Source: Christie expected to announce 2016 campaign Tuesday

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie is expected to announce his 2016 presidential bid next Tuesday, a Republican source tells Fox News. 
The source with knowledge of Christie's plans said the governor plans to announce in New Jersey. 
He would become the 14th Republican to enter the race for the party's presidential nomination. Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal was the latest to join the field this week. 
Christie considered a bid in 2012, but ultimately decided against running. 
Since then, he's dealt with political fallout from the controversy in his state over aides accused of limiting access to a key bridge between New Jersey and New York in an act of political retribution against a Democratic mayor. 
Christie has denied any involvement, and no evidence has emerged showing he was part of the plot. 
As he tries to emerge from that controversy, Christie also has to contend with a full field of fellow governors, senators and other prominent GOP figures. 
Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (who has not yet announced) have been in the top tier of most national polls, while retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson and real estate magnate Donald Trump have also registered strong numbers.

ObamaCare battle not over, despite court ruling

President Obama declared Thursday that "the Affordable Care Act is here to stay," after winning yet another round in the Supreme Court. 
But the battle's not over -- a host of legal and political challenges remain, and if anything, Republicans say they are more emboldened than ever to repeal the law. 
"ObamaCare is fundamentally broken, increasing health care costs for millions of Americans. Today's ruling doesn't change that fact," House Speaker John Boehner charged in a statement Thursday, vowing to continue efforts on Capitol Hill to "repeal the law and replace it with patient-centered solutions." 
The 6-3 decision upheld insurance subsidies nationwide, rejecting claims that residents in states that did not set up their own exchanges were ineligible for the credits. The decision was the second major court victory for the Obama administration on the president's signature health care law. 
But several court cases are still wending their way through the system, including a challenge by House Republicans over the estimated $175 billion the administration is paying health insurance companies to reimburse them for covering poor people and cases over whether the law is forcing religious organizations to pay for employee contraceptives. 
Further, Republicans are weighing a repeal strategy that could lead to a veto showdown with the president before the end of the year. That's not to mention what might happen if a Republican wins the White House in 2016, with a GOP majority on the Hill.    
While Obama pressed Thursday for Washington to move on, the law's harshest critics made clear they have no plans to do so. 
"It's a terrible [court] decision and to see the court sort of invent more ways to save the law time  -- and again, it's frustrating -- but it reaffirms the point that that Congress is going to have to be the ones to get rid of it," said Dan Holler, spokesman for the conservative Heritage Action. 
The biggest fight may come on Capitol Hill, as Republican opponents consider using a filibuster-proof process called "budget reconciliation" to push a measure through the Senate and, with the help of the GOP majority in the House, get a repeal bill before the president. 
Using this tactic is not unprecedented. When Democrats did not have the typically required 60 votes to pass ObamaCare in 2009, they used "reconciliation," which only requires a 51-vote majority, to pass parts of it through the Senate. The option of using the same process to get rid of the law, with only a simple majority, has been a topic of conversation among opponents ever since. 
"That is our preferred approach," said Holler. "[The repeal] could really begin in earnest. If Speaker Boehner and [Majority Leader Mitch] McConnell wanted to start the process today, they could if they wanted to," he told FoxNews.com. "There are multiple steps here but they could start right now if they wanted." 
It's not yet clear that is the way the two Republican leaders want to proceed. According to a Washington Times report Thursday afternoon, Boehner has not decided that reconciliation is the way to go, even though he has expressed interest in repealing the law. "There's been no decision about what to use reconciliation for," he said, according to the article. 
But this tactic, if used, could set up a direct clash with the president, for the first time putting a repeal bill on Obama's desk and forcing him to veto it. 
It would also serve as an election year "test" for congressional Republicans, as well as presidential candidates, to see how serious they are about repealing. Holler said this would be a "test run for the Congress to show that they can put a repeal bill on the president's desk." 
But supporters of the health care law say the effort would be a waste of time, given that Congress almost certainly would fail to get the necessary two-thirds majority to override a veto. 
"It's not going to happen," said Simon Rosenberg, president of the New Democratic Network. "I don't know why Congress would waste their time to do something they know will be vetoed." 
He said the argument for repeal is getting more difficult for Republicans the longer the law is in place, and it appears to be working in its goal to provide affordable health care to more Americans. He said there is "no compelling policy reason to repeal or public opinion reason to do it. I can't believe that heading into a presidential election, Republicans would want to be on record as having stripped tens of millions of people of their health care." 
A recent Congressional Budget Office report also predicted that repealing the law could add billions to the budget deficit. 
Republicans might be able to use "reconciliation" because they have tied the ObamaCare issue to their budget proposal, a necessary step to employ the controversial tactic. However, they still might be blocked from doing so due to parliamentary rules that limit how broadly the tool can be used. Among them is a requirement that any proposal not increase the deficit. 
Holler said it's too early to know. "Some folks say you cannot use it to repeal the law in its entirety, others believe you can," he said, noting that he believes "a committed majority" can push its way through. 
But Democratic leaders had a resounding message for Republicans after Thursday's decision: Let it go. 
"With today's decision, the Affordable Care Act survived the latest Republican attempt to take away health care from working families," Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said in a statement. "To my Republican colleagues, I say respectfully: stop banging your heads against the wall trying to repeal the Affordable Care Act. It's time to move on."

US intel chief calls Iran the leading terror sponsor, as nuke talks enter final phase

The nation’s top intelligence official labeled Iran the leading state sponsor of terrorism and called the regime -- and its proxy Hezbollah -- the single most important factors keeping Syrian dictator Bashar Assad in power, according to a letter obtained by Fox News.
The warning comes as Obama administration officials enter the final phase of nuclear negotiation with Tehran. But despite the diplomatic track, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper assailed the country’s role in destabilizing the region in the letter to Republican senators.
CLICK HERE TO READ THE LETTER
"Iran remains the foremost state sponsor of terrorism and is increasing its ability to influence regional crises and conduct terrorism," Clapper wrote in the June 3 letter. "This has been the consistent view of the IC [intelligence community] for more than three decades."
On its role propping up Assad, accused of using chemical weapons on his own people, Clapper stated that, "Iran and Hizballah's efforts in Syria have been instrumental in preventing the collapse of the Assad regime, which they view as critical to maintaining their 'axis of resistance' against Israel and the West." 
Clapper was blunt in the letter to senators, after some lawmakers earlier questioned why Iran and Hezbollah were not listed in the “terrorism subsection” of the 2015 Worldwide Threat Assessment; both had been listed in previous years’ assessments. 
In the three-page letter, Clapper warned, without qualification, that Iranian-backed militias taking on the Islamic State in Iraq are the same groups who are a danger. "These militias have also threatened to conduct terrorist attacks against US interests in response to US involvement in Iraq."
Clapper said the threat report was an overview of global threats, and not a “comprehensive listing of every threat facing the United States.” The DNI added, "A specific reference to the terrorist threat from Iran and Hizballah -- which was not included in any of the drafts of the testimony -- would have been appropriate ... but the lack of its inclusion is in no way a change in the IC's assessment."
On Thursday, the Obama administration also labeled Iran and Cuba as serial human rights abusers in a State Department report.
Clapper said Thursday that the U.S. has eyes wide open in its talks with Iran. “We are not in the trust business at all,” Clapper said.
But critics say the administration is ignoring these issues while pursuing a nuclear deal. "Our administration is not going to do anything to upset the ability to complete a nuclear deal," Republican Rep. Mike Pompeo, who sits on the House intelligence committee, recently told Fox News. "So, as the Iranians expand, as they exert greater control in Iraq, this administration has chosen to at least turn the other way and allow the Iranian expansion, on the hope that they can get this deal across the finish line in the next 30 days."

