Jay Leno sees a small silver lining in the recent collapse of U.S.-backed Mideast peace talks: It should make his job just a little easier when he performs in front of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu later this month.

“I guess any American that’s not John Kerry is more than welcome there right now,” Leno said.

Kerry recently caused an uproar when he warned that Israel could become an “apartheid state” if it doesn’t reach a peace deal with the Palestinians.

The late night legend is heading to Israel on May 22 to host the awards ceremony of the $1 million Genesis Prize in Jerusalem. Former New York mayor Michael Bloomberg is being honored as the first recipient of what has been dubbed “the Jewish Nobel Prize” for his years of public service and philanthropy.

Netanyahu will headline a list of more than 400 dignitaries in the audience that will include business leaders, Nobel laureates, philanthropists and entertainers. Grammy-winning pianist Evgeny Kissin will also perform.

Leno said he will run his jokes by the “appropriate people” ahead of time to avoid saying anything inappropriate. But he said Netanyahu and Bloomberg, one of the world’s richest men, can expect to be the target of some of his zingers.

“I think everybody around the world appreciates self-deprecating humor, and I think you can do jokes about the prime minister, and Michael Bloomberg getting the award certainly,” Leno said in a telephone interview from Los Angeles. “They’re giving him $1 million. Wow. That’s going to change his life.”

For Leno, the trip will be his first to Israel. At a time when pro-Palestinian activists are urging entertainers to boycott the Jewish state, he said he didn’t have “any problem” with his decision to perform. “It’s a great honor. It’s a great country. It’s a great people,” he said.

While said he sees both sides of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, he said he considers himself to be “very pro-Jewish, very pro-Israeli.” Leno himself is not Jewish.

“At some point in your life, you have to sort of take sides. I tend to side with the Jewish point of view on many things, especially issues like this one. I realize how important Israel is,” he said.

Leno hosted NBC’s late-night talk show “The Tonight Show” for more than two decades before retiring in February. He was replaced by former “Saturday Night Live” star Jimmy Fallon.

Leno said he keeps busy by performing his standup routine five nights a week and taking trips that would have been impossible during his “Tonight Show” years. He recently performed in China and will make stops in London and Rome during his upcoming trip to Israel.

Leno said Fallon is doing a “great job.”

“You have to know when to step down on these jobs,” he said. “After a while, when you’re 64 and you’re talking to the 25-year-old supermodel, you’re the creepy guy now. So you have to know when.”

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

First we have Hillary (OK, only a New Yorker in a carpetbagging sort of way, but still . . .) wanting to “rein in” our notions that we have real Second Amendment rights. But that’s the Second Amendment. That’s not as important as the First, right? So for that one, we need Chuck Schumer, Hillary’s senior as a senator before and after her tenure, to launch the attack.

And he is:

The Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision allowing unions and corporations to donate to independent political groups has driven liberals to such fits that they now want to amend the First Amendment. At a Senate Rules Committee meeting last week, New York Democrat Chuck Schumer announced a proposal to amend the Constitution to empower government to regulate political speech.

“The Supreme Court is trying to take this country back to the days of the robber barons, allowing dark money to flood our elections,” Mr. Schumer said. The Senate will vote this year on the amendment to “once and for all allow Congress to make laws to regulate our system, without the risk of them being eviscerated by a conservative Supreme Court.” He even rolled out retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens to pronounce his unhappiness with freedom’s bedrock document.

According to the text of the proposed revision to James Madison’s 1791 handiwork, sponsored by New Mexico Senator Tom Udall, the states and federal government would have the power to regulate the “raising and spending of money” through a wide range of means “to advance the fundamental principle of political equality for all.”

A Chuck Schumer attack on free speech is hardly a big surprise. He’s one of the senators who goaded the IRS into going after Tea Party groups based on the rationale that they were undermining confidence in government. Oh no, not that!

To amend the Constitution requires a two-thirds vote of each house of Congress and the ratification of 38 states. That is not going to happen. But that doesn’t mean there’s nothing to be concerned about here. When a U.S. senator is willing to be so brazen as to propose we amend the Constitution to weaken the First Amendment – and specifically to empower Congress to restrict free speech – what that really tells us is where the political landscape stands. Not long ago it would have been inconceivable that mainstream politician hoping to remain in office would propose to take away basic First Amendment rights for the purpose of empowering politicians to impose new restrictions on same. At least in the reading of Sen. Schumer and others who back this proposed amendment, the political landscape has changed and it is now possible to propose such a thing without being flogged by the voters as a result.

This is all cloaked, of course, in language about “dark money” and so forth. You know what that’s about, right? What has been the leading Democrat theme this year? It’s sure as hell not how wonderful ObamaCare is. It’s attacking the diabolical Koch Brothers. Democrats have decided to turn major donors to conservative causes and candidates into objects of public disdain, and they don’t like it when they can’t do so. They also don’t like it when they can’t put any restrictions on such individuals, groups or corporations.

But the Constitution was not written for the political protection of incumbent politicians. It was written to protect the rights of the people who have to live under the governance of such people. If that’s creating problems for Chuck Schumer, then I’d say it’s doing exactly what it was supposed to do. I hope enough of the citizenry still understands that sufficient to recognize what an obscene power grab Schumer and his allies are attempting.

By: Dan Calabrese

 

WASHINGTON — The House of Representatives voted to hold former IRS official Lois Lerner in contempt of Congress Wednesday for refusing to testify about her role in the targeting of Tea Party groups.

The vote was 231-187, with six Democrats joining Republicans in favor of contempt.

The House also voted to call for a special prosecutor to investigate the affair, 250-168. At the same time, the House Rules Committee prepared for a vote Thursday to establish a Select Committee on Benghazi — ensuring that investigations of the Obama administration would dominate the House’s workweek.

Lerner has twice refused to answer questions to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee about her role in the IRS’s targeting of Tea Party groups. She repeatedly invoked her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. Republicans say she waived that right when she claimed her innocence and answered a question.

Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., the chairman of that committee, said a judge should settle the question.

