Jonathan Gruber, the Obamacare architect made notorious in newly surfaced videos, credits the “stupidity of the American voter” with helping pass the Affordable Care Act. To help Americans understand the law, it turns out, Gruber wrote — and starred in — a 150-page comic book titled “Health Care Reform: What It Is, Why It’s Necessary, How It Works.”

Throughout 12 chapters — with titles such as “Through the Past, Darkly,” “Selling Fear Instead of Facts” and “Good Things on the Horizon” — Gruber, one of the characters, chronicles the journeys of four Americans as they navigate the health insurance market under Obamacare.

A used copy of the hardback edition commanded $389.44 and up this evening on Amazon, but you could get a new paperback edition for around $5.

The book, illustrated by Nathan Schreiber, was published in December 2011, one year after the Democrat-controlled Senate passed the health care law on Christmas Eve.

Black-and-white comic art illustrates the history of the health insurance market before Congress passed President Obama’s signature domestic achievement, popularly known as Obamacare. The comic book also seeks to debunk the arguments of opponents of the Affordable Care Act  — including a character bearing a striking resemblance to conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh — and deflate myths “designed by reform opponents to scare people away from the facts.”

Gruber brings readers to Massachusetts, the state where he helped craft a health insurance law under Gov. Mitt Romney. Hearts, castles and cupcakes abound.

But in Texas, the second state Gruber visits, residents don’t fare as well. The Lone Star State, the text says, is “a perfect example of how the health care system spends its resources poorly.”

Gruber, an economist at Massachusetts Institute of Technology,  goes on to explain the benefits of the Affordable Care Act and how the Congressional Budget Office analyzed the law.  In videos of his appearances discovered over the past week, however, Gruber describes how the Obama administration and Senate Democrats manipulated the language of the law to ensure the CBO didn’t score it as a tax measure.

In the comic, Gruber reminds Americans that not purchasing health insurance results in a fine — $95 or 1 percent of income in 2014, with increases in the penalty each subsequent year.

“That’s not too painful,” Gruber writes. “More like a warning than anything else.”

When one of the characters, a white male, tells Gruber he fears Obamacare will “muck up” his existing health plan, the Obamacare architect reassures the man that if he likes his plan, he can keep it.

“And there’s also a strong ‘grandfather’ provision that allows you to keep your current policy if you like it. Even if it doesn’t meet minimum standards,” Gruber tells him.

In the weeks leading up to Obamacare’s rollout, though, millions of Americans received a notice from their insurance company informing them of the cancellation of their existing plan. Obama tried to remedy the issue, but millions more continue to receive cancellation notices.

For those worried about the redistributive aspects of Obamacare, Gruber reassures them in the comic book that “this is not socialism”:

At the end of the day, what everyone wants is a way to make sure we’re taken care of when we’re sick, and that it doesn’t ruin us financially to get that care. No one disputes that.

Gruber’s comic book received praise from other Obamacare advocates. In a blurb, then-Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., said the book is “fun and informative, and it boils down the facts of health care reform for all Americans.”

In separate reviews, the New York Times and Washington Post applauded Gruber for providing an easy breakdown of the Affordable Care Act.

Health care reporter Sarah Kliff, then writing for the Washington Post, praised the book for doing a “pretty fantastic job translating complex policies into comic-book form.”

Similarly, Cornelia Dean with The New York Times commended Gruber for taking Americans on an “easy-to-understand cartoon walk through the health care policy landscape.”

Over the last week, more than six videos of Gruber mocking Americans have surfaced. In one, Gruber discusses how the Affordable Care Act purposefully was crafted with a “lack of transparency.” In a second, the MIT economics professor calls Americans “stupid.”

President Obama attempted to distance himself Sunday from Gruber during a news conference at the G20 summit in Brisbane, Australia. Obama said Gruber was “some adviser who never worked on our staff.”

However, the Obamacare architect visited the White House more than a dozen times and received $400,000 in taxpayer money for consulting with the Department of Health and Human Services.

By Melissa Quinn

Federal watchdogs uncover thousands of lost Lerner emails, decoding to take weeks

As many as 30,000 lost emails from Lois Lerner — the ex-IRS official at the center of the agency’s targeting scandal — have been recovered by federal investigators.

The IRS has already turned over thousands of Lerner emails to congressional investigators but has said the remainder are gone forever because Lerner’s hard-drive crashed in 2011. And in June, agency Commissioner John Koskinen told Congress that back-up tapes containing the missing emails had been destroyed.

“The IRS has continually dragged its feet, changed its story, and been less than forthcoming with information related to its egregious violation of Americans’ First Amendment rights,” said Ohio GOP Rep. Jim Jordan, a member of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, which has spearheaded congressional probes on the issue.

“These e-mails are long overdue, and underscore again why we need a special prosecutor to conduct an unhindered investigation. Hopefully these e-mails will help us get to the truth,” he continued.

Lerner led the IRS division that targeted Tea Party and other conservative groups for excessive scrutiny during the 2012 presidential election cycle when they applied for tax-exempt status.

Lerner in March refused to testify before the GOP-led House investigative committee, saying she was protected under the Fifth Amendment, and has since retired.

VIDEO: Did IRS bother to look for emails?

Some of the recovered emails might be duplicates. And it could take weeks to learn their content because they are encoded, said Frederick Hill, a spokesman for Republicans on the Oversight committee.

In addition, the IRS would also have to delete information about taxpayers that is considered private before it can be released to the committee, which is headed by Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif.

The federal investigators are from the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration, which audits the IRS. A spokeswoman for the inspector general, Karen Kraushaar, declined to comment, saying the investigation was continuing.