Erase all History Cartoon

Obama scolds heckler at gay pride reception, saying 'You're in my house'

WASHINGTON –  President Barack Obama took on a heckler head-on at a gay pride month reception at the White House Wednesday, scolding the protester for being disrespectful in "my house."
The heckler had interrupted Obama's remarks by protesting the detention and deportation of gay, lesbian and transgender immigrants.
The president responded, "Hold on a second." When the heckler persisted, Obama, flashing an exasperated look, countered, "OK, you know what?" Wagging his finger and shaking his head, Obama said, "No, no, no, no, no," repeating the word more than a dozen times.
As the heckler continued to talk over him, Obama took it up a notch.
"Hey. Listen. You're in my house," he said to laughter and woos from the crowd. "You know what? It's not respectful when you get invited to somebody. You're not going to get a good response from me by interrupting me like this. I'm sorry. I'm sorry ... Shame on you, you shouldn't be doing this."
In his remarks, Obama said that regardless of how the Supreme Court rules in an upcoming decision on gay marriage, there has been an undeniable shift in attitudes across the country. He said he's closely watching the decisions the high court will announce in the coming days, which include a case that could affirm the right of gay couples nationwide to marry.
The president singled out discrimination facing transgender Americans as an area where more progress needs to be made.

Debate over rebel flag widens to include all symbols of Confederacy

The debate over the rebel flag that began anew after last week's church shootings in Charleston, S.C., has morphed into a full-blown Confederate controversy.
While Stars and Bars have long been associated by many with slavery, the latest campaign to remove Confederate emblems has extended beyond the flag to statues, memorials, parks and even school mascots. Never has the debate over what symbolizes heritage and what stands for hate covered so much ground, as efforts to strip icons that have been part of the visual and cultural landscape of the South for decades are afoot at national, state and local levels.
In one Arkansas town, the school board voted unanimously Tuesday to ban the song "Dixie" for the next school year and phase out “Rebel,” the school’s mascot.
“It came to our attention that the public has been pretty upset about the Confederate flag, which has already been removed, the rebel mascot [and] the playing of the ‘Dixie,’” Fort Smith, Ark., school board member Susan McFerran told reporters after the board voted for the changes.

“They are part of our history and not all of our history is dandelions and butterflies.”
- Rep. Mick Mulvaney, R-S.C.

In Maryland, Baltimore County Executive Kevin Kamentz is pushing a plan that would change the name of Baltimore's Robert E. Lee Park. A spokesman for Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake told The Associated Press she supports the name change and is willing to work with the county to find an appropriate alternative.
Both Democratic and Republican lawmakers in Tennessee have called for a bust of Nathan Bedford Forrest, a Confederate general and early Ku Klux Klan leader, to be removed from an alcove outside the Senate chambers. The bust, with the words “Confederate States Army” engraved on it, has been at the state Capitol for decades.
A group of Kentucky officials, including Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, want to kick a statute of Confederate leader Jefferson Davis out of the state Capitol rotunda, and activists in Minnesota have demanded a lake named after John C. Calhoun, a senator and vice president from South Carolina who supported slavery, be re-christened.

Related Image

Expand / Contract

There's a new move to change the name of Baltimore's Robert E. Lee Park, named for the legendary Confederate general.

The battle flag of the Confederacy, long seen waving above state capitols, from front porches of homes and on memorabilia and garments throughout the South, was the first casualty of the movement fueled by church shooting suspect Dylann Roof's embrace of it and white supremacy. Photos of Roof posing with the flag litter a website which he is believed to have created to house his hateful manifesto against African-Americans.
National retailers Amazon.com, Walmart, Sears and Etsy this week all announced plans to remove merchandise depicting the Confederate battle flag.
South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley called for lawmakers to remove the flag from public grounds, and in Alabama, Gov. Robert Bentley unilaterally ordered the immediate removal Wednesday of four different Confederate banners, including the battle flag, from an 88-foot-tall memorial that stands at the state Capitol entrance nearest to the governor’s office.

Related Image

Expand / Contract

Some are calling for statues like the one of Jefferson Davis, (l.), in Kentucky's state capitol, and Robert E. Lee, (r.), in Washington, to come down.

Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan opposes the use of the Confederate flag on the state's license plates, according to a spokeswoman for the Republican, and is in talks with the state's department of motor vehicles and attorney general to address the issue.
At the federal level, though, there’s now talk of whether Congress should remove statues with ties to the Confederacy from the U.S. Capitol. Among those are statues of Joe Wheeler of Alabama, who is wearing a Confederate military uniform with “CSA” emblazoned on his belt buckle. Another is of South Carolina leader Wade Hampton, leader of the Confederacy and Ku Klux Klan supporter.
But some are concerned that the snowballing effort to rid the nation of Confederate symbolism is a historical whitewash.
“They are part of our history and not all of our history is dandelions and butterflies,” Rep. Mick Mulvaney, R-S.C., told Fox News. “A knee-jerk reaction is not helpful.”
He later asked, “Where does it stop? Especially if you start letting people define our history.”

Related Image

Expand / Contract

June 23, 2015: Confederate flag themed stickers are displayed at Arkansas Flag and Banner in Little Rock, Ark.

While some, like Mulvaney, have questioned whether the push to purge could wind up erasing an important part of America’s past, University of Alabama history professor Joshua Rothman, believes the distinction lies not in learning about the Confederacy but in how people choose to honor it.
“I don’t think there is a reasonable position anyone could take that says that the history of the Confederacy shouldn’t be talked about in a university or school or museum,” he told FoxNews.com, adding that the problem lies in celebrating the Confederacy, especially using taxpayer money.

 

 

 

 

 

Clinton aide worked on UAE project while at State Department

Hillary Clinton’s top aide Cheryl Mills held several outside roles, including a board position with a UAE-funded university in Abu Dhabi, while working as chief of staff and counselor at the State Department, the Washington Free Beacon has learned.
After joining the State Department in the beginning of 2009, Mills continued to serve as general counsel for New York University for several months. She also sat on the board of the “NYU in Abu Dhabi Corporation,” the fundraising arm for the university’s UAE satellite campus. The school is bankrolled by the Abu Dhabi government and has been criticized by NYU professors and human rights activists for alleged labor abuses.
Mills resigned both positions in May 2009, according to a university spokesperson. Although she did not receive a direct salary from the Abu Dhabi board, she collected $198,000 over four months from NYU.
While the State Department told the Free Beacon that Mills did not start working as Clinton’s chief of staff until May 24, 2009, internal agency documents indicate she began months earlier.
Mills is identified as Clinton’s chief of staff in several U.S. diplomatic cables prior to May 2009. One confidential dispatch published by Wikileaks described a Feb. 5, 2009 meeting in Washington between Haitian President Rene Preval and Secretary Clinton.
“On the U.S. side, U.S. Ambassador to Haiti Janet Sanderson … Special Advisor Vicki Huddleston, and Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills joined the Secretary,” said the cable, which was sent from Hillary Clinton’s office to the U.S. embassy in Port au Prince on Feb. 11, 2009.

