will not make the pledge at this time,” Trump said.

Paul accused him of “hedging his bet on the Clintons.”

“He’s already hedging his bets, because he’s used to buying politicians,” Paul said. (Trump later acknowledged he gave money to the Clintons and demanded Hillary Clinton “be at my wedding” in exchange; he called this a sign of a broken system.)

Trump also stood firm on his vow to build a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border. “If it weren’t for me, you wouldn’t even be talking about illegal immigration,” Trump said, blasting “stupid leaders” in the U.S. harboring illegal immigrants.

Bush said a comprehensive solution is needed, including a “path to earned legal status,” which he said is not “amnesty.”

Moments later, Cruz said some on stage support “amnesty”, while he does not.

A big question going into the debate was whether Bush would aggressively challenge Trump and try to knock him off his perch.

But he would only go so far as to question Trump’s tone, calling his language “divisive.” Hours before the debate, Politico ran a story saying Bush recently told a donor he thinks Trump is a “buffoon” and a “clown.” Asked about that report on stage, Bush denied it.

“It’s not true,” Bush said.

Trump then called Bush a “true gentleman.”

As for his tone, Trump said it’s “medieval times” in the Middle East, and, “We don’t have time for tone.”

But other candidates were able to stand out on the crowded stage. Carson called Hillary Clinton the “epitome” of the progressive movement.

“She counts on the fact that people are uninformed. The Alinsky model, taking advantage of useful idiots,” he said.

Walker also blasted the Iran nuclear deal, as did other candidates: “This is not just bad with Iran, this is bad with ISIS, it is tied together and once and for all we need a leader who is going to do something about it. It is yet another example of the failed foreign policy of the Obama-Clinton doctrine.”

Florida Sen. Marco Rubio landed laughs when, upon being asked about his faith in God, he said: “I think God has blessed us, he’s blessed the Republican Party with some very good candidates. The Democrats can’t even find one.”

Rubio also vowed to repeal and replace ObamaCare, and called the lack of accountability after the Veterans Affairs scandal “outrageous.”

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee vowed to defend entitlements and stood his ground on social issues. He blasted Planned Parenthood and defended his pro-life views, accusing abortion providers of “selling” fetal parts “like they’re parts to a Buick.”

Kasich, like Walker and Bush, tried to keep the focus on his record in his state.

“America is a miracle country and we have to restore the sense that the miracle will apply to you,” he said.

And Cruz vowed, if elected, to prosecute Planned Parenthood, cancel the Iran nuclear deal and nix Obama’s executive orders. “I believe the American people are looking for someone to speak the truth,” he said.

Trump was challenged several times on his conservative views. He previously was pro-choice, but said he’s “evolved” on the issue.

Also, under questioning from moderator Megyn Kelly about past disparaging comments he made about women, Trump interrupted to say, “Only Rosie O’Donnell.” He then said, “Honestly, Megyn, if you don’t like it, I’m sorry.”

The candidates squared off at the second of two kick-off debates, hosted by Fox News and Facebook in conjunction with the Ohio Republican Party.

The seven other Republican hopefuls spent much of the first debate doing their best to hammer home the message that Clinton represents four more years of Obama. In the earlier debate, the candidates largely avoided sparring with each other and instead trained their fire on the Obama years -- with promises to roll back ObamaCare and undo the Iran nuclear deal.

EPA Cartoon

Obama urged to retract statement comparing members of Congress to Iranian hardliners