The investigators ignited a political firestorm in May 2013 with the initial report the exceptionally close scrutiny.

The IRS said Saturday that it remains “committed to fully cooperating with all of the pending investigations.”

The agency also said that it learned after the June that the TIGTA had began an investigation of the hard-drive crash and a search for additional emails.

Senate Finance Committee aides said the investigators will assess if the newly recovered data can be made readable before it can be turned over to the committee.

They said their committee, which has been conducting a bipartisan investigation of the IRS’s treatment of groups, including liberal ones, expects to complete its work early next year.

FoxNews.com / The Associated Press contributed to this report.

According to a report in POLITICO, President Obama is expected to make good on his executive amnesty threat on Friday during an event in Las Vegas, despite saying repeatedly over the years that he does not have the authority to change immigration laws from the Oval Office.

House Speaker John Boehner, who warned the President shortly after the 2014 midterm elections that acting alone on immigration would “poison the well,” has taken notice of Obama’s past statements. After some research, his office found President Obama directly claimed 22 times he couldn’t take executive action on immigration because he doesn’t have the authority.

Over the weekend President Obama was questioned during an overseas trip about his change in position with executive action looming and tried to argue his position on the extent of his authority to change immigration law hasn’t changed at all.

“Actually, my position hasn’t changed. When I was talking to the advocates, their interest was in me, through executive action, duplicating the legislation that was stalled in Congress,” Obama told reporters.

When Obama says he was speaking with “advocates,” he’s referring to radio interviews on programs with open-border hosts, at La Raza events and during a number of interviews conducted by Univision and Telemundo. Here are a few examples:

October 2010: Obama on Immigration Reform “I am Not a King”

“My cabinet has been working very hard on trying to get it done, but ultimately, I think somebody said the other day, I am president, I am not king,” Obama told Univision in October 2010, when asked why he had yet to achieve comprehensive immigration reform.

March 2011: Remarks by the President Univision Townhall

“America is a nation of laws, which means I, as the President, am obligated to enforce the law. I don’t have a choice about that. That’s part of my job. But I can advocate for changes in the law so that we have a country that is both respectful of the law but also continues to be a great nation of immigrants. … With respect to the notion that I can just suspend deportations through executive order, that’s just not the case, because there are laws on the books that Congress has passed …. [W]e’ve got three branches of government. Congress passes the law. The executive branch’s job is to enforce and implement those laws. And then the judiciary has to interpret the laws. There are enough laws on the books by Congress that are very clear in terms of how we have to enforce our immigration system that for me to simply through executive order ignore those congressional mandates would not conform with my appropriate role as President.”

“I swore an oath to uphold the laws on the books …. Now, I know some people want me to bypass Congress and change the laws on my own. Believe me, the idea of doing things on my own is very tempting. I promise you. Not just on immigration reform. But that’s not how our system works. That’s not how our democracy functions. That’s not how our Constitution is written.”

January 2013: Pres. Obama Defends Deportation Record: ‘I’m Not A King’

“I’m not a king. My job as the head of the executive branch ultimately is to carry out the law,” Obama told Telemundo. “When it comes to enforcement of our immigration laws, we’ve got some discretion. We can prioritize what we do. But we can’t simply ignore the law.”

February 2013: Obama: ‘I Am Not a Dictator’

“I can’t do these things just by myself.” He reiterated that sentiment in a February 2013 interview with Telemundo. “I’m not a king,” he said.

FactCheck.org, The New York Times, and The Washington Post aren’t buying Obama’s argument and make it clear the President has in fact changed his position.

This is a flagrant untruth: “In fact, most of the questions that were posed to the president over the past several years were about the very thing that he is expected to announce within a matter of days,” reported The New York Times. “[T]he questions actually specifically addressed the sorts of actions that he is contemplating now,” The Washington Post’s Fact Checker agreed, awarding President Obama the rare “Upside-Down Pinocchio,” which signifies “a major-league flip-flop.” Even FactCheck.org piled on.

Obama’s argument that his “position hasn’t changed” and that “when I was talking to the advocates, their interest was in me, through executive action, duplicating the legislation that was stalled in Congress,” falls far short of explaining away his statement about a lack of authority. Not to mention, regardless of whether legislation is stalled in Congress, the President still doesn’t have the authority to rewrite or issue an executive order mirroring pending legislation.

Yesterday ABC’s Jon Karl asked White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest if President Obama still doesn’t view himself as the “emperor” of the United States as he refuses to work with Congress on illegal immigration reform. From MRC:

“Does the President still stand by what he said last year when he said, ‘I am not the emperor of the United States; my job is to execute laws that are passed.’ Is that still operative?” asked Jonathan Karl, reporter for ABC, during Tuesday’s White House press briefing.

“Absolutely,” replied White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest.

“Not a king either?” asked Karl, to audience chuckles.

“That’s right,” said Earnest flatly.

There are a few explanations for President Obama moving forward to change illegal immigration law despite his own statements and objections from Congress and even liberal attorneys like Jonathan Turley. The first is that the President is an ideologue with nothing to lose politically at this point. Obama isn’t up for re-election, he only has two years left and Democrats just lost in huge numbers at every level of government across the country. There’s no longer anything to save. Obama is interested in his legacy with the Left, not with the country as a whole. Second, the President is interested in fighting with Republicans, not working with them, and his latest move on illegal immigration proves it. The President is essentially daring Republicans to look at ways to address executive action and is hoping to get impeachment on the table in order to suck up all of the media oxygen and hysteria for the remainder of his term. Further, Obama knows if Republicans choose to address his executive action through the courts, he’ll be out of office before the legal fight is over. Obama doesn’t have much, if anything to lose and has made it clear he doesn’t care much about the constitutionality of what he’s about to do, despite claiming his coming action doesn’t fall within his constitutional authority over the past six years.