“I regret that we have to be here today. If it is within my power, if at any time l comes forward to answer our questions, I’m fully prepared to hear what she has to say, and I will ask that the criminal charges against her be dropped,” Issa said. “It may not be within my power after today.”

Democrats said the Republican-led committee “botched” the contempt proceedings and tried unsuccessfully to send the contempt resolution back to committee.

“I am not defending Ms. Lerner. I wanted to hear from her,” said Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md. “I have questions about why she was unaware of the inappropriate criteria for more than a year after they were created. I want to know why she did not mention the inappropriate criteria in her letters to Congress. But I cannot vote to violate an individual’s Fifth Amendment rights just because I want to hear what she has to say.”

Lerner’s attorney said she did not waive her rights.

“Today’s vote has nothing to do with the facts or the law. Its only purpose is to keep the baseless IRS ‘conspiracy’ alive through the mid-term elections,” said William W. Taylor III. “It is unfortunate that the majority party in the House has put politics before a citizen’s constitutional rights.”

What happens next? Unlike a bill, a contempt resolution does not have to pass the Senate or be signed by the president. Under the law, the resolution is automatically referred to the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, who must present it to a grand jury. Refusing to comply with a congressional subpoena is a class A misdemeanor, punishable by up to a $100,000 fine and up to a year in jail.

The House of Representatives could also go to court to get a judge to order Lerner to testify. Or, it could send its sergeant-at-arms to arrest Lerner and bring her to the floor of the House for a trial, but Congress hasn’t used that “inherent contempt” power since 1934.

The vote comes almost one year after Lerner first admitted that the IRS held up applications for tax exemptions based on nothing more than the group having the words “Tea Party” or “Patriots” in their names. Answering a planted question at an American Bar Association conference, she apologized, saying, “that was wrong, that was absolutely incorrect, insensitive and inappropriate.”

Gregory Korte, USA TODAY Follow @gregorykorte on Twitter.

Don’t believe the hype: marijuana legalization poses too many risks to public health and public safety. Based on almost two decades of research, community-based work, and policy practice across three presidential administrations, my new book “Reefer Sanity” discusses some widely held myths about marijuana:

Myth No. 1: “Marijuana is harmless and non-addictive”

No, marijuana is not as dangerous as cocaine or heroin, but calling it harmless or non-addictive denies very clear science embraced by every major medical association that has studied the issue. Scientists now know that the average strength of today’s marijuana is some 5–6 times what it was in the 1960s and 1970s, and some strains are upwards of 10–20 times stronger than in the past—especially if one extracts THC through a butane process. This increased potency has translated to more than 400,000 emergency room visits every year due to things like acute psychotic episodes and panic attacks.

Mental health researchers are also noting the significant marijuana connection with schizophrenia, and educators are seeing how persistent marijuana use can blunt academic motivation and significantly reduce IQ by up to eight points, according to a very large recent study in New Zealand. Add to these side-effects new research now finding that even casual marijuana use can result in observable differences in brain structure, specifically parts of the brain that regulate emotional processing, motivation and reward. Indeed, marijuana use hurts our ability to learn and compete in a competitive global workplace.

Additionally, marijuana users pose dangers on the road, despite popular myth. According to the British Medical Journal, marijuana intoxication doubles your risk of a car crash.

Myth No. 2: “Smoked or eaten marijuana is medicine.”

Just like we don’t smoke opium or inject heroin to get the benefits of morphine, we do not have to smoke marijuana to receive its medical effects. Currently, there is a pill based on marijuana’s active ingredient available at pharmacies, and almost two-dozen countries have approved a new mouth spray based on a marijuana extract. The spray, Sativex, does not get you high, and contains ingredients rarely found in street-grade marijuana. It is likely to be available in the U.S. soon, and today patients can enroll in clinical trials. While the marijuana plant has known medical value, that does not mean smoked or ingested whole marijuana is medicine. This position is in line with the American Medical Association, American Society of Addiction Medicine, American Glaucoma Foundation, National MS Society, and American Cancer Society.

Myth No. 3: “Countless people are behind bars simply for smoking marijuana.”

I wholeheartedly support reducing America’s incarceration rate. But legalizing marijuana will not make a significant dent in our imprisonment rates. That is because less than 0.3 percent of all state prison inmates are there for smoking marijuana. Moreover, most people arrested for marijuana use are cited with a ticket—very few serve time behind bars unless it is in the context of a probation or parole violation.

Myth No. 4: “The legality of alcohol and tobacco strengthen the case for legal marijuana.”

“Marijuana is safer than alcohol, so marijuana should be treated like alcohol” is a catchy, often-used mantra in the legalization debate. But this assumes that our alcohol policy is something worth modeling. In fact, because they are used at such high rate due to their wide availability, our two legal intoxicants cause more harm, are the cause of more arrests, and kill more people than all illegal drugs combined. Why add a third drug to our list of legal killers?

Moreover, marijuana legalization will usher in America’s new version of “Big Tobacco.”

• Already, private holding groups and financiers have raised millions of start-up dollars to promote businesses that will sell marijuana and marijuana-related merchandise.
• Cannabis food and candy is being marketed to children and are already responsible for a growing number of marijuana-related ER visits. Edibles with names such as “Ring Pots,” “Pot Tarts,” and “Kif Kat Bars” are inspired by common children candy and dessert products.
• Profitable companies such as Medbox (based in California) has stated its plans to open marijuana vending machines containing products such as marijuana brownies. The former head of Strategy for Microsoft has said that he wants to “mint more millionaires than Microsoft” with marijuana and that he wants to create the “Starbucks of marijuana.”

Myth No. 5: “Legal marijuana will solve the government’s budgetary problems.”

Unfortunately, we can’t expect  societal financial gain from marijuana legalization. For every $1 in revenue the U.S. receives in alcohol and tobacco taxes, we spend more than $10 in social costs. Additionally, two major business lobbies—Big Tobacco and the Liquor Lobby—have emerged to keep taxes on these drugs low and promote use. The last thing we need is the “Marlboroization of Marijuana,” but that is exactly what we would get in this country with legalization.