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell called for President Obama to retract a statement he made Wednesday saying members of Congress who opposed the Iran nuke deal had something in common with Iranians who chanted “Death to America” in the streets of Tehran.
Obama made the comments in a speech at American University in Washington while going after critics of the deal, who he said were “selling a fantasy” to the American people. He added that Iranian hardliners chanting "Death to America" don't represent all of Iran.
"In fact, it's those hardliners who are most comfortable with the status quo," Obama said. "It's those hardliners chanting "Death to America" who have been most opposed to the deal. They're making common cause with the Republican caucus."
McConnell, R-Ky., called the comments “bizarre and preposterous” in a statement released Wednesday afternoon, adding that “supporters and defenders” of the proposed deal should reject the president’s “offensive rhetoric.”
“Members of both parties have serious and heartfelt concerns about the Iran deal,” he said in a statement. “These Democrats and Republicans deserved serious answers today, not some outrageous attempt to equate their search for answers with supporting chants of 'Death to America.'”
The president's remarks were part of an intense lobbying campaign by the White House ahead of Congress' vote next month to either approve or disapprove the international agreement. Opponents of the agreement have streamed to Capitol to make their case, and have spent tens of millions of dollars on advertisements.
The White House is preparing for the likelihood that lawmakers will vote against the deal next month and is focusing its lobbying efforts on getting enough Democrats to sustain a presidential veto. Only one chamber of Congress is needed to sustain a veto and keep the deal in place.
Obama needs 146 Democrats in the House or 34 in the Senate to sustain a veto. As of Wednesday afternoon, 16 House Democrats and 11 senators had publicly declared their support for the deal.
The White House has said it is confident it can sustain a veto at least in the House.

Louisiana police officer dies in shooting, manhunt underway for suspect

A Shreveport, La. police officer has died after being shot while on duty, and a manhunt for the suspect is underway, authorities say.
Shreveport Police Cpt. Marcus Hines told a press conference late Wednesday that the officer, whose name has not been released, was shot at around 9:15 p.m. local time while responding to a report of a suspicious person inside a home. Hines says an armed man was apparently inside the residence, threatening to harm people.
Hines didn’t elaborate on the officer’s injuries and initially only said that he was in “very serious” condition at a hospital. Hines later told KTAL that the officer had died.
Hines said the Shreveport police, Caddo Parish deputies and canines are searching for a male suspect.
"Last night, we lost one of our brave, uniformed officers in the line of duty. Our hearts are saddened," Shreveport Mayor Ollie Tyler told KTBS. "We ask for the community’s prayers for this officer’s family and SPD as we grieve the loss of one of our own who paid the ultimate sacrifice while serving and protecting the citizens of this city."
The Shreveport Times and KTBS reported officers had surrounded a house near the shooting scene where they believed a suspect may be hiding. KTBS reported that police were searching cars and restricting access to the area.
The station reported that the last fatal shooting of a Shreveport police officer took place in October 2010. Shreveport is the third-largest city in Louisiana with a population of around 200,000 people. It is located in the so-called Ark-La-Tex region, where the borders of Arkansas, Louisiana, and Texas meet.

With Trump at center stage, GOP candidates ready to rumble at 1st debate

The spotlight is shining on Donald Trump right now, but nine other GOP presidential candidates are poised and eager to seize it from him as they head into Thursday night's prime-time debate in Cleveland. 
While Trump's high poll numbers landed him the top slot -- and a center-stage position -- at the Fox News debate, the lead-off showdown carries high risk and reward for the billionaire businessman.
Trump has by most accounts done a masterful job dominating media coverage over the last several weeks, and flipping the script on pundits who predicted his incendiary remarks -- about illegal immigrants, about Sen. John McCain -- would torpedo his bid.
But he's never been on the debate stage.
"My sort of my whole life has been a debate, but I have never debated before," he told Fox News' Bill O'Reilly.
In the run-up to the debate, Trump is trying to play that factor as an asset and part of his appeal as an outsider.

More on this...