Conn has your rundown on what Republicans will do after Obama goes through with executive action on Friday.

Katie Pavlich |

President Obama, following through on his vow to sidestep Congress, will announce in a prime-time TV speech Thursday the executive actions he will take to change U.S. immigration law.

Obama will make his announcement, expected to protect roughly 5 million illegal immigrants from deportation, from the White House at 8 p.m. EST, then go to Las Vegas to promote the plan Friday.

The president will go ahead with his plan despite widespread opposition from Capitol Hill Republicans, who have asked him to wait until next year when the GOP controls the House and Senate to try to reform the country’s broken immigration system.

Obama is also under intense pressure from Hispanics and much of his liberal base to act now, after promising to act by September, then disappointing them by waiting until after the midterms.

Congressional Republican are already working on a strategy to stop Obama from using executive action, including a plan to submit a temporary spending bill that would cut any funding for related efforts like issuing Social Security cards for those protected under the Obama plan.

House Speaker John Boehner has warned Obama that taking such action before January would be tantamount to “playing with fire.”

The federal government technically runs out of money by December 11.

“What I’m going to be laying out is the things that I can do with my lawful authority as president to make the system better, even as I continue to work with Congress and encourage them to get a bipartisan, comprehensive bill that can solve the entire problem,” Obama said via Facebook.

At least some of estimated 5 million illegal immigrants who would be spared from deportation are also expected to be made eligible for work permits. But the eligible immigrants would not be entitled to federal benefits — including health care tax credits — under the plan, administration officials said Wednesday.

FoxNews.com / The Associated Press contributed to this report.

The FBI issued warnings to law enforcement agencies around the nation that a grand jury’s decision on whether a Missouri police officer will face charges for killing Michael Brown, an unarmed 18-year-old black man, “will likely” lead to attacks on police officers and key infrastructure.

Violence could erupt following the decision whether or not to indict Ferguson Police Officer Darren Wilson, who is white, in the Aug. 9 shooting death of Brown.

The FBI said in a bulletin,“The announcement of the grand jury’s decision … will likely be exploited by some individuals to justify threats and attacks against law enforcement and critical infrastructure.”

An announcement by the grand jury appears to be imminent, because local law-enforcement agencies and the National Guard are standing on alert for eruptions in the black community if Officer Wilson is not indicted by the grand jury.

There are leaks coming out of the grand jury inquiry that many witnesses to the shooting, black citizens themselves, have testified that Michael Brown, who had just robbed a convenience store, had attempted to kill Officer Wilson with his own police weapon, and when shot in the process, Brown refused to submit to arrest, but charged the officer.

When the shooting first occurred, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder and several other federal law enforcement authorities flocked to Ferguson, stirring up racial hatred in the black community, vowing that Officer Wilson would pay for his crime, notwithstanding the facts to the contrary.

Now that the process has been followed, and the facts have been determined by the grand jury, no matter what its decision in the case, A.G. Holder should be the one to announce the verdict, putting the authority of the Administration and Justice Department behind the decision, and asking all citizens, including black citizens, to reflectively support the decision, and to refrain from additional looting and violence.

Of course, we at The Federalist Press anticipate that Holder and others in the Administration have no interest in facts, truth, or peace, and will do nothing to cool the boiling tempers that have presided over months of violence in the troubled community.

PUBLIUS

“My job was just to see if the numbers added up,” Jonathan Gruber, the controversial architect of ObamaCare, told PBS two years ago.

And add up the numbers he did – at least in terms of Gruber’s consulting fees. A Fox News review of state and federal websites, as well as published reports, finds the MIT economist and his firm have secured millions in federal and state contracts stretching back over the last fifteen years.

Most famously, the Department of Health and Human Services retained Gruber in March 2009 to produce, as the contract stipulated, “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.”

That contract netted Gruber $95,000, and an additional HHS contract, inked that June, added $297,600 to the deal – steering almost $400,000 to the creator of the Gruber Microsimulation Model. Still another contract with the agency, as reported here, was said to have exceeded $2 million in value since 2007.

The National Institutes of Health clinched a deal for a like amount ($2.05 million), and the Department of Justice contracted with Gruber for nearly $1.74 million. DOJ? You might ask. Why would the Justice Department be hiring the architect of ObamaCare? Records show Gruber earned the DOJ fee for helping to develop viable incentives to be extended to the tobacco companies in order to dissuade them from targeting teen smokers.

Similarly, Gruber collected $103,500 from the State Department for his services as an expert witness, providing testimony in a NAFTA dispute with a Canadian tobacco firm.

Then there are the state governments. The Fox News review finds Gruber and his firm have consulted for, or provided computer modeling to, at least fifteen states. Glenn Kessler, the widely respected Washington Post columnist who writes under the moniker “The Fact Checker,” reported last week that “at least eight states” have hired Gruber to assist with the launching of their health care exchanges – and Kessler added: “It’s safe to say that about $400,000 appears to be the standard rate for gaining access to the Gruber Microsimulation Model.”

Fox News found that Gruber and his firm shared in a $481,050 contract with Michigan, a $400,000 deal with Wisconsin, and a contract with Minnesota worth nearly $330,000. Other contracts included deals with California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts – where Gruber notably worked with then-Gov. Mitt Romney – Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, West Virginia and Wyoming.

Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, a longtime Gruber critic, told Fox News on Monday that the economist has never been as transparent as he should have been in divulging his consulting contracts to lawmakers when he was testifying before them. “This is not saying the amount of money he made was wrong,” Grassley said, “but when he’s testifying before Congress, there ought to be full disclosure of this so that you know if he’s got a non-biased opinion — or not.”

By all accounts, Gruber is among a handful of economists with top-tier expertise in developing the kind of models that HHS and other agencies depend upon in the formulation of massive initiatives like ObamaCare, and one expert in government contracting told Fox News the MIT professor has carved out a “lucrative” niche.

“They do seem like fairly large state contracts, particularly relative to the size of some of these states,” said Tom Shoop, editor in chief of the website www.govexec.com. “I think he’s unusual in terms of the scale and scope of it. There are not a lot of individual university economists who get this level of funding from federal and state governments.”

Asked for comment, Gruber emailed a Fox News producer on Monday: “Sorry, but I am not doing any media appearances right now.”

The Justice Department is scooping up data from thousands of cellphones through fake communications towers deployed on airplanes, a high-tech hunt for criminal suspects that is snagging large number of innocent Americans, according to people familiar with the operations.

The U.S. Marshals Service program, which became fully functional around 2007, operates Cessna aircraft from at least five metropolitan-area airports, with a flying range covering most of the U.S. population, according to people familiar with the program.

Planes are equipped with devices—some known as “dirtboxes” to law-enforcement officials because of the initials of the Boeing Co. unit that produces them—which mimic cell towers of large telecommunications firms and trick cellphones into reporting their unique registration information.

The technology in the two-foot-square device enables investigators to scoop data from tens of thousands of cellphones in a single flight, collecting their identifying information and general location, these people said.

People with knowledge of the program wouldn’t discuss the frequency or duration of such flights, but said they take place on a regular basis.

A Justice Department official would neither confirm nor deny the existence of such a program. The official said discussion of such matters would allow criminal suspects or foreign powers to determine U.S. surveillance capabilities. Justice Department agencies comply with federal law, including by seeking court approval, the official said.

The program is the latest example of the extent to which the U.S. is training its surveillance lens inside the U.S. It is similar in approach to the National Security Agency’s program to collect millions of Americans phone records, in that it scoops up large volumes of data in order to find a single person or a handful of people. The U.S. government justified the phone-records collection by arguing it is a minimally invasive way of searching for terrorists.

Yet another video has surfaced of ObamaCare architect Jonathan Gruber crediting the passage of the health care bill in part to American voters’ lack of intelligence.

The Daily Caller posted the third video Wednesday of the MIT professor, this time speaking at the University of Rhode Island in 2012.

Gruber was discussing the law’s so-called “Cadillac tax,” which he said was helped along by “hero” then-Sen. John Kerry. The “Cadillac tax” mandates that insurance companies be taxed rather than policy holders. He said that taxing individuals would have been “politically impossible,” but taxing the companies worked because Americans didn’t understand the difference.

“So basically it’s the same thing,” he said. “We just tax the insurance companies, they pass on higher prices that offsets the tax break we get, it ends up being the same thing. It’s a very clever, you know, basic exploitation of the lack of economic understanding of the American voter.”

The new video follows a second tape played on Fox News’ “The Kelly File” Tuesday that showed Gruber speaking on a similar topic at an October 2013 event at Washington University in St. Louis.

Referring to the “Cadillac tax,” he said: “They proposed it and that passed, because the American people are too stupid to understand the difference.”

This was similar to remarks he made at a separate event around the same time in 2013. In a clip of that event, Gruber said the “lack of transparency” in the way the law was crafted was critical. “Basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really, really critical for the thing to pass,” he said.

White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest, traveling with President Obama in Burma, said he disagrees with Gruber’s comments.

Earnest claimed the bill was written in a transparent way and that it’s Republicans who aren’t transparent about how they would replace it.

After the first tape surfaced — prompting Republican outrage — Gruber went on MSNBC to express regret. On Tuesday, he said: “I was speaking off the cuff and I basically spoke inappropriately, and I regret having made those comments.”

But after Fox News played the second tape, GOP lawmakers said it proves what they’ve been saying all along.

“It confirms people’s greatest fear about the government,” Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo., told Fox News on Wednesday. “Remember, it was Nancy Pelosi who said first you have to pass it before you get to find out what’s in it.”

As Congress returns for a lame-duck session, on the heels of midterm elections where Republicans won control of the Senate, GOP leaders say they will try once again next year to repeal the law — or least change its most controversial provisions.

FoxNews.com

ObamaCare architect Jonathan Gruber apparently doesn’t think much of the intelligence of the American people.

A new tape has surfaced showing Gruber, once again, claiming the health care law’s authors took advantage of the “stupid” American public.

The tape, played on Fox News’ “The Kelly File,” showed Gruber speaking at an October 2013 event at Washington University in St. Louis.

Referring to the so-called “Cadillac tax” on high-end health plans, he said: “They proposed it and that passed, because the American people are too stupid to understand the difference.”

Gruber specifically was referring to the way the “Cadillac tax” was designed — he touted their plan to, instead of taxing policy holders, tax the insurance companies that offered them. He suggested that taxing individuals would have been politically unpalatable, but taxing the companies worked because Americans didn’t understand the difference.

This is similar to remarks he made at a separate event around the same time in 2013. In a clip of that event, Gruber said the “lack of transparency” in the way the law was crafted was critical. “Basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really, really critical for the thing to pass,” he said.

After the first tape surfaced — prompting Republican outrage — Gruber went on MSNBC to express regret. On Tuesday, he said: “I was speaking off the cuff and I basically spoke inappropriately, and I regret having made those comments.”