White House reportedly hid extent of Office of Personnel Management hack

The Obama administration reportedly concealed the true amount of information compromised by a cyberattack on the federal Office of Personnel Management (OPM) for several days after the initial disclosure of the hack, according to a published report.
The Wall Street Journal reported Wednesday that the day after the White House admitted that hackers had breached personnel files, OPM publicly denied that the security clearance forms had been compromised despite receiving information to the contrary from the FBI. The administration did not say that security clearance forms had likely been accessed by the intruders until more than a week had passed.
A OPM spokeswoman denied the claims, telling the Journal the agency had been "completely consistent" in its reporting of the data breach.
The Journal, citing U.S. officials, reported that lengthy period between disclosures was the result of a decision taken by both White House and OPM officials to report the cyberattack as two separate breaches, one of the personnel files and one of the security clearance forms. That meant that rather than saying the hack may have compromised the information of approximately 18 million people, including some who have never worked for the government, OPM initially said that only about four million people were affected.
By contrast, the paper reports, FBI officials who had to speak to lawmakers about the incident, including director James Comey, defined the theft as the result of one breach.
On Wednesday, House Oversight Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz asked whether the true number of people affected could be as high as 32 million, and called for OPM Director Katherine Archuleta to step down.

More on this...

• Chaffetz: Data breach scares the living daylights out of me

"I think you are part of the problem," Chaffetz told Archuleta during a hearing. "That hurricane has come and blown this building down, and I don't want to hear about putting boards up on windows (now). It's time for you to go."
In her testimony, Archuleta said the estimate of 18 million people affected "refers to a preliminary, unverified and approximate number of unique Social Security numbers in the background investigations data ... It is a number I am not comfortable with."
However, the Journal reports that  in a private briefing with lawmakers Tuesday, a senior FBI official interjected and told Archuleta the number was based on OPM's own data.
Investigators believe that China was behind the cyberattack, which was discovered in April. If the security clearance forms were compromised, information about espionage operations could be exposed. Beijing has strongly denied any role in the hack.

Cartoon

Most illegal immigrants from border surge skipped court date after release, records show

Stupid American Government?

Tens of thousands of illegal immigrant women and children streamed across the U.S. border last year seeking asylum and protected status, claiming a "credible fear" of going home to the violence in Central America. President Obama addressed the crisis through increased border enforcement, more detention beds, more immigration judges and pressure on political leaders in their home countries.
But a year later, new data obtained exclusively by Fox News shows the policy isn't stopping the influx. Not only are illegal immigrant women and children continuing to cross the border in large numbers, but the majority charged with crimes aren't even showing up for court.
"That strategy is obviously a complete failure because such a high percentage of these people who were not detained have simply melted into the larger illegal population and have no fear of immigration enforcement," said Jessica Vaughan, director of policy studies for the Center for Immigration Studies.
Statistics released by the Department of Justice Executive Office of Immigration Review show 84 percent of those adults with children who were allowed to remain free pending trial absconded, and fewer than 4 percent deported themselves voluntarily. 
The data set, requested by Fox News, underscores the dilemma facing immigration officials. While the ACLU and more than 100 lawmakers on Capitol Hill want to close federal detention centers, which they consider inhumane and unacceptable on legal and moral grounds, releasing the women and children to relatives and charities virtually guarantees they will fall off the federal government's radar.
"Now that we see that 85 percent of the people who were not detained before their immigration hearings do not show up for these hearings, that illustrates the need for detention," Vaughan said.
But others disagree. After the ACLU sued, a federal judge granted a preliminary injunction immediately halting the administration's policy of locking up asylum-seeking mothers and children. It cited a Department of Homeland Security survey of women and children in family detention. More than 70 percent claimed a credible fear of staying in their home country. The judge rejected the administration's argument that detention was necessary to prevent a mass influx of new immigrants.
"Many of these women and children are being terrorized in their own countries and that's the reason they are leaving," said Belen Robles, a trustee at El Paso Community College in Texas, speaking at the annual conference of the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials. "Once they get here, they need to be treated as human beings and not incarcerated or put in shelters."
The data set from the Department of Justice looks at all women and children detained from Central America beginning July 18, 2014, when Obama declared the immigrants to be an enforcement priority and ordered the courts to treat them on a priority basis.
Since then, ICE detained 83,385 adults and children, and immigration courts completed 24,842 cases. Of those, more than 64 percent, or 16,136, didn't show up for court, and fewer than 4 percent, or 908, agreed to leave voluntarily.
Among adults with children not detained, 25,000 have had their initial appearance; 13,000 are still in the system, and 12,000 have had their cases completed. Of the cases completed, 10,000 failed to appear.
But compare the number of removals for women and children who were detained against those who were not. Among those families who were allowed to remain free after their initial appearance in court, 84 percent never showed up again for their case. They remain free, scattered in cities across America. By contrast, almost all of those detained did show up before a judge.
"These figures are very strong evidence that the Border Patrol was right all along, that these people were coming because they knew they would be allowed to stay, that they were not planning to make some kind of plea for humanitarian status such as asylum," said Vaughan.
Nevertheless, immigrant advocates are trying to close down federal government detention centers and some 130 House Democrats and 33 senators called on Immigration and Customs Enforcement to stop family detention altogether. Additionally, a federal judge in California ruled that detaining immigrant children violates an existing settlement stipulating that migrant children must be released to foster care, relatives or -- if they must be held -- in the least restrictive environment possible.
"They deserve asylum. They are human beings and they deserve to be treated that way," said Victor Lopez, the mayor of Orange Cove, Calif., a small town in the Central Valley.  "They should be free, and if they want to be citizens of this country, they will appear in court."
Yet, despite "credible fear" claims of violence back home, immigration judges reject that argument 92 percent of the time for adults with children. Illegal immigrants have a better chance of staying in the U.S. by running away than showing up in court.
Here's why:
-- 103 cities, towns and counties in 33 states have sanctuary policies that protect illegal immigrants from deportation.
-- Most cities and states refuse to honor "immigration detainers" -- meaning they will no longer hold criminal aliens for deportation for 48 hours for pick-up by federal authorities.
-- Total deportations to date (117,181) are the lowest in four years and 25 percent fewer than at the same time last year.
-- Of those who are deported, 98 percent are either convicted of a felony or multiple misdemeanors, or re-entered the U.S. illegally multiple times.
-- Worksite enforcement is virtually non-existent. So far this fiscal year, ICE conducted just 181 workplace audits and brought charges against just 27 employers, down from 3,127 audits in 2013 and 179 arrests. Employer fines are also down by more than 50 percent.
-- Only eight states require employers to use E-Verify, the federal database used to determine legal status.
-- 10 states issue driver's licenses to illegal immigrants, and last week, for the first time, the administration required employers accept these licenses for employment verification, in violation of the Real ID Act.
 