• Huckabee on Clinton e-mail revelations, Republican debate

"These politicians, all they do is debate," he told Fox News, saying he's "not really" rehearsing.
"I think you have to be yourself," Trump said.
While the unscripted approach may work for Trump, the other candidates reportedly are preparing intensely, in a bid to prevent the forum from becoming the Trump show and capture some momentum from him.
Republican strategist Ron Bonjean said Trump's past positions -- once describing himself as pro-choice, donating to the Clinton Foundation and other actions -- indeed provide an opening to his primary opponents.
"The other Republicans on stage have an opportunity to challenge his conservative credentials," Bonjean told FoxNews.com's "Strategy Room."
There will be two debates on Thursday. The debates, hosted by Fox News and Facebook in conjunction with the Ohio Republican Party, will be held at the Quicken Loans Arena in Cleveland, Ohio.
The 9 p.m. ET debate will include the top 10 candidates in an average of recent national polls. They are Trump; former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush; Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker; former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee; retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson; Texas Sen. Ted Cruz; Florida Sen. Marco Rubio; Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul; New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie; and Ohio Gov. John Kasich.
Kasich, who leads the state where the debate is being held, said in a statement, "As governor, I am glad to welcome my fellow debate participants to our great state and I look forward to discussing the issues facing our country with them on Thursday."
The seven who did not make the top 10 will be invited to a 5 p.m. ET debate. They are: former Texas Gov. Rick Perry; former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum; Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal; former HP head Carly Fiorina; South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham; former New York Gov. George Pataki; and former Virginia Gov. Jim Gilmore.
Huckabee, speaking with Fox News, said it'll be important to prepare -- brush up on "the numbers, the figures" -- but also to "be authentic."
"I'm not going to spend all day Thursday, you know, focused on the materials. I am going to go to the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, I'm going to keep my mind free and loose," Huckabee said.
Texas Sen. Ted Cruz rapped any candidates running toward "the mushy middle" and gave a preview of his approach Thursday.
"Every time we run as Democrat light, we lose. I'm convinced 2016 is going to be an election very much like 1980 and that we are going to win by following Reagan's dictum of painting in bold colors and not pale pastels," he said.
While Cruz has been one of the few Republican candidates not tangling publicly with Trump, the senator denied that he and Trump struck any deal to lay off each other. Cruz, though, said other candidates are "frightened" by what Trump is saying.
"Not only have I refused to [attack him] but I have commended Donald for having the courage to speak out and in particular to shine the light on the problem of illegal immigration," he said.

16 states ask Obama admin to put power plant rules on hold

WASHINGTON –  The campaign to stop President Barack Obama's sweeping emissions limits on power plants began taking shape Wednesday, as 16 states asked the government to put the rules on hold while a Senate panel moved to block them.
West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey, who is leading the charge against the rules, banded together with 15 other state attorneys general in a letter to Environmental Protection Agency Gina McCarthy requesting that the agency temporarily suspend the rules while they challenge their legality in court. The letter called for the EPA to respond by Friday.
The EPA and the White House both said they believe the limits are legal and have no plans to put them on hold. But by submitting the formal request anyway, the attorneys general are laying the groundwork to ask the courts to suspend the emissions limits instead.
"These regulations, if allowed to proceed, will do serious harm to West Virginia and the U.S. economy," Morrisey said. "That is why we are taking quick action to bring this process to a halt."
The 16 states and a handful of others are preparing to sue the Obama administration to block the rules permanently by arguing they exceed Obama's authority. Bolstered by a recent Supreme Court ruling against the administration's mercury limits, opponents argued that states shouldn't have to start preparing to comply with a rule that may eventually get thrown out by the courts.
The speedy opposition from the states came two days after Obama unveiled the final version of the rules, which mark the first time the U.S. has ever limited carbon dioxide emissions from existing power plants. Obama's revised plan mandates a 32 percent cut in emissions nationwide by 2030, compared to 2005 levels — a steeper cut than in his earlier proposal.
Most of the attorneys general signing the letter Wednesday are Republicans. Yet they were joined by Jack Conway of the coal-producing state of Kentucky. Conway and Kentucky Gov. Steve Beshear are both Democrats, but have joined the state's Republican leaders in denouncing Obama's power plant limits, which form the centerpiece of his plan to fight climate change.
Although the most serious threat to Obama's power plant rules is in the courts, lawmakers in Congress are also pursuing legislative means to stop them. The first vote came Wednesday in the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, where a bill blocking the rules passed the GOP-controlled panel by a voice vote — but not without a bit of drama.
Over the protests of boycotting Democrats, the Senate GOP-controlled panel approved legislation designed to block the Obama administration from implementing the tough new standards.
Democrats walked out of the committee meeting in protest of a separate bill about pesticides, arguing it should have been the subject of a fact-finding hearing. Lacking the necessary quorum for a vote, Republican Chairman Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma reconvened the meeting in a lunchroom just off the Senate floor, where the aroma of a just-completed GOP lunch was still wafting in the air.
The voice vote approving the bill sends it to the full Senate, where a filibuster battle awaits. Obama has vowed to veto any such legislation, and Republicans have yet to prove they can muster the votes to override his veto.