Myth No. 6:  “Portugal and Holland provide successful models of legalization.”

Contrary to media reports, Portugal and Holland have not legalized drugs. In Portugal, someone caught with a small amount of drugs is sent to a three-person panel and given treatment, a fine, or a warning and release. The result of this policy is less clear. Treatment services were ramped up at the same time the new policy was implemented, and a decade later there are more young people using marijuana, but fewer people dying of opiate and cocaine overdoses. In the Netherlands, officials seem to be scaling back their marijuana non-enforcement policy (lived out in “coffee shops” across that country) after witnessing higher rates of marijuana use and treatment admissions there. The government now only allows residents to use coffee shops. What all of this tells us about how legalization would play out in the U.S. is another point entirely and even less clear.

Myth No. 7: “Prevention, intervention, and treatment are doomed to fail—So why try?”

Less than 8 percent of Americans smoke marijuana versus 52 percent who drink and 27 percent of people that smoke tobacco cigarettes. Coupled with its legal status, efforts to reduce demand for marijuana can work. Communities that implement local strategies implemented by area-wide coalitions of parents, schools, faith communities, businesses, and, yes, law enforcement, can significantly reduce marijuana use. Brief interventions and treatment for marijuana addiction (which affects about 1 in 6 kids who start using, according to the National Institutes of Health) can also work.

And one myth not found in the book: “Colorado and Washington are examples to follow.”

Experience from Colorado’s recent legalization of recreational marijuana is not promising. Since January, THC-positive test results in the workplace have risen, two recent deaths in Denver have been linked to recreational marijuana use, and the number of parents calling the poison control hotline because their kids consumed marijuana products has significantly risen. Additionally, tax revenues fall short of original projections and the black market for marijuana continues to thrive in Colorado. Though Washington State has not yet implemented its marijuana laws, the percentage of cases involving THC-positive drivers has significantly risen.

Marijuana policy is not straightforward. Any public policy has costs and benefits. It is true that a policy of saddling users with criminal records and imprisonment does not serve the nation’s best interests. But neither does legalization, which would create the 21st century version of Big Tobacco and reduce our ability to compete and learn. There is a better way to address the marijuana question—one that emphasizes brief interventions, prevention, and treatment, and would prove a far less costly alternative to either the status quo or legalization. That is the path America should be pursuing—call it “Reefer Sanity.”

Kevin A. Sabet is the author of “Reefer Sanity: Seven Great Myths About Marijuana” and the Director of Project SAM (Smart Approaches to Marijuana). Sabet appeared at The Heritage Foundation to discuss his new book. Watch his talk here.

Condoleezza Rice announced Saturday that she will not be delivering the commencement address at Rutgers University’s graduation ceremony this month, saying the invitation has become a “distraction.”

Commencement should be a time of joyous celebration for the graduates and their families. Rutgers’ invitation to me to speak has become a distraction for the university community at this very special time,” the former secretary of state under President George W. Bush said in the statement.

“I understand and embrace the purpose of the commencement ceremony and I am simply unwilling to detract from it in any way.” – Condoleezza Rice

“I am honored to have served my country. I have defended America’s belief in free speech and the exchange of ideas. These values are essential to the health of our democracy. But that is not what is at issue here. As a professor for thirty years at Stanford University and as (its) former Provost and Chief academic officer, I understand and embrace the purpose of the commencement ceremony and I am simply unwilling to detract from it in any way.”

On Monday, roughly 50 Rutgers University students staged a sit-in at a school administration building in New Brunswick to protest the school’s invitation to  Rice to appear at the university’s commencement.

The school’s Board of Governors voted to pay $35,000 for her appearance at the May 18 ceremony. She was going to be awarded an honorary degree.

But several faculty members and students wanted the invitation rescinded because of Rice’s role in the Iraq War. Rutgers’ New Brunswick Faculty Council passed a resolution in March calling on the university’s board of governors to rescind the invitation.

Photos and videos of Monday’s protest posted to Twitter showed students lining a staircase leading to University President Robert Barchi’s office, The Star-Ledger reported.

Some students held up signs reading, “No honors for war criminals,” “War criminals out” and “RU 4 Humanity?” the report said.

The sit-in was one of the largest in Rutgers’ history, according to The Daily Targum, a student newspaper. Police reportedly responded to the site of the protest after a glass door was broken and a student cut their hand.

Barchi and other school leaders had resisted the calls to “disinvite” Rice, saying the university welcomes open discourse on controversial topics.

“We cannot protect free speech or academic freedom by denying others the right to an opposing view, or by excluding those with whom we may disagree. Free speech and academic freedom cannot be determined by any group. They cannot insist on consensus or popularity,” Barchi said in a letter to campus last month.

FoxNews.com / The Associated Press contributed to this report

Former White House spokesman Tommy Vietor, in a tense interview with Fox News’ Bret Baier, downplayed the revived controversy over the Benghazi talking points, saying he does not remember his own role in the editing process because: “Dude, this was like two years ago.”

Vietor, the former spokesman for the National Security Council, insisted on “Special Report with Bret Baier” Thursday that emails that link a White House adviser to former U.N. ambassador Susan Rice’s controversial Sunday show statements about the Sept. 11, 2012 attack on the U.S. consulate say nothing new.

The Obama administration has been under fire since the emails were released earlier this week, with some Republicans calling them the “smoking gun.” The emails indicate a White House aide helped prep Rice for her appearances and pushed the explanation that the attack was because of an Internet video. The White House is now facing credibility questions, since they had previously downplayed their role in Rice’s talking points.

Vietor repeated the stance of Press Secretary Jay Carney, who has repeatedly tried to claim that the so-called “prep call” with Rice — as it was described in one email — was not about Benghazi. Vietor said the email was referring to ongoing protests around the world against American embassies.

Baier then asked Vietor whether he personally changed the word “attack” to “demonstrations” in the talking points for Rice.

“Maybe, I don’t really remember,” Vietor said.

When pressed by Baier, Vietor said, “Dude, this was like two years ago. We’re still talking about the most mundane process.”