Number affected by hack soars to 18M, agency head says nobody ‘personally responsible’

Fox News has learned that the number of victims of a pair of massive cyberattacks on U.S. government personnel files has soared to at least 18 million -- but the head of the hacked Office of Personnel Management refuses to blame anyone in her agency. 
"I don't believe anyone is personally responsible," OPM Director Katherine Archuleta said Tuesday.
The statement came during tense Capitol Hill testimony on a breach that seems to be growing wider by the day. Archuleta, who faced tough questioning at a House hearing last week, likewise faced angry senators on Tuesday before a Senate appropriations subcommittee.
Grilled on whether anyone takes responsibility, Archuleta said only the perpetrators should be blamed -- she said current failures result from decades of meager investment in security systems, but said changes are being made and in fact helped detect the latest breaches.
Still, the assurances are unlikely to ease concerns on Capitol Hill and among those who may have been affected. The web has expanded to include not just current and former government workers, but also those who may have applied for a government job.
The Office of Personnel Management initially estimated about 4 million current and former government workers were affected by one of the hacks. But Fox News is told by multiple sources that lawmakers have been informed the number will grow to at least 18 million -- and could, according to one source, soar to as high as 30 million.
During the Senate committee hearing on Tuesday, Archuleta testified that a second hack indeed exposed more individuals, though she said its "scope" and "impact" have not yet been determined.
She said this separate incident has affected files related to background investigations for "current, former and prospective government employees." Amid concerns that those affected have been left in the dark, Archuleta said the government would be notifying those whose information may have been compromised "as soon as practicable."
Meanwhile, she said a hacker also gained access to the agency's records with a credential used by a federal contractor. Archuleta told the Senate hearing on Tuesday that an "adversary" somehow obtained a user credential used by KeyPoint Government Solutions, a contractor based in Colorado. She didn't say specifically when that occurred or if it was related to the two cyberbreaches being discussed.
It was reported earlier that officials, in the second hack, were concerned information may have been stolen from a document known as Standard Form 86, which requires applicants to fill out deeply personal information about mental illnesses, drug and alcohol use, past arrests and bankruptcies. They also require the listing of contacts and relatives, potentially exposing any foreign relatives of U.S. intelligence employees to coercion. Both the applicant's Social Security number and that of his or her cohabitant is required.
Some officials have implicated China in at least one of the breaches. The new revelations and Tuesday's hearing come during an awkwardly timed U.S.-China economic dialogue in Washington, where Secretary of State John Kerry is participating.
There are about 2.6 million executive branch civilians, so the majority of the records exposed relate to former employees. Contractor information also has been stolen, officials have said.
Earlier, a major union said it believes the hackers stole Social Security numbers, military records and veterans' status information, addresses, birth dates, job and pay histories; health insurance, life insurance and pension information; and age, gender and race data.

Not so fast? Haley could face tough battle in push to remove Confederate flag

South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley, after joining with other state leaders in calling for the Confederate flag to be removed from Statehouse grounds, could be in for a drawn-out legislative battle.
Under the state's own rules for even touching that Confederate flag, any changes are easier said than done.
“I would be shocked if there wasn’t considerable or even vehement opposition from legislators, particularly from small rural towns,” William Gaston, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, told FoxNews.com.
On Monday, Haley, surrounded by a bipartisan coalition of lawmakers, called for the removal of the Confederate flag from the grounds of the state Capitol. Her comments came less than a week after Dylann Roof, a 21-year-old white man, confessed to gunning down nine black members of the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church.
Renewed efforts to remove the flag gained momentum after images of Roof, posing with the flag, surfaced.
“The hate-filled murderer has a sick and twisted view of the flag,” Haley said. “We have changed through the times and we will continue to do so, but that doesn’t mean we forget our history.”

More on this...

• Bias Bash: Media take on Confederate flag debate

But Haley, in calling for the flag's removal along with the state's top congressional representatives, must get the legislature to agree -- which could be an uphill climb. And the current push to remove the Confederate symbol is just the latest twist in a storied saga that has pitted Palmetto State lawmakers against one another for decades.
The Confederate battle flag first flew at the Statehouse in 1962 as part of a centennial commemoration. While many civil rights groups protested and demanded its removal for years, nothing changed until 2000. That year, the flag fight led to a political compromise that removed it from the Capitol Dome and moved it to a 30-foot flagpole at the Confederate Soldier Monument on Statehouse grounds.
Some say it’s that very same compromise that could present a challenge for the latest plans to remove it. The plan that was hammered out in 2000 requires a two-thirds majority in both the state House and Senate to remove it. It also requires a two-thirds majority to lower it, which is why when Haley ordered the U.S. and South Carolina flags to half-staff after the shooting, the Confederate flag remained flying at full-staff.
Republicans, who have a majority in both the House and Senate, have long been divided on the issue. But many Republicans have abandoned their past defense of the flag.
“I just didn’t have the balls for five years to do it, but when my friend was assassinated for being nothing more than a black man, I decided it was time for that thing to be off the Statehouse grounds,” Republican state Rep. Doug Brannon, told The Associated Press. “It’s not just a symbol of hate. It’s actually a symbol of pride in one’s hatred.”
Brannon said he plans to introduce a bill to take down the flag as early as he can.
Others, like state Sen. Lee Bright, who has a Confederate flying hanging in his office, was quoted equating efforts to remove it from the north lawn of the Statehouse with a “Stalinist purge.” Bright's office declined to elaborate on the comments when reached by FoxNews.com.
The process of taking the flag down took its first baby step on Tuesday afternoon when the South Carolina House voted 103-10 to allow a special session to discuss it. The Senate must also agree to meet, though Haley has said she would use her authority as governor to force a special legislative session.
Once a special session is called, there will be some procedural hurdles that will draw out the process. The bill would have to clear the judiciary committees and then come back to both floors for debate.
“If I had to set a deadline, I’d say about August first, hopefully before September,” state Rep. Todd Rutherford told WLTX-TV in a recent interview.
The Post and Courier newspaper, which is based in Charleston, has a working tally of the number of South Carolina legislators who say they’ll support taking the flag down, who say they’ll vote against it, and who have not responded.
By early Tuesday afternoon, 50 members of the state House said they would vote to remove the flag.  Eight have said no, nine were undecided, nine refused to answer and 46 have not responded.
In the state Senate, 19 lawmakers said they’d vote in favor of taking down the flag. One said no, four were undecided, three refused to answer and 18 have not responded.