Oz Cartoon

Republicans introduce legislation opposing Iran deal, teeing up White House showdown

House Republicans on Tuesday introduced legislation opposing the recently struck Iranian nuclear deal, launching a battle with the White House that could end in a veto showdown this fall. 
House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Ed Royce, R-Calif., unveiled the legislation, saying the deal "gives up too much, too fast, to a terrorist state -- making the world less safe, less secure, and less stable."
A day earlier, House Republicans said they had the 218 GOP votes lined up for a so-called resolution of disapproval.
President Obama, meanwhile, is working to secure the backing of Democrats in both chambers. He won key endorsements on Tuesday, with Sen. Time Kaine, D-Va., and Bill Nelson, D-Fla., coming out in favor.
If both the House and Senate vote against the deal, Obama is certain to veto -- but foes would need to muster a two-thirds majority in Congress to override.
Though the United Nations is moving forward on many aspects of the nuclear agreement regardless, Congress would have leverage over U.S. sanctions, which Royce called "the most powerful economic sanctions in the world."

More on this...

• House GOP says it has the votes to disapprove of Iran deal

The deal itself would curb Iran's nuclear program in exchange for billions of dollars' worth of sanctions relief. Royce said the deal "falls well short" of a "verifiable, enforceable, and accountable agreement."
"The agreement gives Iran permanent sanctions relief, but in exchange only temporarily restrains Iran's nuclear program," he said in a statement. "If this agreement goes through, Iran gets a cash bonanza, a boost to its international standing, and a lighted path toward nuclear weapons."
But Kaine, in announcing his support, said it is a "dramatic improvement over the status quo in improving global security. The agreement takes a nuclear weapons program that was on the verge of success and disables it for many years through peaceful diplomatic means with sufficient tools for the international community to verify whether Iran is meeting its commitments."
On the sidelines, the lobbying grew in intensity on Tuesday, as Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu made dueling appeals to the American Jewish community.
Netanyahu made his case in a live webcast with more than 10,000 participants, according to the U.S. Jewish groups that organized the event. The prime minister railed against the agreement to curb Iran's nuclear program in exchange for billions of dollars in sanctions relief, calling it a "bad deal" that leaves Tehran on the brink of a bomb.
"The nuclear deal with Iran doesn't block Iran's path to the bomb," he said. "It actually paves Iran's path to the bomb."
Netanyahu, one of the fiercest critics of the nuclear accord, also disputed Obama's assertion that opponents of the diplomatic deal favor war. He called that assertion "utterly false," saying Israel wants peace, not war.
Obama was to hold a private meeting at the White House later Tuesday with Jewish leaders -- some who support the deal, some who oppose it, and others whose organizations are undecided.
The White House is preparing for the likelihood that lawmakers will vote against the deal and is focusing its lobbying efforts on getting enough Democrats to sustain a veto.
Only one chamber of Congress is needed to sustain a veto.
Obama spokesman Josh Earnest said Monday that the White House is confident it can sustain a veto "at least in the House."