“Dude it is the thing that everybody’s talking about,” Baier replied.

When asked why it took a Freedom of Information Act request to release those emails, Vietor said he wished they had been released earlier.

“I bet you every single person in that White House wished that email has been released earlier. I wish it too because it tells us nothing new, It tells us what we said privately was what we said publicly, because that is what we thought had occurred,” Vietor said.

When pressed on where President Obama was during the Benghazi attack, Vietor said he was in the Situation Room, but President Obama was not. He said Obama was in the White House.

“It is well known that when the attack was first briefed to him it was in the Oval Office and he was updated constantly,” Vietor said, adding he did not know where the president was at all points in the night because he does not have a “tracking device on him.” He said Obama does not have to be in the Situation Room to monitor an ongoing situation.

Before his appearance, Vietor tweeted Baier must have asked him onto his show to ask him about Benghazi for a “Throwback Thursday” thing.

FoxNews.com

A top military intelligence official in Africa at the time of the Benghazi attacks testified Thursday that U.S. personnel “should have tried” to help Americans under fire on Sept. 11, 2012, in an unprecedented public statement from a leading military officer.

Retired Brig. Gen. Robert Lovell, who at the time of the attacks was the intelligence director at AFRICOM, questioned the merits of the ongoing debate over whether U.S. military forces could have responded in time. Leading Pentagon and other military officials previously have argued that additional U.S. assets were not deployed to assist Americans under attack that night because they weren’t close enough.

“The point is we should have tried,” Lovell told the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, in his opening statement. “As another saying goes — always move to the sound of the guns.”

He later said the military “could have made a response of some sort.” Lovell made clear repeatedly that the military was waiting for clearance from the State Department to intervene in Benghazi.

Lovell also sharply countered claims that the intelligence community and military initially thought this was a protest over an anti-Islam video gone awry. He said U.S. officials knew this was a “hostile action” from the outset, even though they didn’t know how long the attack would last.

“This was no demonstration gone terribly awry,” Lovell said. “The facts led to the conclusion of a terrorist attack.”

Under questioning, he also said the Internet video was “briefly discussed” on the ground but “dismissed” as a motive shortly afterward. He said officials soon concluded that Islamic militant group Ansar al-Sharia was involved.

The testimony is significant, as it marks the latest effort to lift the curtain behind what happened during the night of the attack and the ensuing days. In a cryptic statement, Lovell cited the need for a “full forthcoming to the American people.”

“I felt it was my duty to come forward,” he said. “The circumstances of what occurred there in Benghazi that day need to be known.”

The testimony comes two days after new emails were obtained and released by a watchdog group showing a top White House aide was involved in preparing then-U.N. ambassador Susan Rice for her controversial Sunday show appearances, where she pushed the narrative that protests over an Internet video were to blame.

Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., at the start of the hearing, ripped the administration over those emails, and accused it of deliberately hiding the documents after an earlier congressional subpoena.

“It is disturbing and perhaps criminal … that documents like these were hidden by the Obama administration from Congress and the public alike,” Issa said. He claimed the withholding of these documents is the worst transparency violation since at least the Nixon administration.

One email showed notes from White House adviser Ben Rhodes regarding a “prep call” with Rice; the notes discussed the Internet video as the cause. White House Press Secretary Jay Carney claimed Wednesday that the “prep call” was only in reference to demonstrations elsewhere in the Middle East and Africa, and not Benghazi.

FoxNews.com

Talking about Obamacare’s effects is one thing; seeing hard data is another.

Heritage’s newly updated Obamacare in Pictures has 15 charts that show the law’s effects on Americans—from canceled insurance policies to new taxes, Medicare cuts, reduced choice for plans, and more.

Here’s a quick look at just three of these charts and how Obamacare is hitting three groups.

YOUNG PEOPLE

Obamacare says you can stay on your parents’ health insurance until you turn 26. This chart looks at what happens after that—if you don’t have employer-sponsored insurance and you have to get insured through Obamacare. If you’re trying to save for a car or house—or just paying rent to have your own place—seeing your premiums double is quite a blow.

SENIORS

You may recall Heritage experts’ warning that Obamacare would cut $716 billion from Medicare. That’s still happening.

Despite the Obama administration’s recent walking back of Medicare Advantage cuts for this year, Obamacare’s planned cuts to Medicare are moving forward. This chart shows which parts of Medicare are affected.

Heritage expert Alyene Senger has explained that, instead of cutting waste, fraud, and abuse in the Medicare program, Obamacare targets the amounts Medicare service providers are paid. These cuts have ripple effects on seniors. Doctors, nursing homes, and other providers who can’t afford to be part of Medicare any more will cut back or stop participating—and that means fewer options and less access to care for seniors.

ALL AMERICANS

This chart looks a lot like a heartbeat—and it tracks one of Obamacare’s vital signs: public opinion. There has been a 10-point gap between support for and opposition to the law for some time now. That spike in opposition/sharp decline in support? It coincides with the flood of cancellation notices that landed in Americans’ mailboxes last year.

Obamacare remains unpopular because it’s raising taxes, killing jobs, and cutting Americans’ health care choices. We need health reform that reverses these trends.

By Amy Payne

POLL: 2014 LOOKS WORSE FOR DEMS THAN 2010

It’s never been worse for President Obama in the Washington Post/ABC News poll, which finds him at a 41 percent job approval rating, about 13 points below his standing in the poll at this time in 2010, the year when his party got creamed in midterm elections. We’ve talked about the tsunami alert for Democrats this fall, but the sirens are getting too loud even for partisans and wishful thinkers on the left to ignore. There is no common measure so predictive of a party’s performance in congressional races than the job approval rating of a president of the same party. And Obama is looking increasingly like a toxic asset for Democrats desperate to cling to a Senate majority.

[Matters foreign and domestic – WaPo: “Just 42 percent approve of [President Obama’s] handling of the economy, 37 percent approve of how he is handling the implementation of [ObamaCare] and 34 percent approve of his handling of the situation involving Ukraine and Russia.”]