US, West ready to offer nuclear equipment to Iran if it limits possible atomic weapons programs

The United States and its allies are willing to offer Iran state-of-the-art nuclear equipment if Tehran agrees to pare down its atomic weapons program as part of a final nuclear agreement, a draft document has revealed.
The confidential paper, obtained by the Associated Press, has dozens of bracketed text where disagreements remain. Technical cooperation is the least controversial issue at the talks, and the number of brackets suggest the sides have a ways to go not only on that topic but also more contentious disputes with little more than a week until the June 30 deadline for a deal.
However, the scope of the help now being offered in the draft may displease U.S. congressional critics who already argue that Washington has offered too many concessions at the negotiations.
The draft, entitled "Civil Nuclear Cooperation," promises to supply Iran with light-water nuclear reactors instead of its nearly completed heavy-water facility at Arak, which would produce enough plutonium for several bombs a year if completed as planned.
Reducing the Arak reactor's plutonium output was one of the main aims of the U.S. and its negotiating partners, along with paring down Iran's ability to produce enriched uranium -- like plutonium, a potential pathway to nuclear arms.
Outlining plans to modify that heavy-water reactor, the draft, dated June 19, offers to "establish an international partnership" to rebuild it into a less proliferation-prone facility while leaving Iran in "the leadership role as the project owner and manager."
The eight-page draft also promises "arrangements for the assured supply and removal of nuclear fuel for each reactor provided," and offers help in the "construction and effective operation" of the reactors and related hardware. It also offers to cooperate with Iran in the fields of nuclear safety, nuclear medicine, research, nuclear waste removal and other peaceful applications.
As well, it firms up earlier tentative agreement on what to do with the underground site of Fordo, saying it will be used for isotope production instead of uranium enrichment.
Washington and its allies had long insisted that the facility be repurposed away from enrichment because Fordo is dug deep into a mountain and thought resistant to air strikes -- an option neither the U.S. nor Israel has ruled out should talks fail.
But because isotope production uses the same technology as enrichment and can be quickly re-engineered to enriching uranium, the compromise has been criticized by congressional opponents of the deal.
A diplomat familiar with the negotiations said China was ready to help in re-engineering the heavy water reactor at Arak; France in reprocessing nuclear waste, and Britain in the field of nuclear safety and security.
He spoke on the eve of Wednesday's new round of nuclear talks in Vienna and demanded anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the confidential talks.
Diplomats say the other appendices include ways of dealing with enrichment; limits on Iran's research and development of advanced uranium-enriching centrifuges and ways of making sure Tehran is keeping its commitment to the deal.
Iran has most publicly pushed back on how much leeway the U.N.'s International Atomic Energy Agency would have in monitoring Tehran's nuclear activities. Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, is rebuffing U.S. demands that the IAEA have access to military sites and nuclear scientists as they keep an eye on Iran's present activities and try to follow up suspicions that the country worked in the past on a nuclear weapon.
But a senior U.S. official who demanded anonymity in exchange for commenting on the talks said Tuesday that the sides are still apart not only on how transparent Iran must be but all other ancillary issues as well. Separately, White House spokesman Josh Earnest suggested the talks could go past June 30.
If a deal "requires us to take a couple of extra days ... then we'll do that," he said.
A delay up to July 9 is not a deal-breaker. If Congress receives a deal by then, it has 30 days to review it before President Barack Obama could suspend congressional sanctions.
But postponement beyond that would double the congressional review period to 60 days, giving both Iranian and U.S. opponents more time to work on undermining an agreement.
Earnest indicated that negotiations may continue even if the sides declare they have reached a final deal, in comments that may further embolden congressional critics who say the talks already have gone on too long.
He said that even past that point, ongoing "differences of opinion ... may require additional negotiations."

$10 Cartoon

Hillary’s hurting! Hillary could lose! The media’s mini-panic over Bernie Sanders

At some point in this long slog of a presidential campaign, I expected to see the media declare that Hillary Clinton was in trouble.
After all, journalists crave a race, she’ll inevitably hit some speed bump, and the pundits can all wring their hands until she resumes her march to the Democratic nomination.
When I chatted with John Podesta after her Roosevelt Island launch, he was quick to note that “Bernie has a following,” and that Hillary will have to fight for Iowa and New Hampshire. I figured the campaign chairman was just offering the we-take-no-vote-for-granted refrain, given that no candidate wants to be seen as taking a race for granted.
Now, however, the rumblings are growing louder. But are they real?
The Hill declares that “it may be time for Hillary Clinton to take the challenge from Sen. Bernie Sanders more seriously.
“Sanders is surging in the race for the party’s presidential nomination."
But there’s a risk in Hillary attacking the Vermont socialist head on, the paper says: “Doing so could rally his supporters, alienate liberals the Democratic nominee will need in the fall of 2016 and elevate Sanders as a challenger.”
Republican pollster Glen Bolger, according to Roll Call, “made a bold prediction that Clinton would not win the Iowa caucuses or the New Hampshire primary.”
And after Sanders wins the first caucuses and the first primary, “then Democratic primary voters will go, ‘Oh my God, what are we doing here?’”
Except that, as the lead sentence noted, Bolger still believes that Hillary “is almost certain to be the Democratic nominee,” and he later told the paper he’d just been making a “bold, fun prediction.”
The most dramatic statement comes in this Salon headline: “Hillary Is Going to Lose.”
Except that turns out to be clickbait. Author Bill Curry, a former Clinton White House counselor, doesn’t go that far:
“Democratic elites don’t want to hear it but Hillary Clinton’s in trouble ... Bernie Sanders is the only candidate in either party who seems to feel the tectonic plates of our politics shifting, perhaps because he’s expected the change for so long. His is still an improbable candidacy, but less improbable than it was a month or even a week ago.”
All right, so this is mostly preseason stuff, like sportswriters chewing the fat over who’s the favorite for the 2016 Super Bowl. But there’s no question that Sanders is drawing large crowds—more than 5,000 at the University of Denver over the weekend--and has some momentum. He hits the right notes for liberal Democrats who don’t like Wall Street, big corporations or Barack Obama’s trade deal. A classic protest candidate—unless it turns out he’s more than that.
Is Hillaryland adjusting? Democratic strategist Maria Cardona said of Sanders on ABC’s “This Week”:
“We shouldn’t be surprised that there is so much enthusiasm for him, and in fact, we shouldn’t be surprised if he does very well in New Hampshire or in Iowa and perhaps even wins. I think this is good for the Democratic Party … As a Hillary supporter, I think she will be the nominee, but she will be that much better of a nominee and that much better of a general election candidate because of Bernie.”
This smells like lowering expectations, as host Jon Karl noted.
Sanders did raise $1.5 million in the 24 hours after he launched, more than several Republican candidates. And the senator, from a neighboring state, is trailing Hillary by just 41 to 31 percent in one New Hampshire poll. (Keep in mind that Gene McCarthy knocked LBJ out of the race in 1968 with 41.9 percent of the vote to Johnson’s 49.6 percent, in a vastly different situation.)
Lots of successful candidates have lost Iowa but won their party’s nomination. Losing the first two states would be an earthquake.
I still think this is mainly media hot air, something to match the 90-plus temperatures here inside the Beltway.
In fact, in a Wall Street Journal/NBC poll out last night, Hillary leads Bernie among Democrats by a humongous margin, 75 to 15 percent (and holds an 8-point lead over Jeb Bush). But the same survey shows 62 percent of Democrats want her to have a challenging primary.
That would include 100 percent of the media. But it doesn’t mean it’s going to happen.

Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan says he has cancer of lymph nodes

Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan has "very advanced" and "very aggressive" cancer of the lymph nodes, but he said Monday he will continue to work as the state's chief elected official.
Hogan said the cancer is B-cell non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. He says it may be Stage 4, or at least a very advanced Stage 3.
He spoke at a hastily organized news conference in Annapolis, surrounded by members of his family and cabinet.
Hogan, a Republican who took office in January, says he's "shocked" by the news.
At the news conference with his wife, daughters, sons-in-law and granddaughter, Hogan said that he had noticed a painless lump along his jaw earlier this month. He also felt some back pain, which, he said, was caused by a tumor pressing on his spinal column.
While vowing to continue to work, Hogan allowed that he will miss days of work while undergoing intensive chemotherapy. He said he will lose his hair — "I won't have these beautiful gray locks" — and maybe lose some weight.
Hogan says his doctors have told him he has a good chance of beating the disease.
He was mostly upbeat at the news conference, joking that his odds of beating cancer were better than his chances were of beating his Democratic opponent as an underdog in last fall's election, or of repealing the state's so-called rain tax.
He says he's been feeling good and has had few symptoms, but has tumors, a low appetite and some pain. Chemotherapy is planned.
Hogan said he will miss some meetings while he undergoes chemotherapy, but won't stop working, like thousands of other Americans who undergo cancer treatment and stay on their jobs.
"I'm still going to be constantly involved" in running the state, Hogan said, adding that Lt. Gov. Boyd Rutherford will fill in more for him. "Boyd has my back," he said.