But after Fox News played the second tape, GOP lawmakers said it proves what they’ve been saying all along.

“It confirms people’s greatest fear about the government,” Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo., told Fox News on Wednesday. “Remember, it was Nancy Pelosi who said first you have to pass it before you get to find out what’s in it.

“We knew it was written in a way that it was really deliberately written to deceive the American people, and now people are paying the price.”

As Congress returns for a lame-duck session, on the heels of midterm elections where Republicans won control of the Senate, GOP leaders say they will try once again next year to repeal the law — or least change its most controversial provisions.

Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., blasted Gruber on Tuesday.

“I can’t even get past the irony of that to even get to the arrogance of him calling our fellow citizens stupid,” he told Fox News, referring to the administration’s past transparency pledges.

FoxNews.com

ObamaCare architect Jonathan Gruber said that lack of transparency was a major part of getting ObamaCare passed, and that it was written in such a way as to take advantage of “the stupidity of the American voter.”

Gruber, the MIT professor who served as a technical consultant to the Obama administration during Obamacare’s design, also made clear during a panel quietly captured on video that the individual mandate, which was only upheld by the Supreme Court because it was a tax, was not actually a tax.

ObamaCare architect Jonathan Gruber said that lack of transparency was a major part of getting ObamaCare passed, and that it was written in such a way as to take advantage of “the stupidity of the American voter.”

President Obama threw down the gauntlet Monday with cable companies and Internet providers by declaring they shouldn’t be allowed to cut deals with online services like YouTube to move their content faster.

It was his most definitive statement to date on so-called “net neutrality,” and escalates a battle that has been simmering for years between industry groups and Internet activists who warn against the creation of Internet “fast lanes.” The president’s statement swiftly drew an aggressive response from trade groups, which are fighting against additional regulation, as well as congressional Republicans.

“We are stunned the president would abandon the longstanding, bipartisan policy of lightly regulating the Internet and calling for extreme” regulation, said Michael Powell, president and CEO of the National Cable and Telecommunications Association, the primary lobbying arm of the cable industry.

Obama, in his statement, called for an “explicit ban” on “paid prioritization,” or better, faster service for companies that pay extra. The president said federal regulators should reclassify the Internet as a public utility under Title II of the 1934 Communications Act.

“For almost a century, our law has recognized that companies who connect you to the world have special obligations not to exploit the monopoly they enjoy over access in and out of your home or business,” Obama said in his statement. “That is why a phone call from a customer of one phone company can reliably reach a customer of a different one, and why you will not be penalized solely for calling someone who is using another provider. It is common sense that the same philosophy should guide any service that is based on the transmission of information — whether a phone call, or a packet of data.”

Obama’s statement puts him in the middle of a debate between industry groups and the Federal Communications Commission, which is under public pressure – now from Obama as well — to prevent broadband providers from creating the “fast lanes.”

The FCC is nearing a decision on how far to go to protect Internet consumers from deals between broadband providers like Verizon and AT&T and content companies like Netflix or YouTube.

But industry groups pushed back, with Powell arguing that such regulation would slow Internet growth.

This “tectonic shift in national policy, should it be adopted, would create devastating results,” Powell said, claiming only Congress should make a policy change of this magnitude.”

Likewise, CTIA-The Wireless Association called Obama’s proposal a “gross overreaction” that would ignore other viewpoints.

Many Republicans including House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio and Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky sided with industry in denouncing the plan as government overreach.

“`Net Neutrality’ is Obamacare for the Internet,” declared Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, a tea party favorite, on Twitter. “The Internet should not operate at the speed of government.”

Last January, a federal court overturned key portions of an open Internet regulation put in place by the FCC in 2010. The court said the FCC had “failed to cite any statutory authority” to keep broadband providers from blocking or discriminating against content.

That ruling sent the FCC back to the drawing board. Until the FCC can agree on new regulations that satisfy the court’s requirements, Internet service providers could block or discriminate against content moving across their networks with impunity.

Internet activists say the FCC should reclassify the Internet as a public utility under Title II of the 1934 Communications Act to ensure it has enough power to regulate the Internet effectively. That’s exactly what industry doesn’t want to happen. Industry officials say they are committed to an open Internet in general but want flexibility to think up new ways to package and sell Internet services.

FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler has said he is open to using a “hybrid” approach that would draw from both Title II and the 1996 Telecommunications Act. But Wheeler said Monday that so far, those options have presented “substantive legal questions.”

“We found we would need more time to examine these to ensure that whatever approach is taken, it can withstand any legal challenges it may face,” he said.

FoxNews.com | The Associated Press contributed to this report.

President Obama said Sunday that he plans to proceed with an executive order to ease immigration laws before the end of the year, despite dire warnings from Republican leaders that it will damage his relationship with the new GOP-run Congress.

Mr. Obama said that he’s waited a year for the Republican-run House to act on the bipartisan immigration bill passed by the Democrat-run Senate, and he can’t wait any longer to address the country’s immigration problems.

WASHINGTON –  President Obama has chosen Loretta Lynch, the U.S. attorney in Brooklyn, N.Y., as his nominee to replace outgoing Attorney General Eric Holder — ending widespread speculation over who might fill Holder’s shoes and teeing up a nomination debate potentially during the lame-duck session.

Though several Republicans had wanted to wait to consider any successor until the new Congress is seated, the president plans to announce his pick on Saturday.

“Ms. Lynch is a strong, independent prosecutor who has twice led one of the most important U.S. Attorney’s offices in the country,” White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said in a statement. “She will succeed Eric Holder, whose tenure has been marked by historic gains in the areas of criminal justice reform and civil rights enforcement.”