Out of pocket – The Washington Post/ABC News poll was heralded by Democrats last month when it showed opposition to ObamaCare softening and the nation evenly divided on the law. That has evaporated. Support for the law dropped 5 points, while opposition remained firm. Why? Fifty-eight percent of respondents said ObamaCare is causing overall health costs in the country costs to rise, but a worse harbinger for Democrats this fall: 47 percent of respondents said the law will increase their own health costs, while just 8 percent said they would pay less because of the law. The Post has it right in describing last month’s results: “That finding was more positive for the administration than most other polls at the time. Democrats saw it as a possible leading indicator of a shift in public opinion, but that has not materialized.”

Any Questions? – Reuters: “Sylvia Mathews Burwell, President Barack Obama‘s nominee for U.S. health secretary, will appear before the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pension Committee on May 8 for the first of two confirmation hearings, a committee official said on Monday.”

Killer stat – Even as the poll shows voters agreeing with Democrats on key issues like increasing the minimum wage and even the overall subject of health care, one statistic explains why the majority party may be in even worse trouble than 2010, and it’s all about Obama: “Registered voters by 53-39% say they’d rather see the Republicans in control of Congress as a counterbalance to Obama’s policies than a Democratic-led Congress to help support him.” The main aim of voters would appear to be to block the president’s agenda, which is kind of the GOP’s whole jam these days.

[‘Not working as planned’ – In a new poll from the pro-ObamaCare Kaiser Family Foundation, 43 percent of respondents were able to correctly identify, when prompted, that “about 8 million” people signed up for ObamaCare. But when asked how the implementation of the law, 57 percent of voters said “it’s clear the law is not working as planned,” while 38 percent said “now the law is basically working as intended.”]

Predictive elements – Polls like this matter because they may be predictive, but are also just as important for how they can sap political parties of the ability to raise money and organize. If Democrats believe that the Senate is a lost cause, it would be much more appealing to focus on moving Hillary Clinton farther left ahead of 2016 or even funding a liberal mayor’s campaign than it would be to shove money at a red-state Democrat whose race may be a lost cause. Or consider this from the Harvard Institute of Politics survey of Millennial voters out this morning: “…less than one-in-four (23%) young Americans say they will ‘definitely be voting’ in November, a sharp drop of 11 percentage points from five months ago (34%). Among the most likely voters, the poll also finds traditional Republican constituencies showing more enthusiasm than Democratic ones for participating in the upcoming midterms, with 44 percent of 2012 Mitt Romney voters saying they will definitely be voting – a statistically significant difference compared to the 35 percent of 2012 Barack Obama voters saying the same.”

Baier Tracks: Pressure’s on… – “This far out from an election there is a tendency to over read the importance of one poll or another in the grand political mosaic that we all try to decipher every week. But… A recent spate of polls culminating with the Washington Post/ABC News poll out this morning suggests Democrats have a lot to fear in six months. As President Obama’s approval hits a new low for the poll, 53 percent of the registered voters polled thought it would be a good thing if Republicans controlled all of Congress to counterbalance the administration. Only 37 percent approved of his handling of the health law and even fewer (34 percent) approve of his handle of the Ukraine crisis. As more polls show similar bad news for Democrats, we may soon see what Fox News First has been telegraphing for some time: more and more vulnerable red-state Democrats will feel compelled to make a louder stand against the administration on one thing or another. Reporters should get ready for a boatload of press releases from Democrats looking to change the subject. That’s what voters are already getting every day in the form of campaign ads.” – Bret Baier.

KERRY SAYS HE’S SORRY FOR ISRAEL ‘APARTHEID’ CLAIM

Daily Beast: “[Secretary of State] John Kerry apologized Monday for warning last week that the lack of a two-state solution in the Middle East could lead to Israel becoming an ‘apartheid state.’ Kerry’s remarks, made in a closed door meeting of the Trilateral Commission and first reported by The Daily Beast Sunday night, provoked strong reactions from across the political spectrum.  In a statement issued Monday evening, Kerry defended his record as a supporter of Israel but also said, ‘If I could rewind the tape, I would have chosen a different word to describe my firm belief that the only way in the long term to have a Jewish state and two nations and two peoples living side by side in peace and security is through a two state solution.’”

Kelly File: Cruz says Kerry comments will fuel anti-Semitism – “You can be certain the words of John Kerry will get repeated by anti-Semites throughout the world, will be repeated in Europe, will be repeated by the nation of Iran. And they will say, ‘This isn’t us saying it’s apartheid. This is the U.S. Secretary of State.’ Words have meaning, and this language undermines a critical ally…” – Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, on “The Kelly File.”

Kerry to fly with a kettle of hawks – Kerry will address the Atlantic Council’s annual conference today. Also on hand will be Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., Sen. Robert Menendez, D- N.J., and Sen. Chris Murphy, D- Conn.

[A new Pew poll: “…The public supports increased U.S. economic and diplomatic sanctions [against Russia] by a [17-point] margin. But by roughly two-to-one (62% to 30%), Americans oppose sending arms and military supplies to the Ukrainian government.”]

WITH YOUR SECOND CUP OF COFFEE…

On this day in 1992, Los Angeles erupted in riots after a jury acquitted several police officers charged with beating Rodney King. The violence and looting that ensued led to 55 deaths and nearly 2,000 injuries. King died in his swimming pool two years ago at age 47. His death, found to be an accidental drowning, came shortly after he’d published a memoir that detailed his struggles to find long-term work. The Los Angeles Times has more on where some of the key figures are now. The anniversary adds extra freight to a scheduled press conference today by NBA Commissioner Adam Silver regarding racist remarks allegedly made by LA Clippers owner Donald Sterling.

POLL CHECK

Real Clear Politics Averages
Obama Job Approval: Approve – 43 percent//Disapprove – 52.6 percent                  Direction of Country: Right Direction – 28.5 percent//Wrong Track – 62.7 percent
Generic Congressional Ballot:  Democrats – 42.4 percent// Republicans 41.6 percent

By Chris Stirewalt

Dr. Ben Carson slammed the culture of political correctness and partisan labels at a WPEC-TV town hall panel held Thursday at the station’s studio in West Palm Beach, Florida, arguing that it has stifled free expression in America—namely religious freedom.