South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley says Confederate flag has 'no place' on statehouse ground

Maybe any History books or other things that offend someone should be burnt or banned also.

South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley called Monday for the removal of the Confederate flag from statehouse grounds but defended the right of private citizens to fly it.
“The time has come,” Haley said. “That flag, while an integral part of the past, does not represent the future of our great state.”
The Republican governor, who avoided calls to remove the flag in the first few days following Wednesday’s shooting death of nine black members of the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church, said taking the flag down would unite the state.
“We are not going to allow this symbol to divide us any longer,” she said. “The fact that people are choosing to use it a sign of hate is something that we cannot stand. The fact that it causes pain to so many is enough to move it from the capital grounds. It is after all a capitol that belongs to all of us.”
The push to remove the Confederate flag – which has flown in front of the state capitol for 15 years after being removed from atop the statehouse dome -- comes after last week’s shooting deaths of nine black members of the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church.
State Sen. Clementa Pinckney, was among those killed.
President Obama and Vice President Biden will both travel to Charleston at the end of the week to attend the funeral services for Pinckney. Obama will deliver the eulogy, a White House spokesman confirmed to Fox News.
Late Monday, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton tweeted that Haley was "right to call for removal of a symbol of hate in SC."
Momentum has grown since last Wednesday’s murders to take down the flag. The accused killer, Dylann Roof, was photographed holding the the flag and with other symbols of white supremacy.
Over the weekend, nearly 2,000 protesters braved triple-digit heat to call for the flag’s removal in the state capital of Columbia .
The Sons of Confederate Veterans said it plans to vigorously fight any effort to remove the Confederate flag from the grounds of South Carolina's Statehouse.
The group said it was horrified at last week's shooting but there is "absolutely no link" between the massacre and the flag.
Leland Summers, South Carolina commander of the group, says the group is about heritage and history, not hate. He offered condolences to the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church, and said now is not the time to make political points.
Summers said the Sons of Confederate Veterans have 30,000 members nationwide that will fight any attempt to move the flag.

Pentagon says ISIS-linked suspect in Benghazi attack killed in airstrike

The Pentagon said Monday that a suspect in the deadly 2012 Benghazi attack with ties to the Islamic State terror group (ISIS) had been killed by a U.S. airstrike in Iraq.
Defense Department spokesman Col. Steve Warren said Ali Ani al-Harzi, a Tunisian national, was killed in Mosul, which was overrun by ISIS last year.
Al-Harzi "operated closely with multiple ISIL-associated extremists throughout North Africa and the Middle East," Warren said in a statement, using another acronym for the militant group. "His death degrades ISIL's ability to integrate North African jihadists into the Syrian and Iraqi fight and removes a jihadist with long ties to international terrorism."
Al-Harzi was a leading suspect in the Sept. 11, 2012 Benghazi attack, and was quietly added to the State Department's global terrorist list this past April, when his affiliation with ISIS was also confirmed. He had previously been a member of Ansar al-Sharia in Tunisia (AAS-T), an extremist group with ties to Al Qaeda, since 2011. He was a high-profile member known for recruiting volunteers, facilitating the travel of AAS-T fighters to Syria, and for smuggling weapons and explosives into Tunisia.
Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, said al-Harzi "was responsible for planning hundreds of suicide attacks across the world and was one of the first foreign fighters" to join ISIS. Schiff said al-Harzi "was also responsible for recruiting foreign fighters and sending them to the fight in Syria."
Four Americans were killed in the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, including Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens. Another suspect, Abu Khatallah, was arrested last year and is awaiting trial in a U.S. federal court.

More on this...

• A look at one of the key suspects in Benghazi attack

Al-Harzi was detained by Turkish authorities in October 2012 after he was linked to the Benghazi consulate attack through social media postings. He then was transferred to Tunisian custody, where FBI access was blocked until Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., intervened.
Fox News reported in January 2013 that FBI agents had interrogated al-Harzi for two hours the previous month, but did not have enough evidence to determine whether he was involved in the attack. On Jan 7, 2013, al-Harzi was released by a Tunisian court, which cited a lack of evidence. An investigative source familiar with the case told Fox News that the Tunisians did not give the FBI advance notice that al-Harzi would be released.

Global Warming Cartoon

Former White House Executive Chef Walter Scheib found dead in New Mexico

Walter Scheib, the former White House executive chef who had been missing for over a week, was found dead Sunday in New Mexico. He was 61.
The Taos News reported that Scheib's body was found in a river approximately 20 to 30 feet off a hiking trail in the mountains above the Taos Ski Valley. The New Mexico State Police said the spot where the body was found was approximately 1.7 miles from the Yerba Canyon trail head where Scheib's car was located.
Authorities said that they did not believe Scheib had not informed anyone of his hiking plans and was not believed to have been prepared for more than a day outdoors. Scheib had recently moved from Florida to New Mexico, and reportedly went for a hike June 13. His girlfriend reported him missing the next day. The 4-mile Yerba Canyon trail follows a canyon bottom before climbing to 3,700 feet in elevation, according to the U.S. Forest Service website.
Search coordinators said cell phone data showed that Scheib was last connected to a cellular signal at around 3 p.m. local time near a peak. They said that suggests that Scheib either reached the summit of the trail or came close to it before encountering trouble on his descent. The National Weather Service reported that storms had pounded the area around the time Scheib's cellular signal was lost.
Scheib, who graduated from New York's Culinary Institute of America in 1979 and later worked at grand hotels in Florida and West Virginia, became White House executive chef in April 1994 when then-First Lady Hillary Clinton hired him.
He was in charge of a full-time staff of five and oversaw a part-time staff of 20. Scheib was known for refocusing the White House kitchen on distinctly American cuisine with seasonal ingredients and contemporary flavors. He was responsible for preparing everything from First Family meals to formal State Dinners.
Last month, Scheib cooked dinner for a cancer charity's fundraiser at a hotel in Scranton, Pennsylvania. He told the Times Leader newspaper that preparing meals at the White House had required him to have a different outlook on food and cooking.
"When you're working at the White House, it's not a hotel or a restaurant, or a private club. It's a personal home," Scheib said. "Our goal wasn't just to cook food at the White House, it was to give the First Family an island of normal in a very, very crazy world."
His creations were served to many world leaders including Tony Blair, Jacques Chirac, Vicente Fox, Nelson Mandela and Boris Yeltsin.
Scheib left the White House in 2005 when Laura Bush let him go. He became a food consultant and speaker, often entertaining guests with anecdotes from his time at the White House. He also appeared on the Food Network's "Iron Chef America" show in 2006.
Scheib also wrote a book about his experiences entitled "White House Chef: Eleven Years, Two Presidents, One Kitchen." It was published in 2007.