Lynch, 55, is a Harvard Law School graduate and popular prosecutor who is currently serving her second stint as U.S. attorney for Eastern New York, which covers Brooklyn, Queens, Staten Island and Long Island.

She was appointed by Obama in 2010. If confirmed to fill Holder’s post, she would be the first black female attorney general.

It was unclear how the nomination will be greeted by Republicans on Capitol Hill, who were often at odds with Holder over the course of his tenure. The party won a majority in the Senate on Tuesday, but will not take control until January.

It was also unclear if the Senate might wait on a vote until then.

“She’s got a good reputation …she’s done some great work in her office. She’s not one to put her head in the sand. She’s hasn’t been afraid to go after corruption, things like that, against Republicans and Democrats,” said Annmarie McAvoy, an attorney and former federal prosecutor who worked directly under Lynch during her first tenure as U.S. Attorney from 1999-2001.

She described Lynch as well liked, respected and not likely to cause a stir politically. “I have not heard anything controversial about her – at all,” McAvoy told Foxnews.com.

“When you meet her she is very sweet and she is very personable, she is very bright. She handles herself beautifully, but she doesn’t shy away from controversy.”

Lynch grew up in Durham, North Carolina, the middle of three children. Her mother was a school librarian, her father a Baptist minister.

After Harvard, Lynch served as a federal prosecutor in New York’s Eastern District, receiving several key promotions over eight years until President Clinton nominated her as U.S. Attorney in 1998. After leaving that office in 2001, Lynch went into private practice specializing in commercial litigation, white collar criminal defense and corporate compliance issues before Obama appointed her in 2010 to return to her current post.

“President Barack Obama has chosen a great New Yorker as the country’s highest-ranking law enforcement official,” New York Mayor Bill de Blasio tweeted Friday after news of the nomination.

In her time as U.S. Attorney, Lynch has made a name for herself in a number of high-profile convictions, including a thwarted Al Qaeda-sanctioned plot to attack the New York subway system, and pursuing the head of a Mexican drug cartel for 12 murders. She also heads the government’s prosecution of Rep. Michael Grimm, R-N.Y., who has been charged with tax evasion but won re-election Tuesday night.

There have been no indications thus far if Lynch’s nomination will be as dramatic as other Obama picks.

Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, who is currently the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee — which must approve Obama’s nominee — appeared welcoming in his comments Friday night.

“Being selected to serve as our nation’s top law enforcement officer is both a tremendous honor and responsibility. As we move forward with the confirmation process, I have every confidence that Ms. Lynch will receive a very fair, but thorough, vetting by the Judiciary Committee,” he said in a statement.“I look forward to learning more about her, how she will interact with Congress, and how she proposes to lead the department.”

Reports throughout the week suggested that Lynch was not an Obama insider so she doesn’t bring the baggage carried by other potential administration nominees.

“Unlike Eric Holder, who was very close to the president – in a way, too close – she doesn’t really have any relationship with President Obama,” said Fox News contributor Kirsten Powers. “I think that bodes well for her.”

Lynch is reportedly close to Holder, however, having served on his Attorney General’s Advisory Committee of U.S. Attorneys (AGAC), a 20-member body that provides counsel to Holder on policy.

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, who sits on the Judiciary Committee, has already indicated that he is unhappy Obama is making the nomination now, instead of during the new session, when Republicans will have the majority in both chambers. “Democrat senators who just lost their seats shouldn’t confirm (a) new Attorney General,” he tweeted on Friday. “(They) should be vetted by (the) new Congress.”

FoxNew.com | The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Meet Ben Carson: First Republican to Throw His Hat in 2016 Ring

Yes, the 2016 race for the White House has already gotten started — and it looks like Dr. Ben Carson is first in the ring.

Carson, a famous pediatric neurosurgeon and conservative political star, will air a nearly 40 minute-long ad introducing himself to the American people this weekend, an aide to Carson confirms to ABC News.

The documentary titled “A Breath of Fresh Air: A New Prescription for America” will air in 22 states and Washington, DC. The paid video will detail some of his biography and family life, including his rise from being born to a single mother with a poor childhood in Detroit to director of pediatric neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins for almost 40 years, known for his work separating conjoined twins, to potential 2016 presidential candidate.

Carson first became a conservative star when last year he created a buzz at the National Prayer Breakfast when in front of an audience that included President Obama and Vice President Joe Biden spoke out about political correctness, health care and taxes.

He also called for a private health care savings plan and a flat tax in a speech that went viral and led to an editorial in the Wall Street Journal titled Ben Carson for President. He is known as a fierce opponent of the president’s health care law known as Obamacare.

In an ABC News/Washington Post poll from last month of the potential 2016 presidential candidates showed Carson in seventh place garnering seven percent of the vote after other notables including Jeb Bush, Mike Huckabee, Chris Christie, and Marco Rubio.

Carson has a grassroots effort to draft him for a 2016 presidential run that has raised millions for the effort. In an interview last month with Jorge Ramos on our sister network, Fusion he said he’s considering a White House run.

“No, I don’t want to be president. Why would any sane person want to do that?” Carson said, acknowledging he has noticed the support. “I think I have to consider that, with so many clamoring for me to do it.”

The Washington Times first reported the news of Carson’s video. A production company run by Armstrong Williams, a conservative commentator, is paying for the airtime. They also filmed the documentary. Williams is Carson’s business manager.