Planned Parenthood official: Abortion procedures, prices altered to meet demand

A Planned Parenthood executive admits in an undercover video that her doctors alter abortion procedures and she manipulates prices to accommodate specific fetal tissue harvesting requests -- including delivering fully intact fetuses -- though doing so may violate federal law.
In the nearly 16-minute, edited video, the fifth released by Center for Medical Progress, a woman identified as Melissa Farrell, director of research for Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast, discusses pricing for specimens -- ranging from intact fetuses to tissue and organs -- for outside tissue procurement companies.
“Yeah, and so if we alter our process, and we are able to obtain intact fetal cadavers, then we can make it part of the budget, that any dissections are this, and splitting the specimens into different shipments is this,” Farrell said. “I mean it’s all just a matter of line items.”

"If we alter our process, and we are able to obtain intact fetal cadavers, then we can make it part of the budget"
- Melissa Farrell, Planned Parenthood official

Altering abortion procedures to procure fetal tissue, delivering intact fetuses and selling fetal tissue for profit are all against federal law.
GRAPHIC CONTENT: Click to see latest undercover Planned Parenthood video

More on this...

• Planned Parenthood ‘sponsors’ deny funding organization amid hidden camera controversy

• More fights ahead on Planned Parenthood after Senate vote

Planned Parenthood has denied breaking any laws and has said payments discussed in the videos relates to reimbursement costs for procuring the tissue -- which is legal.
However, Farrell tells undercover investigators from the center multiple times that abortion doctors can change a procedure in order to procure intact specimens.
“And you know, when it matters, you know in the cases of when it’s mattered, you know, physicians also need an intact specimen, they can make it happen,” said Farrell, noting that some of the clinic’s doctors have research projects of their own for which they’re collecting specimens.
“So they do it in a way that they get the best specimens,” Farrell said. “So I know it can happen.”
The video’s revelations stand in stark contrast to public statements made recently by top officials of the Planned Parenthood regional affiliate.
The head of Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast denied the organization sold or donated fetal tissue in a July 24 letter to Louisiana Dept. of Health and Hospitals Secretary Kathy Kliebert.
Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, who is also running for the Republican presidential nomination, directed the DHH to investigate Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast, which was seeking to open a New Orleans facility.
In her letter to Kliebert, President and CEO of Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast, Melaney A. Linton, specifically addressed the fetal tissue issue.
“Do any Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast facilities, or any affiliates, subsidiaries or associates thereof, sell or donate any unborn baby organs or body parts? Answer: No.” Linton wrote.

Related Image

Expand / Contract

Melissa Farrell, the Director of Research for Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast, is featured in the latest release by an anti-abortion group. (Center for Medical Progress)

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott called for an investigation into Planned Parenthood following the release of the first video on July 14, and the new video also drew immediate condemnation from the Republican.
“The latest video showing Planned Parenthood’s treatment of unborn children in a Houston clinic is repulsive and unconscionable," Abbott said in a statement. "Selling baby body parts is the furthest thing imaginable from providing women’s healthcare, and this organization’s repeated and systematic disrespect for human life is appalling. The State of Texas is aggressively investigating this matter and must use all available legal remedies to address this depraved conduct.”
CMP has been the target of two restraining orders by federal judges banning them from releasing some of their recordings. The orders, however, have so far been limited to videos made at meetings of the National Abortion Federation and those dealing with a tissue procurement company, StemExpress.
Tuesday’s release, purely reliant on video taken inside a Planned Parenthood clinic, would not seem to violate either order.
At the end of the video, CMP investigators film a segment in what they say is the abortion clinic’s pathological laboratory. Farrell and two unidentified Planned Parenthood workers demonstrate the “quality” of fetal body parts, including intact arms, legs, lungs, intestines and eyeballs.
The CMP investigators ask to see any intact specimens, but one of the unidentified female workers begins laughing.
“We had a really long day and they’re all mixed up together in a bag,” she says.
The “Just a Matter of Line Items” video is the fifth release from CMP. Like the first four, it contains undercover video of Planned Parenthood officials and associates.
CMP has yet to release the full footage of its latest video. But a preliminary link for "full footage" exists on its website, and the organization has in the past typically released unedited video several hours after the edited video has been released
The videos have brought investigations of Planned Parenthood's policies on aborted fetuses by three Republican-led congressional committees and three states.
The Senate failed Monday evening to advance a Republican-led measure to halt federal aid to Planned Parenthood. The vote to bring debate on the bill was 53-46, shy of the 60 votes needed to move on.