“We’re being manipulated. We’re being played by those people who want to divide, conquer, and control,” Carson said, alluding to the labels attached to those who disagree with their liberal counterparts. (Carson’s comments begin at at the 19:08 mark on the second video, WPEC Town Hall Religion 2. 

“If you are pro-life, then you’re anti-woman. If you’re pro-traditional marriage, then you’re homophobic. If you’re a white person and you say something against a progressive black person, you’re a racist,” Carson explained, calling for Americans “to realize that we are not each other’s enemies. The enemies are those people who are trying to divide us up.”

The panel featured religious leaders and a representative of an atheist organization speaking about religious freedom in society, including prayer in schools and the roots of morality.

Carson noted that when it comes to religion in the public sphere, secular progressives “try to impose a code of silence upon those who believe differently than they do.”

He cited the role of the Founding Fathers in building America as “a very spiritual nation” despite the claims of those “who try to re-write history,” and spoke of his own faith throughout his life’s work in pediatric neurosurgery.

Commenting on the split between science and religion on human biological development, Carson said, “It requires an enormous amount of faith to believe that something came from nothing.”

By Alissa Tabirian

Americans have always enjoyed the privilege of living abroad without losing citizenship. Think Hemingway and Fitzgerald decamping to write in Europe after World War I, or Gen. MacArthur spending decades in Asia around World War II. Expatriates remain Americans, and have generally been welcomed back to our shores with open arms.

But today there are at least 3,000 fewer Americans than there ought to be. That’s how many people live overseas and voluntarily gave up their citizenship in 2013 alone. And they won’t be coming back—at least not as Americans.

Their decision to become foreigners is being driven, in many cases, by changes to domestic laws. The United States is one of only two countries that attempt to tax money citizens earn while working overseas (Eritrea is the other). And two laws aimed at bringing tax revenue back into the U.S.—the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) and the Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts (FBAR)—are actually driving Americans away.

FBAR focuses on citizens, demanding that anyone with $10,000 or more in a foreign bank inform the IRS about that account. FATCA is even more invasive, because it attempts to compel foreign companies to cooperate with the IRS. Instead, many companies are simply deciding to dump their American customers.

Congress passed FATCA in 2010 to make it harder for Americans with foreign accounts to illegally evade U.S. taxes. Unfortunately, the unintended consequence of FATCA has been a painful burden inflicted on innocent law-abiding U.S. citizens residing abroad whom the law is forcing to make life-changing decisions.

“I have been kicked out of a Swiss bank,” Brian Dublin told USA Today. “I have also been kicked out of a Swiss pension fund. They told me they don’t want any Americans in the fund. They don’t want to work on behalf of the IRS.” He intends to apply for Swiss citizenship.

The law requires Americans to file expensive paperwork even if they don’t owe anything. “If you have to dish out thousands of dollars each year just to retain your U.S. citizenship you start to say, ‘Look, do I really need it that much?’” tax expert Andrew Mitchel explains.

Still, the decision to surrender American citizenship isn’t easy. “When I gave up my American passport I was so upset that I went out in the street and vomited,” Donna-Lane Nelson says. But it’s happening more and more often, jumping from 231 people giving up their citizenship at the end of the George W. Bush administration in 2008 to roughly 1,000 in 2012 and 3,000 last year.

The United States has always been the exceptional nation, the land of opportunity, even if some Americans chose to pursue opportunities abroad. We’ve been able to lure the best of the best from all around the world to become Americans and help build our economy. However, if the federal government continues to pile on burdensome regulations, that may not always be the case.

By Rich Tucker, with contributions from Curtis Dubay

New York Republican Rep. Michael Grimm’s attorney confirmed late Friday that federal prosecutors plan to file criminal charges against the congressman.

The decision follows a two-year FBI investigation into various aspects of Grimm’s business and campaign history.

“We are disappointed by the government’s decision, but hardly surprised,” said the statement from Grimm’s attorney, William McGinley. “From the beginning, the government has pursued a politically driven vendetta against Congressman Grimm and not an independent search for the truth.”

The statement said Grimm  “asserts his innocence of any wrongdoing” and “will be vindicated.”

“Until then, he will continue to serve his constituents with the same dedication and tenacity that has characterized his lifetime of public service as a Member of Congress, Marine Corps combat veteran, and decorated FBI Special Agent,” the statement said.

The House Ethics Committee announced in November that Grimm was under investigation for possible campaign finance violations. That committee said it would defer its inquiry because of a separate Department of Justice investigation.

A spokesman for the U.S. attorney in Brooklyn said he could not confirm, deny or comment on the case.

FoxNews.com / The Associated Press contributed to this report

A single spark, sometimes as small as a shot of unknown origin, can explode long-simmering friction into open revolution.

Sometimes the spark comes with the rumble of tanks, as has happened this spring in Crimea and may still happen throughout the rest of Ukraine.

Whether the tanks came into Crimea in response to a local popular vote, which Moscow would have all believe, or whether they came to snuff out the progressions of a broader Ukrainian election cycle that appeared to be turning Ukraine more toward Europe and away from Russia, only time will tell.

Americans are no strangers to the spark of revolution or the uncertainty it brings. Early on the morning of April 19, 1775, a thin line of colonial militia stretched across the damp grass of Lexington Green.

Silhouetted by the rising sun, hundreds of red-coated regulars of the British army marched toward the position from two angles. But for steely resolve, the locals in homespun clothes might well have melted away back to their homes and farms. Except for confusion over a choice of roads, the regulars might have marched past them with no more insult than the tramp of boots.

America’s national experience is proof that it takes time to judge whether a revolution has been both successful and to the popular good.

Then a single shot rang out. History has long debated the party responsible. Companies of regulars quickly unleashed deafening volleys, while the militia – at first shocked that the troops were firing lead ball instead of bluff powder charges – reacted with sporadic return fire. In seconds, eight of their fellow townsmen lay dead or dying. The Redcoats gave three cheers and continued on toward Concord.