By SHUSHANNAH WALSHE

House Speaker John Boehner issued a stern warning to President Obama not to use executive action to bypass Congress on immigration, telling the president on Thursday “he’s going to burn himself” and “poison the well” if he goes down that path.

The warning comes ahead of a major summit at the White House where Obama will meet Friday with congressional leaders of both parties. The meeting is the first chance since Republicans won a majority in the Senate — and built their majority to historic levels in the House — for all sides to sit down and discuss a potential agenda for next year.

Boehner and presumptive Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell began to lay out their agenda items on Thursday, but the House speaker blasted Obama for a day earlier vowing to pursue executive action on immigration before the end of the year.

“If he acts unilaterally on his own, outside of his authority, he will poison the well and there will be no chance of immigration reform moving in this Congress,” Boehner said.

Obama said Wednesday he still wants Congress to pass legislation and promised that if Congress passes a bill, it would make any executive actions “go away.”

But Boehner said the issue has become a “political football.” Obama is said to be looking at suspending deportations for millions. To the president, Boehner said: “When you play with matches, then you take the risk of burning yourself, and he’s going to burn himself if he continues to go down this path.”

Boehner, meanwhile, said the House once again would vote next year to repeal ObamaCare. With Obama already having vowed to veto any such repeal, Boehner said there might still be bipartisan support for undoing parts of the law — like the unpopular medical device tax.

He laid out several other agenda items, including approving the Keystone XL oil pipeline, overhauling the tax code, addressing the debt and more. He and McConnell outlined several of these items in a Wall Street Journal op-ed on Thursday.

Meanwhile, Boehner and McConnell both will have to run for their leadership posts next year and have been touting their successes in recent days.

Boehner has the more unwieldy caucus; in the last party election, nine rank-and-file Republicans defected on the vote.

According to his political office, though, Boehner helped raise $102 million for the cycle; visited 175 cities and held 150 “road events” for candidates and members; and headlined several rallies and fundraisers in the closing weeks of the campaign.

His office also noted the historic gains made by House Republicans — under Boehner — echoing predictions that when all the races are counted, the House GOP will have their biggest majority since 1930.

The full House will vote for speaker at the start of the new Congress in January. The last time, Boehner narrowly missed having the vote go to a second ballot for the first time since the 1920s — both parties vote on the floor for speaker, and the winner must get an absolute majority of all ballots cast.

FoxNews.com

Voters handed control of the Senate to Republicans for the first time in eight years on Tuesday, putting the GOP in charge of Congress for the remainder of President Obama’s term.

Republicans swept to victory in a string of contests across the country, retaining every one of the GOP-held seats up for grabs and picking up more than the six seats needed to take control of the Senate. Republicans enjoyed a banner night after mounting campaigns from coast to coast that, almost without exception, sought to cast their opponents as rubber stamps for the unpopular president. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, who fended off a Democratic challenge in Kentucky, is now poised to ascend to majority leader next year.

Republicans also are projected to retain control of the House — and gain at least 12 seats, expanding their majority beyond their post-World War II record of 246 seats set in 1946.

The landscape means Republicans will have new powers to challenge Obama’s agenda in the final two years of his term, able to launch investigations and hold hearings from both chambers; hold up key appointments; and pass GOP-favored legislation, if only to force the president to employ his veto pen. The division of power also could yield areas of agreement, on areas ranging from immigration to energy — though the Affordable Care Act and efforts to undermine it could continue to sour talks on other issues.

Obama plans to hold a press conference at the White House, at 2:50 p.m. ET on Wednesday, on the heels of the election results.

McConnell, after winning his own race, said some things won’t change next year — but stressed that lawmakers and the White House don’t have to be in “perpetual conflict” and “have an obligation to work together.”

“Tomorrow, the papers will say I won this race, but the truth is … tonight we begin another one, one that’s far more important than mine — and that’s the race to turn this country around,” McConnell said in Louisville.

In a written statement, current Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid congratulated McConnell and said he looked forward to working with him as the next majority leader.

So far, Republicans have gained seven Senate seats. In North Carolina, Thom Tillis, a Republican member of the state legislature, is projected to oust U.S. Sen. Kay Hagan, a first-term Democrat, in a closely fought race that saw spending top $100 million. Republican Joni Ernst also beat Democratic Rep. Bruce Braley in Iowa.

Echoing a campaign ad about hogs that helped her gain attention early on in her race, Ernst declared, “We are heading to Washington, and we are going to make ’em squeal.”

Republicans picked up seats in territory all over the country Tuesday night. In Montana, Republican Steve Daines defeated Democrat Amanda Curtis, flipping control of the seat to the Republican Party for the first time since 1913. In Colorado, GOP Rep. Cory Gardner ousted first-term Democratic Sen. Mark Udall.

South Dakota Republican Mike Rounds also won the race to replace retiring Democratic Sen. Tim Johnson. Further, GOP Rep. Tom Cotton unseated two-term Democratic Sen. Mark Pryor in Arkansas and Shelley Moore Capito beat Democrat Natalie Tennant for an open Senate seat in West Virginia.

In a vital set of victories that helped put the party on the path to the majority, Republicans also held onto all three seats that were in contention this year.

In Kentucky, McConnell defeated Democrat Alison Lundergan Grimes, Kentucky’s secretary of state. Republican David Perdue, former CEO of Dollar General, beat Democrat Michelle Nunn for the open Georgia Senate seat; and three-term Republican Sen. Pat Roberts survived the political scare of his life by beating independent challenger Greg Orman in Kansas.

In a setback for Republicans, Democratic Sen. Jeanne Shaheen beat Republican challenger Scott Brown, despite Brown’s late-surging campaign.

But Republicans’ momentum was undeniable.