Fox News announces candidate line-up for prime-time debate

Fox News has announced the line-up for the prime-time Republican presidential debate this Thursday, and here's who qualified: 
Real estate magnate Donald Trump; former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush; Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker; former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee; retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson; Texas Sen. Ted Cruz; Florida Sen. Marco Rubio; Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul; New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie; and Ohio Gov. John Kasich. 
The roster of 10 candidates was determined based on an average of the five most recent national polls. Trump as expected made the cut, securing the top slot. Right behind him were Bush and Walker, who each have posted strong numbers in recent surveys.
The drama, rather, was at the edge of the top 10. Christie and Kasich, who were hovering by that edge in recent polling, were able to qualify.
Kasich, who leads the state where the debate is being held, said in a statement, "As governor, I am glad to welcome my fellow debate participants to our great state and I look forward to discussing the issues facing our country with them on Thursday."
But former Texas Gov. Rick Perry, former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum and several others will not be on the prime-time, 9 p.m. ET stage. The seven who did not make the top 10 will be invited to a separate 5 p.m. ET debate. Aside from Perry and Santorum, this includes Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal; former HP head Carly Fiorina; South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham; former New York Gov. George Pataki; and former Virginia Gov. Jim Gilmore.

More on this...

• The first GOP presidential primary debate is on Fox News

Perry tweeted:
The five polls included in the average that determined the line-up were conducted by Bloomberg, CBS News, Fox News, Monmouth University and Quinnipiac University.
The debates, hosted by Fox News and Facebook in conjunction with the Ohio Republican Party, will be held at the Quicken Loans Arena in Cleveland, Ohio.
With the primary campaign lately being rocked by Trump's rise in the polls above the jam-packed field, the big question is how the other nine candidates will hold their own on the prime-time stage -- and whether Trump will remain the front-runner after his debate debut.
For political outsiders like Trump and Carson, Democratic strategist Doug Schoen said, "The question is are they ready, literally and metaphorically, for prime-time?"
The debate will test whether they can articulate a "cogent narrative of what they'll do to promote and provoke change in our country," Schoen said.
Analysts have warned that Trump, whose bomb-throwing persona has seemingly fueled his climb, stands to lose traction if he can't command the stage.
Steve Deace, who hosts a conservative radio talk show in Iowa, said: "His entire campaign is based on him being a blunt instrument" and if he holds back, "that would be the death knell for him."
Plenty of candidates are eager to seize the spotlight from him. Ahead of the debates, Bush on Monday outlined his plan for improving border security and immigration enforcement.
Tough-talking Gov. Christie last week vowed to enforce marijuana laws if elected president, and tangled over the weekend with the teachers unions after saying on CNN they deserve a "punch in the face."
Paul on Tuesday introduced an amendment to crack down on "sanctuary cities" by requiring local officials to notify the feds about the arrest of an illegal immigrant.
Trump, meanwhile, has continued to climb in the polls despite attracting the ire of fellow Republicans for recently questioning Sen. John McCain's war record.
In the latest Fox News poll, Trump got the support of 26 percent of primary voters -- the highest level of support for any candidate so far and up from 18 percent in mid-July.
Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus, after the debate line-up was announced, touted the breadth of the 17-candidate primary field.
"Our field is the biggest and most diverse of any party in history and I am glad to see that every one of those extremely qualified candidates will have the opportunity to participate on Thursday evening," he said. "Republicans across the country will be able to choose which candidate has earned their support after hearing them talk through the issues."