While there were many throughout the Thirteen Colonies that morning who had already decided which side they were on, the large percentage in the middle was suddenly forced to make a choice. But which was the “right” side?

To many, the government of King George III had been economically oppressive and unrepresentative of their interests, but it had not yet sought to suspend civil law or crush their dissent with mass murder.

Who was on the “right” side? The rebels who demanded a change in political structure or the loyalists who stood by the existing government of the king?

Advancing beyond Lexington, the British regulars encountered larger numbers of hastily assembled militia at a bridge north of Concord. Another skirmish occurred, provoked by a second shot of unknown origin.

The rebel spin later spoke of local defensive measures taken against the king’s troops because the intent of their actions was uncertain. But in a matter of minutes, as the British column marched back to Boston, the woods on either side filled with rebels and exploded with an offensive fury.

A tipping point had been reached. This was no defensive action; this was all-out war. Moderates on both sides spoke out for peace and reconciliation, but the dye had been cast.

The final judgment of the events set in motion on Lexington Green took some time to be rendered. The fighting continued for six and a half years. The political infighting over what the governmental results of that revolution would be continued for decades. Some might argue it continues still.

Who was “right” that morning? The “rebels” of that day – and, indeed, that is what they were called – became “patriots” only in hindsight. Had the American experience in representative government faltered – perhaps even failed with a despot in charge instead of an unselfish George Washington – history’s verdict might be different about who were “the good guys” on Lexington Green.

America’s national experience is proof that it takes time to judge whether a revolution has been both successful and to the popular good.

Sometimes the spark of popular revolution is snuffed out. Overwhelming military force crushed popular uprisings in Hungary in 1956 and in Czechoslovakia in 1968. A single act of courage in front of a tank in Tiananmen Square in 1989 became the face of a million protesters, but it met with a similar fate.

History still awaits a verdict on the Arab Spring of 2011. Some countries, such as Tunisia, where it all started with the spark of a street vendor setting himself on fire, have made strides toward democracy.

Others have stumbled.

Egypt attempted a democratic leap, fell backward under military rule and now once again contemplates elections. Syria is the worst-case result of the Arab Spring, a horrid civil war that has left hundreds of thousands dead or maimed and millions of others displaced. What does the spring hold for the people of Crimea and Ukraine?

On Monday, April 21, Patriots’ Day, we celebrate not only the resolve shown on Lexington Green – the determination to stand up for one’s beliefs, no matter the cost – but also the result of that revolution 239 years later.

If we are as determined as those patriots of 1775, that result is not a finished product, but a continuing evolution of hope, opportunity and equality.

We have only to look to the Boston Marathon bombing on Patriots’ Day last year for evidence that the price of liberty is an account never fully paid.

We must work at it every day. Let our celebration also be encouragement to other revolutions in progress with uncertain outcomes or those about to be ignited by a single spark.

Walter R. Borneman is the author of American Spring: Lexington, Concord, and the Road to Revolution, to be published May 6 by Little, Brown.

Most voters say ObamaCare will play an important role in their vote in this year’s elections, and over half are more inclined to back the candidate who opposes the health care law.

That’s according to a Fox News poll released Monday.

The new poll asks voters what they would do if the only difference between two congressional candidates is that one promises to fight for the health care law and the other promises to fight against it.

CLICK HERE TO READ THE POLL RESULTS

By a 53-39 percent margin, more voters say they would back the anti-ObamaCare candidate.

Independents, always a key voting bloc, would back that candidate by a 25 percentage-point margin (54-29 percent, with another 14 percent saying it depends).

In addition, Republicans and independents are more likely than Democrats to say the candidate’s position on ObamaCare will be an important factor in deciding their vote for Congress. That matters because majorities of Republicans and independents oppose the law.

Some 80 percent of Republicans say the candidate’s stand on ObamaCare will be an important factor to their vote, and 87 percent of Republicans oppose the law. Among independents, 72 percent say the law will be important in their decision, and 63 percent oppose it.

Fewer Democrats, 67 percent, say a candidate’s position on ObamaCare will be important. While most Democrats favor the law (71 percent), nearly a quarter opposes it (24 percent).

Nineteen percent of voters say a congressional candidate’s stance on ObamaCare will be the “single most important factor” in their vote decision, which is more than double the number who felt that way in 2012 (eight percent). Likewise, the number of Republicans who say it will be the “single most important factor” has almost doubled (21 percent today, up from 11 percent).

Overall, 79 percent of those opposing the law say it will be an important factor to their vote, compared to 67 percent of those favoring the law.

If the election were held today, 44 percent of voters would back the Republican candidate in their House district vs. 41 percent who would vote for the Democrat.

Results on the generic ballot test have bounced around in recent months. Last month the Democratic candidate had the edge by two points, while in January the Republican was up by two. In December it was tied at 43 percent each.

Meanwhile, Republicans (36 percent) are more likely than Democrats (25 percent) and independents (25 percent) to say they are “extremely” interested in this year’s elections.

Some 15 percent of voters approve of the job current lawmakers are doing. That’s the highest approval rating Congress has received this year. Still, 76 percent disapprove.

In general, the poll shows more voters continue to dislike than like the health care law — as has been the case in the Fox News poll going back to April 2010. Over that time support for the law has stayed between 36-40 percent. Today, 39 percent favor the law, while 56 percent oppose it.

President Obama signed the Affordable Care Act into law on March 23, 2010.

How will it be viewed down the road? A slim 51-percent majority thinks 20 years from now ObamaCare will be viewed as “one of the worst” things Barack Obama accomplished as president. That includes one in five Democrats (19 percent), over half of independents (56 percent) and most Republicans (81 percent).

Overall, 37 percent think the health care law will be seen as “one of the best things” Obama did.

The president announced Thursday that eight million people had signed up for ObamaCare. Yet it’s still unclear how many of those have completed the transaction and actually paid for the insurance. By a 51-44 percent margin, the poll finds that voters are confident most of the people who signed up will follow through with payment.