A handful of other races remain too close to call — most notably, in Virginia, where Republican Ed Gillespie is running a late-surging campaign against Democratic Sen. Mark Warner.

According to Fox News exit polls, this race is looking much closer than it did in pre-election polling, in which Warner, a former Virginia governor, held a months-long, 20-point lead over Gillespie, the former chairman of the Republican National Committee. Gillespie eventually cut that lead in half, but the race now appears even closer.

The Senate race in Alaska also is not yet called.

Fox News, though, can project that the Louisiana Senate race will go to a runoff on Dec. 6, meaning there will be no winner from Tuesday night. Based on exit polling, Fox projects that three-term Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu and Republican challenger Bill Cassidy will both fail to exceed 50 percent of the vote, sending both into a runoff, this time without competition from candidates such as Republican Rob Maness.

At stake Tuesday night were 435 House seats, 36 Senate seats, and another 36 gubernatorial races.

The U.S. Senate battle, with control of Capitol Hill at stake, was the most closely watched.

The following Republican incumbents also won Tuesday: Sen. Thad Cochran in Mississippi; Sen. Lamar Alexander in Tennessee; Sen. Susan Collins in Maine; Sen. Mike Enzi in Wyoming; Sen. Lindsey Graham and Sen. Tim Scott in South Carolina; Sen. Jim Risch in Idaho; Sen. John Cornyn in Texas, Sen. Jeff Sessions in Alabama; and Sen. James Inhofe in Oklahoma. Republican James Lankford won the seat being vacated by Republican Tom Coburn. And university president Ben Sasse, a Republican, beat Democrat David Domina for an open Nebraska Senate seat.

The following Democratic senators also won: Sen. Dick Durbin in Illinois; Sen. Cory Booker in New Jersey; Sen. Brian Schatz in Hawaii; Sen. Jeff Merkley in Oregon; Sen. Tom Udall in New Mexico; Sen. Al Franken in Minnesota; Sen. Ed Markey in Massachusetts; Sen. Chris Coons in Delaware; and Sen. Jack Reed in Rhode Island.

In Michigan, Democrat Gary Peters won an open seat.

The Obama factor may have weighed heavily over the vote Tuesday night. Fox News Exit Polls show more than a third of voters — 34 percent — said they voted to show they’re opposed to Obama’s policies. That number was a bit higher in 2010.

By contrast, just 20 percent voted to show support for Obama. Forty-five percent said it was not a factor.

The economy was by far the biggest issue for voters; 43 percent said it was the most important issue. Of those worried about the direction of the economy, they voted for the Republican candidate by a 20-point difference, exit polls show.

Most of the campaigning and the big money in recent months concentrated on roughly 10 competitive contests. Seven were for the seats held by Democrats: in Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Iowa, Louisiana, New Hampshire and North Carolina. Three were for the seats held by Republicans: in Georgia, Kansas and Kentucky.

Surprise developments colored the elections in several states — perhaps most notably, the Democratic candidate’s decision to drop out of the race for Senate in Kansas. His decision immediately boosted independent Orman in his race against Roberts, who until that race shakeup was leading in the polls. Roberts ultimately survived.

In Kentucky, Grimes also suffered a PR blow after she repeatedly refused to say whether she voted for Obama. In the final days of the race, both campaigns turned to accusing each other of putting out inappropriate mailers.

At the state level, nearly a dozen U.S. governors were considered in political peril, making it one of the toughest years for incumbent governors in decades. However, most of them held on, and Republican candidates did well in several races — including in Wisconsin, where GOP Gov. Scott Walker survived yet another challenge.

FoxNews.com

Republican Senate candidates are pulling away in the final days of key races, according to polls released this weekend.

Republicans are either leading in Georgia, Kentucky and Louisiana or will likely win runoff elections, according to a NBC/Marist poll released Sunday.

In addition, the Republican nominee in Iowa, Joni Ernst, now has a 7-point lead over Democratic challenger Rep. Bruce Braley, according to a Des Moines Register poll released Saturday.

Most polls have shown until now that the four races have essentially been deadlocked in the closing weeks.

The GOP needs to win a net total of six Senate seats to take control of the chamber, with essentially only the West Virginia and Montana contests apparently in hand.

In Kentucky, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell appears to be pulling away from Democratic challenger Alison Lund Grimes, reaching the critical 50 percent mark with Grimes now at 41 percent.

At a campaign stop Saturday night in Sterling, Ky., McConnell said that Grimes falsely accusing him of trying to privatize Social Security was proof that she was running a losing campaign.

“The last gasp of … every Democratic campaign that is losing brings up Social Security at the end,” the four-term senator said.

A victory in the battleground state of Iowa is as critical for Democrats and it is for Republicans.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid on Friday hinted that an Ernst victory would essentially throttle Washington Democrats’ agenda.

“Mitch McConnell would be leader of the United States Senate, who agrees with her on everything,” Reid said on a conference call to the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, trying to rally the liberal group to help make a final push for Braley. “Think of what [that] would mean for our country.”

In Georgia, Republican nominee David Perdue is now ahead of  Democrat Michelle Nunn, 48-to-44 percent, which suggests Perdue could get 50 percent of the vote on Tuesday and avoid a runoff.

In Louisiana, three-term incumbent Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu has 44 percent of the vote in a three-way race with GOP Rep. Bill Cassidy, at 36 percent, and Republican Rob Maness, at 15 percent.

However, in the likely scenario that Landrieu gets less than 50 percent of the vote and advances with the second finisher, Cassidy, he would likely get most of Maness’ votes and ultimately win.

By FoxNews.com