Huckabee won't be 'baited' into Confederate flag debate, says it's not a ‘presidential’ issue

Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee said on Sunday he wouldn’t be “baited” into the politically charged Confederate flag debate in South Carolina, joining a group of fellow GOP White House contenders that says the state must decide.
“Everyone's being baited with this question as if somehow that has anything to do whatsoever with running for president," Huckabee, a 2008 presidential candidate and former Arkansas governor, said on NBC's "Meet the Press." "My position is it most certainly does not."
Fellow GOP candidate and former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum took a similar position.
“We should let the people of South Carolina go through the process of making this decision," he said on ABC's "This Week."
Their remarks came a day after GOP presidential hopeful Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker also said South Carolina should decide whether to allow the Confederate battle flag to fly above the capital grounds.
Walker also said he would honor a request by Gov. Nikki Haley, a Republican, to reserve comment on whether the flag is a symbol of racism.
He said he would wait until after the funerals for the nine black people fatally shot Wednesday by a white man in a historic African-American church in Charleston, S.C. -- the incident that re-ignited the flag controversy.
South Carolina GOP Sen. Tim Scott, one of only two black U.S. senators, told CBS’ “Face the Nation” that he also would wait until after the funerals to comment.
Flag supporters say it is a symbol of Confederate and southern heritage while critics argued it is a relic of white supremacy.
In 2000, civil right activists got the flag removed from inside the South Carolina statehouse and from atop the capitol dome. However, the flag still flies on the capital grounds in Columbia, S.C.
The controversy has since become an issue in presidential campaign politics, in large part because South Carolina is one of three early-voting states in which defeat or even a poor showing can end a White House bid.
“I don't think you could say that the presence of one lunatic racist, who everybody in this country feels contempt for, and no one is defending, is somehow evidence of the people of South Carolina," Huckabee also said Sunday, regarding the church tragedy and alleged shooter Dylann Roof. "I don't personally display it anywhere, that's the issue for the people of South Carolina."
He also said that voters don't want the presidential candidates to "weigh in on every little issue in all 50 states that might be an important issue to the people of those states, but it's not on the desk of the president."
On Saturday, GOP presidential candidate and senior GOP South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham said the flag is “part of who we are,” while acknowledging it might be “time to revisit” the decision to allow it to fly over the state capitol grounds.
The same day, another Republican presidential candidate, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, touted what his state did in 2001 about the flag, a year after the South Carolina decision.
“In Florida, we acted, moving the flag from the state grounds to a museum where it belonged,” he said in a statement. “I’m confident [South Carolina] will do the right thing.”
Also this weekend, 2012 GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney called for the flag to be removed from the state capitol grounds.

Perry: 'American people are going to see a very different candidate'

Presidential candidate and former Texas Gov. Rick Perry acknowledged on Sunday that he was ill-prepared for his previous White House bid, but said he’s back in 2016 to win the election, not to make a symbolic redemption effort.
“I didn't prepare properly,” the Republican candidate told “Fox News Sunday.”  “I thought being governor of the state of Texas for 12 years was enough preparation … . Until you've done it, you don't even realize what a challenge it is, these broad array of issues that you have to have more than passing knowledge of.”
Perry said having back surgery a month before officially starting his 2012 campaign in August 2011 also was a major factor.
The recovery extended for several months, not a few weeks as expected. And Perry ended his campaign in January 2012 after having lackluster debate performances.
 “We weren’t healthy,” the 65-year old Perry said Sunday.
He also said he has learned that “it takes years” to prepare to become a serious presidential candidate and that he has sought the wisdom of such economic and foreign policy experts as former National Security Adviser and Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and George Shultz, whose political career included time as the secretaries of state, labor and treasury and director of the Office of Management and Budget.

More on this...

• Perry refuses to 'take the bait' on Trump's sweat slap

“I feel very confident now sitting on the stage,” Perry said. “The American people are going to see a very different candidate than they did four years ago. … We’re going to talk about a vision for this country that is very forward leaning.”
Perry disagreed with suggestions that he’s running on a populist message similar to that of Democratic presidential candidate Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders that could alienate an array of potential backers and primary voters.
“I sound like a young man who grew up on a dryland cotton farm that understands what it's like to have to really work hard,” Perry said. “In today's world, a lot of Americans are out there and they're going, ‘Hey, wait a minute. What are these people on Wall Street getting rich for? I mean, who's going to bail me out?’ ”
Perry also dismissed the idea that his campaign could be doomed by the kind of verbal gaffes that hurt his 2012 campaign, particularly after he mistakenly called the fatal shootings last week of nine black people in a South Carolina church an “accident,” instead of “incident.”
He said voters will ultimately judge candidates on the issues.  

Controversial MIT economist Jonathan Gruber reportedly played key role in ObamaCare law

MIT economist Jonathan Gruber, who claimed the authors of ObamaCare took advantage of what he called the "stupidity of the American voter," played a much bigger role in the law's drafting than previously acknowledged, according to a published report.
The Wall Street Journal, citing 20,000 pages of emails sent by Gruber between January 2009 and March 2010, reported Sunday that Gruber was frequently consulted by staffers and advisers for both the White House and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) about the Affordable Care Act. Among the topics that Gruber discusses in the emails are media interviews, consultations with lawmakers, and even how to publicly describe his role.
The emails were released as the Supreme Court prepares to rule on the legality of federal health insurance exchange subsidies.
The Journal reports that the officials Gruber contacted by e-mail included Peter Orszag, then the director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB); Jason Furman, an economic adviser to the president; and Ezekiel Emanuel, then a special adviser for health policy at OMB.
"His proximity to HHS and the White House was a whole lot tighter than they admitted," Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R- Utah, chairman of the House oversight committee, told the Journal. "There’s no doubt he was a much more integral part of this than they’ve said. He put up this facade he was an arm’s length away. It was a farce."
"As has been previously reported, Mr. Gruber was a widely used economic modeler for administrations and state governments run by both parties—both before and after the Affordable Care Act was passed," HHS spokeswoman Meaghan Smith told the Journal in a statement. "These emails only echo old news."
Gruber became the center of a political storm in November 2014, when a video surfaced of him taking part in a 2013 panel discussion about ObamaCare. At one point, Gruber said the Obama administration wrote the bill "in a tortured way to make sure [the Congressional Budget Office] did not score the mandate as taxes. If CBO scored the mandate as taxes, the bill dies ... Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. And basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really, really critical for the thing to pass."
At the time of the controversy, President Obama referred to Gruber as "some adviser who never worked on our staff." However, the Journal reports that Gruber's emails appear to reference at least one meeting with Obama. Furthermore, one email from Jeanne Lambrew, a top Obama health adviser, thanks Gruber for "being an integral part of getting us to this historic moment", while another message from Lambrew refers to Gruber as "our hero."
Fox News previously reported that HHS retained Gruber in March 2009 on a $95,000 contract to produce "a series of technical memoranda on the estimated changes in health insurance coverage and associated costs and impacts to the government under alternative specifications of health system reform." A second contract with HHS three months later saw Gruber receive an additional $297,600.
Gruber later apologized for his comments in a December 2014 hearing before the House Oversight Committee, calling the remarks "mean and insulting."