Democrats (74 percent) are far more confident than independents (40 percent) and Republicans (31 percent) that most ObamaCare enrollees will pay.

The Fox News poll is based on landline and cell phone interviews with 1,012 randomly chosen registered voters nationwide and was conducted under the joint direction of Anderson Robbins Research (D) and Shaw & Company Research (R) from April 13-15, 2014. The full poll has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points.

Newly uncovered emails show Lois Lerner, the key figure in the IRS scandal, was talking with the Justice Department about going after groups seeking tax-exempt status, just days before she publicly acknowledged the agency was targeting Tea Party and other organizations.

The emails, obtained by Judicial Watch and first reported by TownHall.com, are another indication the targeting may have stretched deeper into the Obama administration. Lerner, the director of the agency’s Exempt Organizations division before retiring last year, initially said the targeting was limited to agents working in the IRS’ Cincinnati field office.

However, a series of inspector general and congressional probes since the scandal broke last year appear to show the targeting of mostly conservative-leaning groups seeking tax-exempt status was orchestrated in Washington.

In a May 2013 email, Lerner responded to a Justice Department inquiry about whether tax-exempt groups could be criminally prosecuted for lying about political activity.

“I got a call today from Richard Pilger Director Elections Crimes Branch at DOJ,” Lerner reportedly wrote to the office of Steven Miller, the agency’s acting director at the time. “He wanted to know who at IRS the DOJ folk s [sic] could talk to about Sen. Whitehouse idea at the hearing that DOJ could piece together false statement cases about applicants who ‘lied’ on their 1024s — saying they weren’t planning on doing political activity, and then turning around and making large visible political expenditures.

“DOJ is feeling like it needs to respond, but want to talk to the right folks at IRS to see whether there are impediments from our side and what, if any damage this might do to IRS programs. I told him that sounded like we might need several folks from IRS.”

Nikole C. Flax, Miller’s chief of staff, responded: “I think we should do it — also need to include CI [Criminal Investigation Division], which we can help coordinate. Also, we need to reach out to FEC. Does it make sense to consider including them in this or keep it separate?”

House Republicans claimed after the emails were published that they were further proof of coordination among various agencies to target conservatives.

“The release of new documents underscores the political nature of IRS Tea Party targeting and the extent to which supposed apolitical officials took direction from elected Democrats,” House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa, R-Calif., said in a statement.  “These e-mails are part of an overwhelming body of evidence that political pressure from prominent Democrats led to the targeting of Americans for their political beliefs.”

Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, said that if the targeting hadn’t been stopped, “Eric Holder’s politicized Justice Department would likely have been leveling trumped up criminal charges against Tea Party groups to intimidate them from exercising their Constitutional rights.”

The administration at the highest level denied the targeting, from 2010 through the 2012 presidential election cycle, was illegal or politically motivated.

President Obama told Fox News in February there was “not even a smidgen of corruption” in connection with the targeting.

And last week, emails obtained by the GOP-led House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform show the office of the committee’s top-ranking Democrat, Elijah Cummings of Maryland, contacted the IRS in January 2013 about True the Vote, one of the conservative groups that was targeted.

A Lerner staffer in response sent the group’s related 990 IRS forms to Cummings and his staff.

In another email, Lerner discussed with agency staffers the purpose of an upcoming, April 9 2013, hearing that also suggests the targeting went beyond the IRS.

“There are several groups of folks from the [Federal Election Commission] world that are pushing tax fraud prosecution for c4s who report they are not conducting political activity when they are (or these folks think they are),” she wrote.

“One is my ex-boss Larry Noble (former General Counsel at the FEC), who is now president of Americans for Campaign Reform. This is their latest push to shut these down. One IRS prosecution would make an impact and they wouldn’t feel so comfortable doing the stuff. So, don’t be fooled about how this is being articulated — it is ALL about 501(c)(4) orgs and political activity.”

About six in ten American voters think Barack Obama lies to the country on important matters some or most of the time, according to a Fox News poll released Wednesday.

Thirty-seven percent think Obama lies “most of the time,” while another 24 percent say he lies “some of the time.” Twenty percent of voters say “only now and then” and 15 percent “never.”

Click here for the poll results.

President Obama has been accused by political opponents and media fact-checkers alike of telling falsehoods.  Frequently cited: His repeated claim that under Obamacare “If you like your plan, you can keep it” and his insistence that “the day after Benghazi happened, I acknowledged that this was an act of terrorism.”

The number of voters saying Obama lies “most of the time” includes 13 percent of Democrats.  It also includes 12 percent of blacks, 16 percent of liberals, 31 percent of unmarried women and 34 percent of those under age 30 — all key Obama constituencies.

Yet some of those groups are also among those most likely to say Obama “never” lies to the country on important matters: blacks (37 percent), Democrats (31 percent), liberals (28 percent) and women (19 percent).

The poll also asks about the trustworthiness of a few possible 2016 presidential candidates.  For comparison, about half of voters think former Sec. of State Hillary Clinton (54 percent) and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (49 percent) are honest and trustworthy, while fewer think the same of New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (41 percent).

On a more positive note for the White House, Obama’s overall job performance rating has improved.  The new poll finds that 42 percent of voters approve of the job he’s doing, while 51 percent disapprove.  That means he’s underwater by nine percentage points.

Last month the president was in negative territory by 13 points with a 40-53 percent rating (March 23-25).

Approval of the president is up six points among independents and now stands at 32 percent.  Obama was near record-low approval among independents last month (26 percent).  He also improved four points among Democrats and now stands at 80 percent among his party faithful.

How voters feel about Obama as a person closely matches his job ratings:  45 percent have a favorable opinion of him, while 51 percent have an unfavorable view.  A year ago those numbers were reversed: 52 percent favorable, 46 percent unfavorable (April 2013).

The Fox News poll is based on landline and cell phone interviews with 1,012 randomly chosen registered voters nationwide and was conducted under the joint direction of Anderson Robbins Research (D) and Shaw & Company Research (R) from April 13-15, 2014. The full poll has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points.