Father's Day Cartoon

Father's Day: A dad wonders, does anyone ever get this job right?

This Father’s Day, I’ll begin with a confession: My most important job is also the one that I’m least confident I’m doing correctly.
It demands everything, guarantees nothing, frustrates completely, and challenges endlessly. The hours are around the clock, the stress is unbelievable, and the pay is lousy. It’s heavy on responsibility, light on training, fraught with worry, and overwhelming in its scope. There is no making friends, generating excuses, passing the buck or sitting on the sidelines. The praise is spotty, the criticism unavoidable, and the consequences of failing everlasting.
I’m convinced that, in the course of parenting, I make mistakes every day. If you need confirmation, ask my three kids (5, 8, 10). They’ll back me up. Although, owing to their chronic bouts with spotty hearing and selective memory, don't be surprised if they fail to mention their own misbehavior.
Oops. Can we still use the “m-word?” A generation ago, before the “wimpification” of so many of America’s parents, kids were told to be “a good boy” or “a good girl” and informed that there would be consequences if those expectations were not met.

I’ll know I’ve been successful at this gig if my kids turn out to be grateful, thoughtful and helpful. Those are lasting values, and I have to instill them.

Today, we’re far too enlightened for that brand of barbarism, and so we find it easier to excuse the mistakes and misdeeds of anyone under five feet tall by chalking it up to free expression and early leadership skills. Kids will be kids.
In those bygone days, a department store Santa Claus would still ask a child: “Have you been good this year?” Now a less judgmental Santa, who is after all on the payroll of the department stores, cuts to the chase and asks: “What do you want for Christmas?” No need to earn it. No strings attached.
As far as I can tell, my major shortcoming seems to be my inability to achieve the Goldilocks formula for parenting — not too much of this or that but just right. I’m too strict, I’m too lenient. I’m always in my kids’ face, or I’m nowhere to be found. I’m afraid that I’m not doing enough to provide my kids with a good living, but I’m also afraid of working so hard that I’m not spending enough time with them.
My college roommate’s father was a wise man. He once shared with us that the meaning of life was finding balance.
So true. But does anyone ever achieve the correct balance to parent? Honestly, I have to wonder, does any ever get this job right? Or are we just supposed to accept the mistakes as part of the process and move to the next level of the game?
Meanwhile, I wonder how my kids’ lives will be impacted by the fact that their dad is a “C-student" at parenting.
I have come to have tremendous respect for the parents of polite, responsible and well-adjusted grown children. In the last several months, I’ve sought out about a dozen or so fathers with kids in college — those near the end of the journey, and I’ve asked them a simple question: How does someone know when he has succeeded at fatherhood? The answers ran the gamut.
One father told me that it’s when your kids become adults and thank you for being there. Another said it comes at that comment when you look at your offspring and recognize that they turned out to be good people. Another said one measure of success is that your kids want to spend time with you.
For me, I’ll know I’ve been successful at this gig if my kids turn out to be grateful, thoughtful and helpful. Those are lasting values, and I have to instill them. You can easily imagine what kind of people you want your children to become or what you want them to achieve, but you also have to realize that they won’t get there organically. You have to lead the way. And that isn’t easy.
Whether my children grow up to be prosperous, healthy, or happy will have a lot to do with the decisions they make on their own. I can impact some of those decisions, but most of them will be out of my hands. There is only so much a parent can do, once free will comes into play.                                                                                                                    
Lately, I can’t shake the feeling that what my kids most need to hear is not what I’ll do for them but what I won’t do for them. Other parents will bend over backward to make excuses for their kids’ misbehavior and shortcomings, but I refuse to do that. It only hurts the kids in the long run. We’re here to raise these little people into not just bigger people but also better people, not to cover up their mistakes and smooth over their flaws.
Nor should we cater to their every whim. The more we do for our children, the less we teach them to do for themselves. I’m constantly reminding my kids that — as much as I do for them — I’m not their chef, butler, chauffeur.
Now and then, my kids will complain that they’re bored. So what? A little boredom is good since it fosters imagination and creativity. Besides, it’s not my job to entertain them. As I tell them, I‘m also not their cruise director.
I’m their dad. And — given that this is one job that, if done correctly, requires plenty of time, patience, and effort and seems to take a lifetime to perfect — that should be more than enough. 

Marquette University's decision to paint over mural of convicted cop killer draws protests

IDIOTS

More than 60 faculty and staff members at Marquette University are circulating an online petition against their own school for taking down a mural featuring convicted cop killer and the FBI’s first female most wanted terrorist, Joanne Deborah Chesimard, also known as Assata Shakur.
Shakur was part of a revolutionary extremist organization called the “Black Liberation Army.” In 1973, she shot and killed a New Jersey State Trooper at point-blank range, according to the FBI. Then she escaped from prison in 1979 and fled to Cuba, where she is still believed to be living.
The mural showed Shakur’s face with two quotes on a wall inside the Catholic institution’s “Gender and Sexuality Resource Center,” which provides “a safe and welcoming space dedicated to dialogue, growth, and empowerment around gender, sex, and sexuality,” as noted on its Facebook page.
Some faculty members are also upset because Susannah Barlow, the GSRC’s director at the time the painting went up, no longer works for the school. The university’s communications director would not specify if she was fired or resigned.
There is a petition circulating online saying Bartlow’s “relief from her position at this university greatly hinders the Marquette student body and the institution as a whole.”
The mural was originally painted, at least in part, by Alpha Kappa Alpha sorority members and went up in March. One of the quotes read, “No one is going to give you the education you need to overthrow them. Nobody is going to teach you your true history, teach you your true heroes if they know that that knowledge with help set you free.”
Leona Dotson, international communications chairperson of Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority Inc., confirmed in a statement the group did contribute to painting the mural, along with other university staff and students. “Unfortunately, Ms. Shakur’s entire history and background was not fully researched. If that process had occurred, she would not have been featured in the mural,” Dotson said.
When the university discovered there was a convicted cop-killer on the wall, they painted over it in May. A statement by the university said, “this is extremely disappointing as the mural does not reflect the Guiding Values of Marquette University.”
Stephen Franzoi, Professor Emeritus at Marquette’s Psychology Department, authored the petition and wrote the latest events “demand a response,” saying the university adopted “the narrative of pure vilification” by erasing the image.
“Did the administration consider the chilling impact of the erasure of the image within the context of present conversations about police brutality and black life?” the petition reads. “Were the students consulted? Were they offered an opportunity to engage?”
Franzoi told Foxnews.com he was not available for comment.
The university responded to the petition in a statement published online: “We cannot in good conscience, as a Catholic, Jesuit institution, allow for a convicted murderer and fugitive to be held up as a model for our students…The administration welcomes discussion on campus about controversial issues. The discussion about the mural should have taken place before it was created, not afterwards.”
John McAdams, associate professor of political science at Marquette University, told Foxnews.com the staff members who signed the petition are “pushing Marquette to be less and less a Catholic university, or more a citadel of secular political correctness.”
The university is now working with its advisory board to hire a new director in the Gender and Sexuality Resource Center to “build off of the current programs and continue this important work. It is essential to have a place where students can have a safe environment to explore the issues of gender and sexuality,” according to the school’s statement.